Let's get something straight between the stuttering: have you
seen MYSTERY TRAIN?
Patrick King
--- Terrill Lankford <
lankford2000@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Patrick King <
abrasax93@yahoo.com>
> >Sent: Nov 14, 2007 1:09 PM
> >To:
rara-avis-l@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: Re: RARA-AVIS: Before the Devil
Knoiws
> You're Dead (was Re: No Country for Old Men
[the
> movie])
> >
> >
> >--- Terrill Lankford <
lankford2000@earthlink.net>
> >wrote:
> >> Um, have you seen THE KILLING? (Just
for
> starters.)
> >>
> >> Tarantino certainly has.
>
>*****************************************
> >
> >Umm, ya mean Kubrick's first film? Umm, yeah,
I
> think
> >I've seen it five or six times.
>
>
> Uh, er, um, no, I don't mean Kubrick's first film.
I
> mean his movie THE KILLING, which is his third
(I
> believe) feature film. Er, ug, um, but
who's
> counting?
>
>
>
> But it doesn't quite
> >do the same thing to the audience that
MYSTERY
> TRAIN
> >and PULP FICTION do: that is show the ending in
the
> >middle, then telegraph it from another point
of
> view
> >at the end. That was a unique idea of
Jarmusch's,
> used
> >very effectively by Tarantino.
> >
>
>
> You're actually going to split hairs like this
and
> claim Jarmusch invented something structurally
with
> Mystery Train? I guess that's about as acurate
as
> claiming The Killing is Kubrick's first film.
Uh,
> er, ooga booga.
>
>
>
> >THE KILLING starts at the end, brings you
back
> through
> >the events but it doesn't completely
change
> >perspective the way the other two movies
do.
>
>
>
> It doesn't? It doesn't tell the story at
different
> times from different character's points of view?
Um,
> pffft!, okay. So Mystery Train and Pulp
Fiction
> aren't note for note remakes of The Killing? Now
I
> see the light! Crash! Bam! Boom!
>
> Filmmakers have been messing with story
telling
> structure for a very long time. (I only brought
up
> The Killing because it was the first film that
my
> fevered brain could think of that I thought was
an
> obvious influence on Pulp Fiction.) It is
highly
> doubtful that Jarmusch actually invented
anything
> that hadn't been done before. Tarantino may be
a
> great "borrower" of film technique, but
his
> vocabulary runs far deeper than just Jim
Jarmusch
> movies. And he seems to prefer much older and
much
> seedier films. Patrick, do you know if Tarantino
has
> ever listed movies that influenced the structure
of
> PF?
>
> (BTW - I'm totally in agreement with whoever
said
> that QT's biggest influence seems to be
Elmore
> Leonard.)
>
>
> > While I'm
> >sure Kubrick was an influence on both of
these
> >directors, the technique I'm talking about was
not
> one
> >I've seen him use in any of his films. And,
ummm,
> yes,
> >I think I've seen them all.
> >
>
>
> And, umm, er, I'm now sure that you
obviously
> haven't. (But that's only, um, "cough", based
on
> your own statements. Aieeee!)
>
> (Hey, I'm on strike. This is what happens when
I
> have too much time on my hands.)
>
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 15 Nov 2007 EST