By Amy Nicholson
By LA Weekly critics
By Zachary Pincus-Roth
By Amy Nicholson
By Amy Nicholson
By Amanda Lewis
By Amy Nicholson
By Anthony D'Alessandro
Seventeen years ago, when Reservoir Dogs was setting American cinema on fire, Quentin Tarantino drove up to his favorite watering hole, Denny’s at Gower Gulch, in a tiny Geo that I mistook for a rental car. During a scheduled hourlong interview that stretched into nearly three, I chased him all around the houses about the casual violence in his debut film, which in retrospect is a bit like getting on Lewis Carroll’s case about the lack of realism in Alice in Wonderland. Tarantino heard me out, then politely set me straight, positioning violence as one of cinema’s key aesthetics and reeling off a list of admired forebears and contemporaries who, like him, trafficked in blood and guts because both they and the audience “got a kick out it.” Of Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino said happily, “I’m trying to wipe out every movie I ever wanted to make in that first one.”
Some would say he went on to make that movie over and over again, others that he’s one of world cinema’s premier auteurs. Either way, today a surprising number of his contemporaries — among them Hong Kong director John Woo, his hero from way back when — have either dropped off the map or are struggling to stay in the game. For his part, Tarantino has become a durable superstar, crisscrossing the hazy line between studio and indie darling with a steady output (notwithstanding a six-year break between Jackie Brown and Kill Bill) of big successes (notwithstanding Death Proof) under his belt. All but one of his films have come from original scripts he wrote himself, and every last one is a loving homage to the infinite elasticities of genre. The questions remain: Are his films any more than that? Do they need to be?
Back at the same Denny’s by request, we tuck into a brunch guaranteed to set the triglycerides soaring, while the sight of Tarantino causes a young woman with fluorescent-orange hair to clap her hand to her mouth and let out a long, sighing “ooooh.” In the booth next to us, a handsome African-American lolls patiently for an hour and a half, wearing an air of studied indifference. When he can bear it no longer, the young man jumps up, introduces himself and offers to send his body of work to Tarantino, who graciously responds with his agent’s name and equally graciously declines to give out his e-mail address.
We talk about his new film, Inglourious Basterds, misspelled to distinguish it from the title of a 1978 exploitation romp by Italian director Enzo Castellari, which Tarantino optioned, about a unit of court-martialed American soldiers who escape from custody and end up in a heroic struggle against the Nazis. In the Tarantino version, the “basterds” have become American Jews (his friend Eli Roth plays one of them with a thick Boston accent), headed by a part–Native American, heavily Southern-drawled hick enjoyably overplayed by Brad Pitt. These may not be the first movie Jews to turn Apache (see Blazing Saddles), but they’re surely the first to scalp Germans in real time.
Inglourious Basterds, which played to mixed reviews at Cannes this year and which may have diluted Tarantino’s well-known love of film critics, has next to nothing to do with Jews, Nazis or World War II, though Winston Churchill has a funny cameo and Joseph Goebbels a minor, if crucial, role as a twisted auteur of nationalist cinema. It’s a highly entertaining, graphically bloody and woozily romantic romp — another personal credo that, perhaps more than any other movie Tarantino has made, doffs its cap to almost every film genre known to man and continues to touch on, if not exactly explore, his perennial themes of professionalism, loyalty and betrayal.
Inglourious Basterds is unlikely to pacify critics who dismiss Tarantino’s work as a callow triumph of technique over substance, or who argue that he makes lazy use of chapter headings as a poor stand-in for narrative structure, though they’d have a hard time calling him a hater of women on the basis of the movie’s vengeful Jewish protagonist, Shosanna Dreyfus (played by French actress Mélanie Laurent). And who could call misogyny on a man who, in conversation, drops the tidbit that he’s currently working his way through a biography of pioneering American filmmaker Dorothy Arzner while watching her entire oeuvre?
This time I know better than to engage Tarantino in another debate about cinema brutality, a discussion that leaves him more indifferent than insulted. But I’m curious about whether, midway through his 40s, he’s changed his thinking on what he wants his movies to be about. He doesn’t clam up; he does his best to comply; he insists that his movies are “painfully personal.” But no matter where I try to steer Tarantino in the direction of real life, the conversation always veers back to the process — genre, craft and the sorry but never hopeless state of cinema today — that remains the love of his life.
Join My Voice Nation for free stuff, film info & more!