Reservoir Dogs

[Shit Good Nose]

I like Tarantino's films as much as the next person (as long as they aren't Shit Good Nose)

They all like Tarantino's films as much as the next person (as long as they're not me)

pause for breath

by the time you've finished with them.  Alien3.

[Puce Moment]

Do folks actually believe Gus Van Sant just wanted to remake Psycho? I find it hard to take someone seriously if that is what they believe the guy was doing.

And why does nobody mention Elephant? Because it is not shot-for-shot? Because Psycho is not shot-for-shot. He included a scene from the original Joseph Stefano screenplay that Hitchock could not get past the censors. He was hardly being subtle.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Yes, anyone who says that the Van Sant Psycho is shot-for-shot is just giving away the fact that they haven't actually seen it

[QDRPHNC]

Has anyone wondered what the symbolism is with the Orange at the handryer scene is? He's turning his back on the police as he gets more into the character of a criminal?

It never happened, it was just him imagining the story he was telling.

[DukeDeMondo]

On the City On Fire thing. There's a short film on the topic called Who Do You Think You're Fooling? by a fella called Mike White (not Chuck and Buck / School Of Rock Mike White, a different Mike White) that might be of interest. I remember seeing it on telly at some point in the late 90s/early 2000s. Least I assume it was on telly. Can't think how else I would have seen it. Anyway there it is.

[marquis_de_sad]

And why does nobody mention Elephant? Because it is not shot-for-shot?

Elephant is a nice example of someone very clearly being directly inspired by another film and using major elements of it but taking it somewhere else. In this case however, the results are mediocre.

[Puce Moment]

Elephant is a nice example of someone very clearly being directly inspired by another film and using major elements of it but taking it somewhere else. In this case however, the results are mediocre.

I feel like he was doing something very similar albeit less open to accusations of 'why bother remaking a classic'. I always felt like he was laughing up his sleeve at people who thought HE thought a remake was a good idea. Many films re-adapt a novel later on, or are remakes. Van Sant was doing neither - it was an exercise and a litmus test to some extent. He re-shot the screenplay. Nobody does that.

[chveik]

I feel like he was doing something very similar albeit less open to accusations of 'why bother remaking a classic'. I always felt like he was laughing up his sleeve at people who thought HE thought a remake was a good idea. Many films re-adapt a novel later on, or are remakes. Van Sant was doing neither - it was an exercise and a litmus test to some extent. He re-shot the screenplay. Nobody does that.

are you talking about Psycho or Elephant?

[Puce Moment]

are you talking about Psycho or Elephant?

Psycho.

[QDRPHNC]

I was big into tape-trading circles with other movie geeks back when Reservoir Dogs first came out, and heard all the same City on Fire shit then. It's not wrong, it just misses the point spectacularly.

The whole line of argument should have been shut down after Pulp Fiction came out and put exactly what kind of filmmaker QT is, into context.

[Dr Syntax Head]

My second favourite film of all time. Pre Lynch obsession the first film I truly cared about. Part of a great time in my life and I just loved the simple aesthetic perfection of it. Tarantino's greatest work no argument.

[McFlymo]

Reservoir Dogs is to film makers, what Oasis were to guitar players.

I didn't like it and the more people read into how great and detailed and clever and original it was, the more I hated everything about Quentin Tarantino and Brit Pop and Lad Culture and the 90s and the Patriarchy... Pulp Fiction was quite good though (still one of my favourite films), Jackie Brown was ok. All that other shite: Shite, mate.

[Wet Blanket]

It's 90 minutes long and most of the violence happens off screen; I wish he'd make more films like this. Tarantino is unique in that he started with his most mature movies and has been regressing ever since.

I don't believe he's ripping off older (arguably better) movies - The Killing is another obvious one here - he wants his audience to nod along to all the references. In this and Pulp Fiction however the homages seemed much more deftly handled. Everything from Kill Bill onwards has struck me as pastiche, although with Once Upon a Time... he did at least seem to be grappling with a return to subtlety, even if he ultimately went in the usual direction. 

[phantom_power]

He has no sense of filter or editing to work out what should be cut or not and thinks that "important" films need to be 2hr30+. This works, in my opinion, in Inglourious Basterds and Hateful Eight but is to the detriment of Django and Hollywood. Other people have different opinions on that though so maybe he should just stick to his guns

[QDRPHNC]

Reservoir Dogs is to film makers, what Oasis were to guitar players.

Irritatingly popular?

This kind of comment just gets under my skin a bit. Which filmmakers? Which guitarists? I don't like Oasis, in fact I'm pretty sure I hate them, but whatever it is they do, they are were undeniably quite good at it. Good in the sense of, they made music which resonated with masses of people. I'd rather listen to Oasis than a tedious guitar bore whining about where they stole their shit from.

Same with QT. Like him or not, he is an undeniably talented filmmaker. The only creative types who have a problem with stealing (not plagiarism) are the mediocre ones, because they don't understand that to steal well and turn it into something good takes talent which they don't possess. It's a hell of a lot easier to drone on and on about City on Fire than it is to make the next Reservoir Dogs, so if you focus enough on the former you can maybe convince yourself that you're above doing the latter.

[BeardFaceMan]

The only creative types who have a problem with stealing (not plagiarism) are the mediocre ones...

It's a shame QT doesn't mind stealing from everything himself, but when someone like the Fun Lovin' Criminals use snippets of dialogue from one of his films for their song, all of a sudden stealing isn't as ok.

[QDRPHNC]

It's a shame QT doesn't mind stealing from everything himself, but when someone like the Fun Lovin' Criminals use snippets of dialogue from one of his films for their song, all of a sudden stealing isn't as ok.

I don't know anything about it, but it seems to be more of a discussion around sampling and usage rights than about the kind stealing we're talking about here. I'm also not saying QT is beyond any kind of criticism, just that the stealing / inspiration discussion is a dreary one.

[Mister Six]

Absolutely (sort of)

Oasis reunion album "treads old ground".

[greenman]

The Stone Roses would perhaps be a better comparison than Oasis who would be more Guy Ritchie.

[Shit Good Nose]

Just to chime back in and say, again, it's not only Reservoir Dogs and City On Fire that's the problem - if it was, more of us might forgive it as being just a debut jumping off point.  The problem is that it's EVERY SINGLE ONE of his films, with the Kill Bills, perhaps, being the prime examples (some would argue - and have argued - that Pulp Fiction is his most plagiaristic one of all, but, whilst I've clocked the Melville and Truffaut "borrows", I haven't seen enough Godard, Romer or Rivette to fully tick all of those boxes).  It's something he keeps doing, and it's blatant.  Which, in my opinion, goes far beyond influence, homage or inspiration.

[Famous Mortimer]

OK, that covers a pretty big chunk of the film though. Are there any particular segments you could point to that are "shot-for-shot and beat-for-beat" lifts? I'm interested in looking up the scenes in question for comparison.

There's a video on yer YTs called "Who Do You Think You're Fooling?" which goes through it, apparently (although I'm at work and can't watch it, I make no claims for its quality).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HgbSAL8OKY

[Sebastian Cobb]

He has no sense of filter or editing to work out what should be cut or not and thinks that "important" films need to be 2hr30+. This works, in my opinion, in Inglourious Basterds and Hateful Eight but is to the detriment of Django and Hollywood. Other people have different opinions on that though so maybe he should just stick to his guns

Innit. I've not seen Hollywood because I usually see films after work and thought 'fuck that'. Fair fuck's if it's some indie or foreign piece that'll disappear into the ether for me to forget about, but in a few months either netters or amazon will fall over themselves to have it because it's the new tarentino.

[Shit Good Nose]

There's a video on yer YTs called "Who Do You Think You're Fooling?" which goes through it, apparently (although I'm at work and can't watch it, I make no claims for its quality).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HgbSAL8OKY

Mentioned earlier in the thread.  It only focuses on one part of the post-heist sequence and a few bits in the warehouse.  Because of the shockingly bad English translation on the source of COF (dubtitles, I think), it misses out some straight dialogue lifts from the warehouse climax and the first meeting between them all, and there are some other blatant but minimal lifts peppered throughout that that vid on YT doesn't mention.

But, again again, what you REALLY ought to do is compare Kill Bill with the 36th Chamber, Lady Snowblood and Sister Streetfighter films.  I also recently seem to remember there being a whole sequence lifted wholesale from either the Crippled Avengers or one of the Five Deadly Venoms films, but fucked if I can remember what.

[marquis_de_sad]

But, again again, what you REALLY ought to do is compare Kill Bill with the 36th Chamber, Lady Snowblood and Sister Streetfighter films.  I also recently seem to remember there being a whole sequence lifted wholesale from either the Crippled Avengers or one of the Five Deadly Venoms films, but fucked if I can remember what.

Kill Bill left me cold, and I didn't think Tarantino did anything interesting with his influences. But this isn't a Kill Bill thread.

I like the Cramps. They wear their influences on their sleeve. They flaunt them. Sometimes they do interesting things with their source materials, sometimes they don't. If someone said they didn't like the Cramps because they rip off other musicians... it's not even an argument I'd be able to counter, but it doesn't have any rhetorical weight either. All this stuff about Tarantino's blatant influences and copying leave me thinking "So... and...?" As I said, Reservoir Dogs clearly borrows heavily from City on Fire, but even despite those similarities, they feel like very distinct films. You haven't been able to convince me that Reservoir Dogs is bad because it isn't original.

[Shit Good Nose]

Then we shall agree to disagree.

[bgmnts]

I watch the fuck out of those Shaw brothers films because they're amazing but I can't remember any similarities to kill bill beyond the stock martial arts sounds.

[Shit Good Nose]

I watch the fuck out of those Shaw brothers films because they're amazing but I can't remember any similarities to kill bill beyond the stock martial arts sounds.

You're not remembering very well then...


(just to clarify - I did specify the 36th Chamber films - I never said Shaw Brothers in general - and also Lady Snowblood and Sister Streetfighter, which are, of course, not Shaw Brothers films cos they're Japanese)

[bgmnts]

Well you mentioned 3 separate films.

[Shit Good Nose]

More than three - there are three 36th Chamber films, two Lady Snowblood films and three Sister Streetfighter films and, from memory, there are direct lifts in the Kill Bills from all of them.

[bgmnts]

And this:

I also recently seem to remember there being a whole sequence lifted wholesale from either the Crippled Avengers or one of the Five Deadly Venoms films, but fucked if I can remember what.

So i assumed there be a general lifting from Shaw Brothers films. And I can't remembers that either.