criterionforum.org

[quote="Antoine Doinel"][quote]After finishing the script he sent it to Bob Dylan, because he thought Mr. Dylan “would appreciate the wordplay.â€

exte wrote:Didn't I see on the news about a year ago that Mr Dylan ripped heavily from several passages from some book?

Yep, apparently Dylan lifted quite a few lyrics from an obscure Japanese writer.

Featurette

If you have any problems, the link originated here

From the NYPress:

[quote]INSIDE THE GRINDHOUSE

By Adario Strange

One year ago, Hugo Weaving intoned sotto voce behind the visage of Guy Fawkes, “Artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up.â€

NewYorkPressGuy wrote: Is there a place for the non-thinking, non-sensing movie? Of course. Every piece of art cannot be a didactic trip into social science.

To continue beating the weary old mule I'm riding, why is it that art (or what is thought of as art) is now synonymous with didacticism, social "science," and big ideas in general? When did art stop being about sensation and perception, or such out moded ideas as beauty and truth? And why must thought or thinking in art be forever associated with big ideas and concerns and not with a structuring and ordering of perception?

Oh, and thank heavens this writer has awarded non-thinking, non-sensing movies his approval. For a minute there I thought I'd never be able to enjoy Commando again.

Same guy wrote:But it helps to know when you're watching a real B-movie, rather than a blockbuster posing as a B-movie. What happens when artists use lies to lie? Nothing very special, and a special kind of nothing.

Use lies to lie? I don't even know what that means, or why I should care. And that last sentence is its own imprecise bit of nothing.

Anyway, that the movie calls itself "grindhouse" indicates it has few pretentions about being a knowingly showy imitation rather than the real thing. No one who is making a "grindhouse" movie really thinks of it as being a deliberate tradition.

The piece's arguments are woefully misguided. If it wants to criticize something, rather than going after the budget, why not take those criticisms of its gimmick nature further and indicate why its self-awareness is self defeating (which the piece seems to indicate). Wasting altogether too much space on swearing is, aside from being vulgar, uninteresting and pointless.

Hmm, reading the above, you'd think I was in a bad mood today.

Yeah, I thought the NY Press piece was a bit ridiculous myself. I'm not a Tarantino fan by any stretch, but I don't believe the directors are trying to hoodwink anybody. I think they've made it explicitly clear that the film is a direct homage to the exploitation flicks of the seventies.

More to the point, I'll take Kill Bill or, probably, Grindhouse over Apocalypto or some other Gibson piece of trash any day. That article is ridiculous in so many ways, and doubly so considering the writer hasn't actually, you know, seen the film.

I dunno - both Tarantino and Gibson suffer from their own excesses of sorts. I could not for the life of me make it to the end of Kill Bill. And that was in two separate sittings. In terms of self-indulgence both directors are of equal stature.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Yeah, I thought the NY Press piece was a bit ridiculous myself. I'm not a Tarantino fan by any stretch, but I don't believe the directors are trying to hoodwink anybody. I think they've made it explicitly clear that the film is a direct homage to the exploitation flicks of the seventies.

Exactly. I know from the countless interviews and commentaries from Rodriguez that he really has no pretentions than to entertain. He knows that he's not making art but merely popcorn movies. I like his (and even Tarantino's) enthusiasm for movies and how he imparts this love of all things cinema in his movies.

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:He knows that he's not making art but merely popcorn movies.

I don't know what gave you that impression, but his interviews throughout the process of properly adapting Sin City are quite the contrary.

Fletch isn't saying that Tarantino or Rodriguez aren't accomplished filmmakers or are serious about what they do. They are very good at their craft. I watched those Sin City featurettes as well, and Rodriguez, perhaps next only to Michael Mann is one of the few directors pushing the limits of what digital filmmaking can do.

But let's face it - it's not like they're making "serious" pictures. Kubrick or Fellini or Godard they are not. Not that there is anything wrong with that. And not that there isn't room for accomplished, well executed, popcorn multiplex entertainment (given the crap that's filling up screens now, there is plenty of room).

But I would greatly hesitate to call these guys auteurs.

Antoine Doinel wrote:But I would greatly hesitate to call these guys auteurs.

It really annoys me when "auteur" is thrown around as if it, in itself, implies quality. Do Rodriguez and Tarantino inflect their films with their own personal preoccupations and styles? Clearly. The fact that they're primarily making "entertainment" shouldn't preclude them from also being considered auteurs. It's like when people call something art as if just the fact that it's art makes it great -- and by extension, anything they consider not great is not art.

DrewReiber wrote:

Fletch F. Fletch wrote:He knows that he's not making art but merely popcorn movies.

I don't know what gave you that impression, but his interviews throughout the process of properly adapting Sin City are quite the contrary.

I dunno, the vibe I got off of those extras was more along the lines of fanboy gushing, like Rodriguez was just thrilled to be adapting one of the fave comic books as opposed to, "I'm making art" kind of pronouncement. I think that were Rodriguez gets more high-minded is when he starts talking about the technological innovations he's helping pioneer.

Antoine Doinel wrote:But let's face it - it's not like they're making "serious" pictures. Kubrick or Fellini or Godard they are not.

"Someone like Jean-Luc Godard is for me intellectual counterfeit money when compared to a good kung fu film."
-Werner Herzog

sevenarts wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:But I would greatly hesitate to call these guys auteurs.

It really annoys me when "auteur" is thrown around as if it, in itself, implies quality. Do Rodriguez and Tarantino inflect their films with their own personal preoccupations and styles? Clearly. The fact that they're primarily making "entertainment" shouldn't preclude them from also being considered auteurs.

As I mentioned before, I'm not saying these guys are hacks. They are gifted and they are very good filmmakers.

Do they inflect their films with their own preoccupations? Yep.

Do they inflect their films with their own style? Arguably no, as they rely sometimes too heavily on the very styles of films and filmmakers they adore.

I'm not saying all great filmmakers are infalliable, but I'm also greatly hesitant to worship to blindly worship at the altar of Tarantino and Rodriguez. Yes, they have made highly entertaining films, but I'm not ready to give these guys a blind pass to criticism.

As for the "what-is-and-what-isn't-art" debate - that's probably best left for another thread. Sure, I suppose we can call them artists but aside from a love of film, are they really leaving something behind that upcoming filmmakers can take from them that's truly an original voice? I'm not sure. My gut reaction is no.

All this said, I am looking forward to Grindhouse. I think it will be a helluva ride - and that's all, and that's fine.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I'm not saying all great filmmakers are infalliable, but I'm also greatly hesitant to worship to blindly worship at the altar of Tarantino and Rodriguez. Yes, they have made highly entertaining films, but I'm not ready to give these guys a blind pass to criticism.

As for the "what-is-and-what-isn't-art" debate - that's probably best left for another thread. Sure, I suppose we can call them artists but aside from a love of film, are they really leaving something behind that upcoming filmmakers can take from them that's truly an original voice? I'm not sure. My gut reaction is no.

This wasn't really my point so much as I was advancing the idea that they can be auteurs and still not be making anything beyond entertainment. I don't worship either filmmaker, and I go to both of them primarily for entertainment and some fun, exciting films. But I think "auteur," like "art" before it, has become too much of a synonym for quality, when it's really just a descriptive term for a certain type of filmmaker. It's used too often in the same sense as when people say "now that's art," as if just saying so is enough to make it good. And vice versa, those who claim "that's not art" whenever they encounter something they don't like. I would argue that both Tarantino and Rodriguez are auteurs, and their approach to stylistic pastiche has been carried across their whole bodies of work, but calling them auteurs isn't an automatic compliment, and it certainly doesn't elevate them to an equal plane with more serious directors.

Antoine Doinel wrote:As I mentioned before, I'm not saying these guys are hacks.

I think you guys are simply getting the crux of your own argument confused. I was not being defensive or overly sensitive about a filmmaker, I'm simply pointing out that I don't believe the generalization holds up upon closer inspection.

Obviously, Rodriguez is not trying to work on the aesthetic levels of Jean Luc Godard, but the original statement revolved around the pretensions that their work was art. Rodriguez's stated intentions in approaching the process of adapting Sin City was directly tied to respecting the comic book form as art, and preserving the formal elements of that medium while still making a film. His goals during that project were not simply to entertain, but to establish a filmic bridge that many directors (and especially producers) did not believe was possible. I believe he accomplished this in spades.

I think portraying Robert Rodriguez as simply a "popcorn movie" director is disingenuous because we're talking about someone who sold audiences on going to see a film to appreciate the adaptation of an art object, and the value of preserving its inherent qualities as such. As silly as Grindhouse may be, both he and Tarantino are using their reflexive entertainment to promote the interest and understanding of a genre. Now how successful and appropriate their respective efforts may turn out to be, we'll have to wait and see.

drewreiber wrote:As silly as Grindhouse may be, both he and Tarantino are using their reflexive entertainment to promote the interest and understanding of a genre

I don't want to seem like I'm performing useless post cheerleading, but the thought quoted above is the most intelligent thing that's been said on Grindhouse in this entire thread (as far as memory serves).

It also destroys that New York Press piece in that it crucially answers the silly objection it raised: that Grindhouse is disingenuous and illegitimate because it's making grindhouse movies with blockbuster budgets. What Drew makes clear is that the movie is not to be consumed directly as grindhouse, nor are grindhouse fans its chief focus. I think Drew is right: Rodriguez and Tarantino are hoping to expand cinematic knowledge and taste by getting people who normally don't watch, and have otherwise little knowledge of, this particular sub-genre, something of an education on the matter, probably with the hope that they will be further encouraged to rummage around within the sub-genre after they've seen the movie. And, of course, grindhouse junkies can stare at the screen and collectively grin at seeing something they love reproduced.

Of course this bears little on whether or not the movie is good. Kill Bill! could be said to have the same intentions and I think it's a failure.

New trailer.

Nice. I'm surprised the Weinstein's approved the smashing of the marquee with Scary Movie 4 and Wolf Creek but it was a nice gag though.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Nice. I'm surprised the Weinstein's approved the smashing of the marquee with Scary Movie 4 and Wolf Creek but it was a nice gag though.

Yeah, I dug that too. And from the clips they showed of Death Proof, I can certainly see what Tarantino was saying about being influenced by Vanishing Point. Nice!

exte wrote:Didn't I see on the news about a year ago that Mr Dylan ripped heavily from several passages from some book? (And by ripped, I mean word for word, for word.) And the author felt like it was a huge compliment, if anything, and wouldn't ever dream of suing? I know I saw it somewhere. Since then it really deflated the whole mythos behind him for me...

As long as he wrote at least one song from Bringing it All Back Home, his reputation as god is safe with me.

Mr_sausage wrote:I think Drew is right: Rodriguez and Tarantino are hoping to expand cinematic knowledge and taste by getting people who normally don't watch, and have otherwise little knowledge of, this particular sub-genre, something of an education on the matter, probably with the hope that they will be further encouraged to rummage around within the sub-genre after they've seen the movie.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but could it also be true that he is borrows everything that he likes about these films in the hope to create the definitive film for this genre? Are people really going to try to track down old B films with no stars in this day of incessant remakes, or are they going to assume that Tarantino watched these mediocre films for them to extract what was positive about them in order to create a truly great film? Is Tarantino praising the genre, or is he telling us that he knows everything about film, even these small, campy B films? In his own words:

“I thought, ‘Wow, I want to do a slasher film,' â€

Totoro wrote:I'm not saying you're wrong, but could it also be true that he is borrows everything that he likes about these films in the hope to create the definitive film for this genre?

I don't see why these two options are mutually exclusive. But anyway, if this is Tarantino's intention, to make the definitive grindhouse movie, why exactly is he sharing the bill with another potential contender to the crown, and why is he using a number of fake trailers that can't help but pique people's interest in these types of movies (being in themselves deliberately unsatisfying)?

Totoro wrote:Are people really going to try to track down old B films with no stars in this day of incessant remakes, or are they going to assume that Tarantino watched these mediocre films for them to extract what was positive about them in order to create a truly great film?

I don't know what people are going to do. How people will react has nothing to do with my (well, Drew's) supposition about how Tarantino and Rodriguez want people to react.

Totoro wrote:Is Tarantino praising the genre, or is he telling us that he knows everything about film, even these small, campy B films?

Again, I don't see why he can't be doing both.

From Dave Poland's blog:

Also from the ACE Awards - Tarantino notes that he is heading back into the editing room for his last 10 days of cutting majors scenes... he and Sally Menke need to cut the big car chase in Death Proof. Meanwhile, a bunch of Grindhousers are heading to a pro wrestling match to enjoy and promote today. Ever quotable Quentin also said, "An editor is a psychiatrist who keeps the director from committing suicide." He also called Menke, "his one true collaborator, from start to finish."

It looks like non-North Americans are going not going to be Grindhouse as a double bill. From JoBlo:

Grindhouse divided Feb. 21, 2007

Source: Variety by: Dave Davis

The vile rumor that GRINDHOUSE might not make it to theaters in its original double-feature format has circulated for months (after all, Tarantino just recently finished filming), but all indication is that we'll get the twin injection of exploitation as intended.

However, that may not be a universal (or global) truth. The non-English speaking territories of this planet's surface may in fact get two entirely separate flicks (theoretically titled GRINDHOUSE: PLANET TERROR and GRINDHOUSE: DEATH PROOF) released several months apart.

The rationale, aside from the inevitable (and probably safe) assumption of Weinstein greed, is that other parts of the world have no familiarity with the double-bill experience, so the whole "grindhouse" premise would be as foreign to them as Americans think they are. Bonus for being foreign: additional footage will potentially be added to fill up running time. However, bilingual areas such as Montreal and parts of Canada won't be getting any release of the film at all. Just kidding, boss!