This isn't a "shit on this director" thread, I'm actually a big fan. Which is why I was a little shocked I can't think of any specific meaning to derive from his films. I had a teacher say once that writing something you have to ask yourself "so what? why am I writing this" but I can't for the life of me think of what the larger message is behind a single one. Jackie Brown maybe is the exception there, Hateful 8 even less likely.

I know not every movie has to be a moral struggle session, but it seems like the pattern is he likes making movies and there isn't anything deeper than that. And not in the Coen brothers way of "there is no message is the message" kind of theme that highlights the absurdity of reality. Quentin leans into the camp as his bread and butter, but he does it well.

Is he literally just a talented homage-machine who obsessively crafts entertaining movies? Are they just high quality pop-corn flicks?

  • hogposting [he/him,comrade/them]
    ·
    4 years ago

    he likes making movies and there isn’t anything deeper than that

    I'll suggest that most movies are made this way, and this is increasingly true as we move from movies typically having one person with clear creative control to a model where what goes into the movie is increasingly decentralized. A lot of movies read to me as "this director just wanted to make a good horror/action/sci-fi/mystery movie." There may be themes, they may raise some interesting questions for the viewer, but I don't think that's an artistic choice most of the time. I think that sort of non-literal content is just habitually imported as a function of the genre. Imagine a director making a totally generic Western -- you can tick off a few of the themes you'll probably see knowing nothing else about this hypothetical movie.

    And not in the Coen brothers way of “there is no message is the message” kind of theme that highlights the absurdity of reality.

    I agree with this assessment, but I think Tarantino, famously a film geek, is aware that he's not including any message and is consciously choosing that approach. Why? Maybe a sense that it's easy for "message" films to come off as hammy and heavy-handed, maybe a lack of confidence that he could insert a message without it being perceived as hammy and heavily-handed, maybe just an extreme focus on making everything else about the movie cool and interesting. I can think of reasons to go that route, but whatever the reason actually is I have to imagine it's intentional. He's not trying to say things and it's just not getting through, and he's not completely unaware of the concept you're talking about.