Quentin Tarantino's Manson murders movie

He made a memorable Itchy & Scratchy too

https://frinkiac.com/video/S08E13/j4esjazdq0mqbWDiMmoK6KeZE5Q=.gif

He has a point about directors' final films, and he's been saying this since at least Django press. I don't think he's going to make an 11th movie.

I can think of plenty of directors who had great final films, or that at least sustained quality.

Such as

Since he started going on podcasts, he's said that if he'd had them when he was 20 he'd never have made his own films. He now has a wife and kid, programs several dozen movies for audiences every month, is starting an archival blu-ray label, will soon see whether there's a commercial audience for his novels and/or film criticism, has not just plans but scripts for at least one TV series, plans for expanded or miniseries cuts of two of his features, will be solidly into his sixties by the end of a theoretical tenth feature's promotional cycle, and can go on podcasts whenever he likes. Getting easier to believe he'd stay quit now.

One concerning thing I've taken on from these podcasts is that QT praises scenes from his own movies with the same amount of energy and awe that he gives to his fav films by others

Plenty of aspects of his public behaviour can be obnoxious but this one is just heartening imo. He puts out movies he's happy with! He's only wrong about one of them.

A lot of the usual suspects when it comes to auteurs. I loved Saraband, Autumn Afternoon, the Sacrifice, Rouge, Voyage to India etc. Saw a few of Satyajit Ray’s last films recently and they are all really good, same for Takahata.

Maybe there’s a bunch of american filmmakers I am not thinking of, but on the top of my head, it isn’t the case for Ford, Sirk and Wilder. Cassavetes has a good example of a bad last film.

I'm actually stunned that Tarantino didn't mention Imitation to Life, that might be the best example, maybe he's not a fan.......? (somehow???)

I actually haven't seen 7 Women or Buddy, Buddy but their partisans are few... and, to QT's point, several of their preceding films were bad. Not even "bad," but Cheyenne Autumn is clearly no Liberty Valance, and no I don't think Fedora is good. Avanti! is already long in the tooth. All of these directors, Hawks too, never thought of retiring or giving up... Ford especially, who would've done a pilot in 1970 if not for his health.

Not even "bad," but Cheyenne Autumn is clearly no Liberty Valance

Ford was almost 70 when he made Liberty Vallance and had made dozens and dozens of movies. He wouldn't have even made The Searchers if he had retired at the age Tarantino is now.

To be fair late work does tend to be a problem for the kind of genre directors I imagine are more on Tarantino's mind than, say, Satyajit Ray or Douglas Sirk - not many defenders of late period Corbucci, Argento, John Carpenter, Jack Hill. Fukusake had a late career renaissance I guess. Also these director's fortunes much more dependent on the whims of their respective industries.

How many (healthy) career directors have announced that a film will be their last, and kept to that? Kieslowski and Tarr are the only ones coming to mind.

Also these director's fortunes much more dependent on the whims of their respective industries.

― Daniel_Rf, Sunday, June 6, 2021 5:20 AM (eight hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

and perhaps this is a big part of Tarantino's decision today.

So we're not getting a QT Joker movie?

I think its open to him *playing* the joker tbf

Batman: I've disarmed the bomb. Now to free Robin.

Robin (in gimp outfit): Mmm. Mmp! Vtmnnn!

Batman: Hold still, Robin. Did Joker hurt you?

Joker (Samuel L. Jackson): Oh, he's ok, Batman. I just gave him a foot massage.

The great directors get great with age. Tarantino's two best movies are Jackie Brown and Hollywood, so I guess make of that what you well.

This roster will not be denied: Director's Final Films

Not even "bad," but Cheyenne Autumn is clearly no Liberty Valance

Ford was almost 70 when he made Liberty Vallance and had made dozens and dozens of movies. He wouldn't have even made The Searchers if he had retired at the age Tarantino is now.

To be fair late work does tend to be a problem for the kind of genre directors I imagine are more on Tarantino's mind than, say, Satyajit Ray or Douglas Sirk - not many defenders of late period Corbucci, Argento, John Carpenter, Jack Hill. Fukusake had a late career renaissance I guess. Also these director's fortunes much more dependent on the whims of their respective industries.

― Daniel_Rf, Sunday, June 6, 2021 5:20 AM (fourteen hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

It's a tough comparison for a number of reasons: Ford, like so many directors of his generation and a couple after, worked in a system that had him making 3-4 movies a year for many years. Like others, he only hits his stride in the middle, with some exceptions on both ends (standout silents like The Iron Horse, Bucking Broadway, 3 Bad Men; and late period works like Liberty Valance and Sergeant Rutledge). In a system where quantity is prized over quality at all times, QT's calculation about having "the perfect shelf" of films wouldn't be possible. You couldn't be a working director if you only made 10 movies in ~30 years. It's not just the final film for QT, it's about making sure *all* of his films are all on basically equal footing (he's said Death Proof "has to be my worst movie," so keep in mind that's his bar). Of course whether or not QT's shelf ends up being "perfect" is in the eyes of the beholder, but unless #10 is an unprecedented disaster, I see his point: in a way, it would be closer to the career of a Tarkovsky or Tati, basically all bangers with the debate being which one is "the least good," rather than the worst.

I am not the biggest Tarantino fan (but I do enjoy his films) it's just have no doubt that if he were to make a 11th or 12th it would be good, seems to me that his passion for cinema sort of guarantee quality.

Also making films take away so much from a person, there is also good non-artistic reasons to stop after awhile.

what's going on here

fanfic battles

was really not impressed in that podcast with the films he or the others chose as directors' greatest last films

it's about making sure *all* of his films are all on basically equal footing (he's said Death Proof "has to be my worst movie," so keep in mind that's his bar). Of course whether or not QT's shelf ends up being "perfect" is in the eyes of the beholder, but unless #10 is an unprecedented disaster, I see his point: in a way, it would be closer to the career of a Tarkovsky or Tati, basically all bangers with the debate being which one is "the least good," rather than the worst

Reservoir Dogs, Django Unchained and The Hateful 8 are so very incredibly far from perfect.

I'm not arguing whether or not QT has a "perfect shelf," I don't think he does, that's just his position and why he intends to stop

"perfect" is also not the word he used, he just said he wants his filmography to be all bangers, basically. also not his word

It's a tough comparison for a number of reasons: Ford, like so many directors of his generation and a couple after, worked in a system that had him making 3-4 movies a year for many years. Like others, he only hits his stride in the middle, with some exceptions on both ends (standout silents like The Iron Horse, Bucking Broadway, 3 Bad Men; and late period works like Liberty Valance and Sergeant Rutledge). In a system where quantity is prized over quality at all times, QT's calculation about having "the perfect shelf" of films wouldn't be possible. You couldn't be a working director if you only made 10 movies in ~30 years. It's not just the final film for QT, it's about making sure *all* of his films are all on basically equal footing (he's said Death Proof "has to be my worst movie," so keep in mind that's his bar). Of course whether or not QT's shelf ends up being "perfect" is in the eyes of the beholder, but unless #10 is an unprecedented disaster, I see his point: in a way, it would be closer to the career of a Tarkovsky or Tati, basically all bangers with the debate being which one is "the least good," rather than the worst.

Yes, obviously a director even having the luxury of considering his retirement for creative reasons is something that wouldn't have flown in classic Hollywood - much less in the grindhouse systems that are more relevant to Tarantino's sensibilities. Ford would have seen himself as a Man doing a Job and laughed at the idea of paying attention to his artistic ouevre (or pretended to, anyway).

But what I was getting at wasn't really to do with that: I'm saying Ford couldn't really have made Liberty Vallance in his mid career peak, because the material demands an older man with a different sensibility to direct. Same way Scorsese couldn't have made The Irishman in the 70's or Kurosawa made Dreams in the 50's.

Of course one of the main criticisms of Tarantino as a director is that his concerns are fundamentally juvenile and he doesn't really have anything to say beyond his pop culture references. Retiring now would be proving his doubters right in a way on that count.

But tbh I give his speculations on retiring as much creedence as I do yer average rapper talking on the same subject.

He's made two great films about grappling with the notion of retirement, and the emotional baggage associated with it.

But what I was getting at wasn't really to do with that: I'm saying Ford couldn't really have made Liberty Vallance in his mid career peak, because the material demands an older man with a different sensibility to direct. Same way Scorsese couldn't have made The Irishman in the 70's or Kurosawa made Dreams in the 50's.

Of course one of the main criticisms of Tarantino as a director is that his concerns are fundamentally juvenile and he doesn't really have anything to say beyond his pop culture references. Retiring now would be proving his doubters right in a way on that count.

Yet Tarantino made one movie that conveyed a more middle-aged perspective (Jackie Brown) that would seem to be beyond his emotional grasp, before talking himself out of doing it ever again. Talent and practical experience are more important in these matters than age demographics or maturity imo, especially since movies are highly collaborative. Aside from the technological limitations, Scorsese could not have made something like The Irishman in the 70s because it's a sprawling narrative that spans decades, not because he would have been incapable of depicting older characters, imo.

people always seem to forgot the obvious:

Jackie Brown was based on an Elmore Leonard book

David Lynch made The Straight Story in the middle of his career; Paul Mazursky made Harry & Tonto fairly early in his. In general, I think such films are more suited to older directors, but there are exceptions, probably quite a few.

Yeah sure I'm not saying every good movie about old people was made by a senior citizen.

people always seem to forgot the obvious:

Jackie Brown was based on an Elmore Leonard book

John Ford didn't write Liberty Vallance either, but a director still has to vibe with their material for it to work.

yes I know that

I'm saying people always say Jackie Brown has as wry, funny, slightly melancholy middle age vibe that isn't the same as Tarantino's other films and maybe that has something to do with the fact that it's based on a book by an author who pretty much perfected that vibe

people always seem to forgot the obvious:

Jackie Brown was based on an Elmore Leonard book

I don't think people forget this? They certainly don't forget that taking inspiration from existing texts is common through his work as a director. (You don't get the changes in career / life position for Ordell and Louis in the movie, to be sure.) (You also don't get the white power Nazi rally in Florida as an opener. Good thing America has come a long way since 1992!)

my point is that, if it has a slightly different vibe in his filmography, it's not a mystery why

I did not say he didn't add anything or imprint his style on to the material

One reason why he wouldn't want to get back to that vibe - adapting Leonard or someone else or even just doing an original thing with a similar vibe - is that Jackie Brown is the go to movie for ppl who don't like Tarantino as a whole to hold up as his one good film and he's mentioned resenting that in interviews.

Tough.

It must suck to be a director at such a level as to have not only a generation-defining Taxi Driver but also a misunderstood sleeper Barry Lyndon whose cachet only continues to grow with time.

Eh I'm not saying this in a bid for people to pity the misunderstood artiste, just pointing out that it's no big mystery why he doesn't go back to that style - people keep asking him to.

I attribute much of what's great about Jackie Brown to Grier, Forster, Jackson, and De Niro (and you can give Tarantino some degree of credit there, of course, but I wouldn't overstate that). Even if he tried to make another film of similar tone, I think it's unlikely he'd get four performances that great.

if it has a slightly different vibe in his filmography, it's not a mystery why

At the time, his three features as director each had different vibes, as did his other three (excluding NBK). He then did two full-on action films with different vibes to each other, but both explicit pastichey genre exercises. The next four settle into a more consistent vibe / voice for the first time imo

The performances in Jackie are kinda mutual in blame - he gave Grier and Forster a love letter of a script, and they made it even richer.

Yeah, I mean, it's impeccable casting that literally no one else would have gone with, so dude gets credit for that alone.

For the casting, yes--should have mentioned that.

Eh I'm not saying this in a bid for people to pity the misunderstood artiste, just pointing out that it's no big mystery why he doesn't go back to that style - people keep asking him to.

the weird thing with jackie brown is even at the time he resented it though, he went on about how he was never ever ever going to direct something he didnt originate ever again. something about that movie just rubs him the wrong way.

I know it's hard to imagine this today, but it wasn't hard to find people who thought Jackie Brown was a major misfire in the wake of Pulp Fiction. Heh, the '90s, amirite?

I used to argue with Morbs about ...Liberty Vallance: told him nothing on earth had persuaded me to watch it again

I was in college for Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown and it was definitely considered a misfire by people who loved his first two movies. I remember feeling very alone in my passionate defense of that one, I wore out my VHS copy in those days.

It did get head scratching responses, but, to jon's point, my friends were wearing it out on VHS the summer and fall of '98.