Sunday, 11 September 2011
Week 3 - Worst Film Dialogue
I hate Quentin Tarantino's directing. Anyone who knows me already knows this apparently bizarre idiosyncrasy of mine. I hate his directing with a passion. That's right, even 'Pulp Fiction' and yes, I did understand it. I even watched it a second time because people loved it so much I thought I must be missing something. Apparently not.
My main problem is that he spends all of his time trying to be 'cool'. Desperately grasping at what 'cool' is or should be and missing the point entirely. QT will never be 'cool'. And the more he tries the more 'uncool' he becomes.
He reminds me of those kids at school who followed the 'cool' kids around, from a safe distance so that they could claim association but never within the 'cool' kids earshot! He probably couldn't smoke because of his asthma but tried anyway to fit in and ended up throwing up a lung all over the girl or guy he was trying to impress. He probably copied the 'cool' kid's style slicking his hair back with the wrong gel or wearing eyeliner that he hadn't noticed had a hint of glitter in it. Of course now the 'cool' kid he was aping probably sells used cars at his dad's dealership, or so we geeks tell ourselves when thinking about those wretchedly attractive, popular kids that snidely called us 'freaks' or 'goffs' or my personal favourite 'greebos'. The difference between us, deviant, misfit lot and QT is the malodorous stench of snivelling, greasy sponger that the man wreaks of. When we were smart enough to leave those 'cool' kids alone and bunk off to smoke weed in the park or find our own filthy metaller pub that would serve us pints of snakebite even though we were significantly underage, QT kept trying to be 'cool'. When we'd stopped giving a damn (thereby earning a certain amount of 'cool' by accident) QT was still a 'tryhard'.
I have never met Tarantino, I have no idea if this is an accurate representation of this man, but it is the impression that I get. He may be a soulful, considered, exceptional man who makes people feel awestruck when he speaks. He may enter the room with presence. He may quietly and respectfully discuss the importance of religion in society and politics at a dinner party. He may be a great man for all I know. But I doubt it.
The man is still following those 'cool' kids around and has made a career out of copying other people's work. He's famous for ripping off other directors. His fans would call it 'an homage'. I call it 'plagiarism'. His fans would say 'it's a tribute'. I say 'maybe he should have some of his own ideas instead of copying other peoples'. His fans would counter 'many artists do it, he does it because he is a film fan'. I reply 'a film fan should make better films'. Here we reach an impasse. Their cinematic joy is my upsettingly lazy rip off.
His writing, on the other hand, I tend to quite like. 'True Romance', 'Natural Born Killers' and 'From Dusk 'til Dawn' are fantastic films that have all, at one time or another, featured in my 'Top Five Favourite Films' list. And there are, as always, exceptions to the rule. 'Reservoir Dogs', which I believe to be his first full length feature, I enjoyed. I have also recently been swayed by an avid supporter of Tarantino (evidently you can pick your friends but not your friends tastes!) to watch 'Inglorious Bastards' which, yes, fine, was a brilliant film. Apart from Eli Roth. That was some serious miscasting. Brad Pitt was as bland as ever. But the film was saved by Christoph Waltz and I watched it to the end just to watch him.
My biggest problem with QT is that Robert Rodriguez seems to be under the delusion that QT's an asset to his film making. Now RR is one of my favourite directors. The films he spews out may be trash, but they are funny, gruesome, wonderful, character driven pieces of trash and I adore them. Of course the partnership worked well in 'From Dusk 'til Dawn' although I could've done without QT's ugly mug being in the movie (another gripe of mine that I'll return to another time, lucky you) but the rest of their collaborations; 'Four Rooms', 'Sin City' and 'Grindhouse' were almost ruined by QT's stilted and incongruous directing. I find that I fast forward or skip completely any sections directed by QT so that my favoured work of RR is unsullied.
Luckily for me, in the UK, 'Grindhouse' was separated into its two individual films; 'Planet Terror' by RR (which I loved) and 'Deathproof' by QT. This, my friends, this atrocity to my ears is my pick for Worst Film Dialogue. As I have previously outlined I usually enjoy QT's writing, but this crock of shit stank. It stank so badly I couldn't believe it! The film should be a no brainer. I mean there's Kurt Russell in a car that makes it easy for him to kill his passenger, but not for the driver to be killed. That's it in a nutshell. This could have been a brilliant film, loaded with 'Duel'-esque tension but with blood and gore and horrific deaths that would make me shout this noise "Haaawwwwooooohoho-oh-oh!!". Instead we are landed with one of the shittest films that I have ever seen.
Firstly, women do not talk like that. I have never heard women speak to eachother the way that they do in that film. It is some of the most bullshit female dialogue I have ever encountered.
Secondly, a small annoyance but one of the characters holds her crotch when she is desperate to pee. Again I have never done, nor seen any women do this. I have seen small boys do it. Not grown women, because WE DON'T HAVE PENISES TO SQUEEZE. Why would we squeeze our fannies? That just makes you want to pee more! Who are these women that QT is basing this script on? Drag Queens?
Oh man, maybe that's it. The dialogue does sound like a couple of Queens having a bitch off. Perhaps it's just another case of really bad casting!!
Thirdly, of course QT has a cameo. Of bloody course. Because it's not bad enough that this film is badly written and badly directed but it has to be badly acted too.
Fuck, I hate you Tarantino. I really hate you.