Quentin Tarantino

[ronnierocketago]

Dec 9, 2008 18:44:45 GMT Capo said:

Dec 9, 2008 4:34:06 GMT ronnierocketago said:

Well, what do you think it means?

Not to be a dick, but isn't pretentiousness, the good and the bad, being hyperbolic self-importance?

It might be.

But:

"RESERVOIR DOGS was pretentious, but shit what directorial debut isn't?"

Not every filmmaker, even when starting out, is a conceited jerk. 'S'all I was sayin', yo'.

I don't think every pretentious picture is made by a jerk.

Why such an assumption?

[Capo]

Read the sentence I've quoted; the italics. In straight(er) terms:

Plenty of directorial debuts are not pretentious. I don't see how your question paints Reservoir Dogs favourably.

[ronnierocketago]

Dec 9, 2008 19:00:31 GMT Capo said:

Read the sentence I've quoted; the italics. In straight(er) terms:

Plenty of directorial debuts are not pretentious. I don't see how your question paints Reservoir Dogs favourably.

Can you name quite a few examples of such?

Hell, the greatest of all directorial debuts, CITIZEN KANE, was pretentious....one of the greatest American films ever produced, but obviously self-important.

But is that inherently a bad thing? I mean Coppola's APOCALYPSE NOW was damn self-important too, but its a masterpiece.

[Capo]

Well, without really knowing what I or you mean by the word(s), and bearing in mind it was you who said Reservoir Dogs was pretentious ("but what directorial debut isn't?"), I don't find any of these pretentious or self-important:

Badlands, Kasaba, Duel, Bad Taste, 12 Angry Men, Who's That Knocking at My Door?...

[quentincompson]

Pather Panchali, La pointe courte, Hirosima mon amour, Pitfall, Spirit of the Beehive, They Live By Night, Love Is Colder than Death, Titicut Follies, the 400 Blows etc.

Spirit of the Beehive,Titicut Follies and Pather Panchali in particular are anything but pretentious.

[ronnierocketago]

Dec 12, 2008 19:12:58 GMT Capo said:

Well, without really knowing what I or you mean by the word(s), and bearing in mind it was you who said Reservoir Dogs was pretentious ("but what directorial debut isn't?"), I don't find any of these pretentious or self-important:

Badlands, Kasaba, Duel, Bad Taste, 12 Angry Men, Who's That Knocking at My Door?...

But again, what is pretentious?

[RNL]

Something akin to self-importance, according to you.

You think the films Capo listed exude self-importance?

[svsg]

I think it was a good idea for RRA to ask for the definition. In my limited English knowledge, I had associated the word "pretentious" with pretend(ing), i.e. someone trying to lie to the audience as though (s)he aspires for something great through the film, but in fact, doing atrocious crap knowingly. I am yet to look up the dictionary on this.

I have no problem with self-importance or a director imagining that his/her work is more important than it actually is to anyone.

[svsg]

I looked up, and I was wrong. One dictionary definition goes like this:

Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.

I am yet to see RD. So I won't comment on that. But we will never know if the director is pretentious, according to the definition above. How do we know what distinction the director is demanding through his/her films. Maybe they do have a realistic expectation.

[RNL]

I think it was a good idea for RRA to ask for the definition.

There are few critical terms more ideologically loaded than 'pretentious', so yeah, it either needs to be precisely defined or avoided altogether. BUT: he's the one who used the word in the first place!

And it was in agreement with Capo's previous comment. The definition is implied.

"Yeah RESERVOIR DOGS was pretentious, but shit what directorial debut isn't?"

Surely in response to:

"Reservoir Dogs is short film material bloated to feature length. All those flashbacks, that manipulate certain relationships, aren't necessary at all; with them, the film loses its focus and tension. I still think the opening act is excellent, up to the first flashback, and the acting is gripping. Otherwise, it's smug and self-important stuff."

[RNL]

Dec 13, 2008 2:11:23 GMT @svsg said:

I looked up, and I was wrong. One dictionary definition goes like this:

Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified.

I am yet to see RD. So I won't comment on that. But we will never know if the director is pretentious, according to the definition above. How do we know what distinction the director is demanding through his/her films. Maybe they do have a realistic expectation.

The word is just a vague pejorative. Generally it acts as an accusation of egotism, narcissism, elitism, obscurantism, charlatanism, cynicism, exhibitionism, dilletantism, etc. And although those kinds of qualities are often found in the same person or the same artwork, they're very far from homogenous.

[Blib]

Dec 13, 2008 2:55:27 GMT RNL said:

The word is just a vague pejorative. Generally it acts as an accusation of egotism, narcissism, elitism, obscurantism, charlatanism, cynicism, exhibitionism, dilletantism, etc. And although those kinds of qualities are often found in the same person or the same artwork, they're very far from homogenous.

It's good to see you are explaining it in words svsg will understand, with his limited English knowledge.

[Michael]

scarlet fever tiamat jihad megladon
astroid cajun explosion, tetragargantuan

[svsg]

LOL

[RNL]

;D

[ronnierocketago]

Dec 13, 2008 1:51:24 GMT RNL said:

Something akin to self-importance, according to you.

You think the films Capo listed exude self-importance?

Err, 12 ANGRY MEN?

[ronnierocketago]

Dec 13, 2008 2:43:16 GMT RNL said:

I think it was a good idea for RRA to ask for the definition.

There are few critical terms more ideologically loaded than 'pretentious', so yeah, it either needs to be precisely defined or avoided altogether. BUT: he's the one who used the word in the first place!

And it was in agreement with Capo's previous comment. The definition is implied.

"Yeah RESERVOIR DOGS was pretentious, but shit what directorial debut isn't?"

Surely in response to:

"Reservoir Dogs is short film material bloated to feature length. All those flashbacks, that manipulate certain relationships, aren't necessary at all; with them, the film loses its focus and tension. I still think the opening act is excellent, up to the first flashback, and the acting is gripping. Otherwise, it's smug and self-important stuff."

Which is why I asked the question in the first place.

My argument was that most directorial debuts are pretentious, in that many filmmakers try to invest every idea, every bit of film knowledge, every bit of enthusiasm into what could very well be their only directed picture.

Take for example PSYCHO III, which star Anthony Perkins directed. What surprised people back in the day was how Perkins could have opted a mindless routine slasher blood fest, but instead strived for an arthouse-influenced psychological and rather intelligent thriller, as if he wanted to bring home his own psycho-analaysis of Norman Bates, the nice mass-murderer who pigeonholed Perkins' career.

He shot that and some other flick I've never seen, then died of AIDS.

Now sometimes such enthusiasm by a newbie filmmaker may indeed suffer from cramming way too much into a frame that is just beyond their capabilities, and other times it's that spunk that drive cinema forward like say Sam Raimi's THE EVIL DEAD, orginally a shoebox-budget slasher fest that became something more fucking insane and memorable.

And with RESERVOIR DOGS, I still argue that Tarantino did something that of which bigger budgets, bigger stars, bigger access to everything still hasn't equaled yet (except maybe PULP FICTION, and DOGS still tops that by a crotch hair.)

[RNL]

Dec 13, 2008 7:38:14 GMT ronnierocketago said:

Something akin to self-importance, according to you.

You think the films Capo listed exude self-importance?

Err, 12 ANGRY MEN?

How about a straight answer?

There are few critical terms more ideologically loaded than 'pretentious', so yeah, it either needs to be precisely defined or avoided altogether. BUT: he's the one who used the word in the first place!

And it was in agreement with Capo's previous comment. The definition is implied.

"Yeah RESERVOIR DOGS was pretentious, but shit what directorial debut isn't?"

Surely in response to:

"Reservoir Dogs is short film material bloated to feature length. All those flashbacks, that manipulate certain relationships, aren't necessary at all; with them, the film loses its focus and tension. I still think the opening act is excellent, up to the first flashback, and the acting is gripping. Otherwise, it's smug and self-important stuff."

Which is why I asked the question in the first place.

My argument was that most directorial debuts are pretentious

The question you asked in the first place had nothing to do with the definition of 'pretentious'. You assumed a definition in line with Capo's criticisms of Reservoir Dogs: smugness and self-importance.

Then, it appears, when you were presented with a list of directorial debuts that are perhaps not smug or self-important, you back-tracked and asked your question about the definition of the word.

Personally, I don't agree that Reservoir Dogs is smug or self-important. But please stop being so evasive and disingenuous, it's obvious and annoying.

[ronnierocketago]

Dec 13, 2008 19:10:22 GMT RNL said:

Dec 13, 2008 7:38:14 GMT ronnierocketago said:

Err, 12 ANGRY MEN?

How about a straight answer?

Which is why I asked the question in the first place.

My argument was that most directorial debuts are pretentious

The question you asked in the first place had nothing to do with the definition of 'pretentious'. You assumed a definition in line with Capo's criticisms of Reservoir Dogs: smugness and self-importance.

Then, it appears, when you were presented with a list of directorial debuts that are perhaps not smug or self-important, you back-tracked and asked your question about the definition of the word.

Personally, I don't agree that Reservoir Dogs is smug or self-important. But please stop being so evasive and disingenuous, it's obvious and annoying.

No? ;D

Besides, you see me demanding that you answer in response to that counter-part I made to your jingoistic argument about IRON MAN? I think someone needs to look over their own henhouse before they start crowing about others.

Fact was, Capo had a good point, and he was right perhaps that not every directorial debut is pretentious or whatever.

But the whole goddamn point I was asking without bluntly saying it, is that if cinema is a subjective experience, then so is our own definitions of what "pretentious" or self-importance or whatever.

And I think "pretentious" and "self-importance" don't necessarily mean an automatic bad thing as you do.

[RNL]

Dec 13, 2008 23:00:15 GMT ronnierocketago said:

No? ;D

Besides, you see me demanding that you answer in response to that counter-part I made to your jingoistic argument about IRON MAN? I think someone needs to look over their own henhouse before they start crowing about others.

Actually, I wasn't aware of a response in the Iron Man thread, but I've just read it, disagree, and will get to it. But, regardless, even if I was just ignoring you, declining to respond at all is not the same thing as responding evasively and disingenuously.

Fact was, Capo had a good point, and he was right perhaps that not every directorial debut is pretentious or whatever.

Okay. That's the straight answer I was looking for. Thank you.

But the whole goddamn point I was asking without bluntly saying it, is that if cinema is a subjective experience, then so is our own definitions of what "pretentious" or self-importance or whatever.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Whether you perceive a quality of 'pretentiousness' in a film is a matter of subjective experience, but how you come to identify that quality as 'pretentiousness' and label it with that word is not a matter of subjective experience. That's why I can list off a bunch of other words that constitute the bulk of the accusations that the umbrella term 'pretentious' seems to cover. And that's for a vague term like 'pretentious'. Even with that there's consistency of meaning. That's how language works, each individual doesn't invent it themselves, they learn from others (who've learned from others) how to apply words to the world so as to communicate as precisely as possible. That's why everyone identifies the same object as being the same colour. If it was all a matter of subjective experience, as you claim, then there's no reason that saying 12 Angry Men was shot in red-&-green is incorrect.

But you've already admitted your assertion was false. You needn't have done that if the definition of the word you used was your own creation.

And I think "pretentious" and "self-importance" don't necessarily mean an automatic bad thing as you do.

I never said this.

'Pretentious' is too vague a term to assume anything about without further definition. But its connotations are undeniably negative. Whenever it's, very rarely, used as a compliment it's always somewhat ironic, and almost always (or just always) synonymous with exhibitionism and ostentatiousness. "A wonderfully pretentious film." Showy, outrageous, gaudy, etc. But obscurantist, narcissistic, elitist? No. (Although, actually, I have seen people try to 'take back' the word and use it positively to refer to films that are these things. But I imagine only as a form of apologetic. I doubt it's an earnest attempt to call for more obscurantism, narcissism and elitism in films.)

Self-importance is unjustified. It mightn't be a fatal flaw, but I can't imagine it ever being a positive. "This film could really do with an extra dose of self-importance." "I love this film's palpaple sense of its own importance." Nah.