“Quentin Tarantino is a genius, a singular artist and visionary that is unrivaled in movies today. He can do no wrong.”–The consensus. And it’s true for the most part, or, at least, it was true when Pulp Fiction came out. The problem with all the talk of Tarantino’s genius is that it’s become clear he believes it more than anyone.
It’s always been said that Tarantino’s curse is that he’s indulgent, but that’s also been alleged to be his greatest gift. The fact that he’s so remarkably, passionately in love with movies, that he can build a scene any true movie lover will fall for. Is it indulgent to have Christoph Waltz’s nazi do several long interrogations in German during Inglorious Basterds? Sure, but it’s fun. Is it indulgent to have a near-thirty minute long car chase in Death Proof? Absolutely, but it’s fun. Is the sword fight at the end of Kill Bill Volume 1 a disgusting example of over-indulgence? Without question, but, you guessed it, it’s fun.
The problem, for me, is that it’s become clear Tarantino is only interested in fun, and hasn’t really and truly built an organic and unequivocally great movie since Pulp Fiction. [I know, I know, even saying that is a bit of a cliche.] And his last movie that felt even remotely connected to relatable human emotions was Jackie Brown (the only Tarantino movie that’s underrated).
But an even bigger problem than a once-plugged in and exciting director becoming increasingly “fun minded” and shallow (I know we could debate this all day, but can you really say that Kill Bill 1 and 2 touched your heart or made you feel anything beyond eyeball glee?) is that he may have become the ultimate example of a movie lover who has lost almost all touch with reality. It is possible that Tarantino (with his obsessive and extensive knowledge of every movie ever made) may be the poster example of someone who loves movies so much, they have forgotten what real life is like, worse, they no longer have interest in it.
For one example of what I’m talking about, note Tarantino’s comments after 9/11, basically saying that it was a cool spectacle that would have looked great in a movie. For a second, note his interview appearances, where he slides back and forth between “cool” faux-ebonics, pop culture references, and not much else. And for a third, note his most recent movie: Django Unchained.
This is a movie about slavery done in a “cool, stylized” way that mashes up the antebellum south with spaghetti westerns and blaxploitation. It includes the forced prostitution and sexual slavery of black female slaves, black male slaves fighting each other to the death, extreme whippings, brutality, graphic revenge killings, torture both psychological and physical, and all-around blood-soaked carnage. All of it is done in a way that’s made to seem cool, hip, and, bafflingly ironic. And it opens on Christmas Day.
Does this seem like a good fit for Christmas Day? Would it seem that way to anyone who lives outside Quentin’s head? Would a less indulgent and more human-minded filmmaker think it’s a good idea to cover such horrific subject matter in a “cool” graphic novel-esque revenge-thriller style?
Quentin needs this film to flop, and not just by a little bit. He needs the critics to turn on him, shit on him, rub dirt in his face, and say that he can do wrong. More importantly, he needs ticket buyers to say it, loud and clear, with their wallets. And then, and only then, will the infant-terrible director be forced to grow up and enter a new phase of maturity. Not “maturity” by covering very serious subject matter but in the same 13-year-old comic book lover’s way. Maturity in the way Jackie Brown dealt with real people trying to survive real situations without whiz-bang-boom fakery behind it. That’s the Tarantino I would love to see make a comeback, but it’s not going to happen if his every indulgent itch is thoroughly scratched by a fawning public.