The Quentin Tarantino Archives logo

Two points made by QT

Ive seen about five official interviews with QT, in them he made a number of points relating to his films, two points in pirticular sutck out as being quite intriging.

  1. “Some scenes cut from films are actually better than the film itself”

  2. "Just before he cut of his ear you liked him, you liked how he danced, his clothes and when BHAM he cut off his ear you were an accessory, you supported him, you feel guilty"

    Number 1 refers to Pulp Fiction and how the selection of presenting the story is very different to 99% of other films.

    Number 2 refers to you know what but is still very interesting, all about playing with the viewers mind, sucking it into the film.

    Now these came as a real revelation, the same way that the Godfather films aren’t about gangsters but about a family who just happen to be gangsters - if gives a whole new way of looking at the films.

    But as a screenwriter how do you incorporate the two points QT made.? I think

  3. Dont think of the commercial crap that ends up in a bargain bin 6 months later (Charlies Angels)

  4. You think constantly about the viewer

    Anything else?

well I just think that when making a film, one should definitely not look at the money side or how well it’s gonna do…

recently I watched the Paul Newman interview on the Butch & Sundance DVD and he said, that some movies are just being made for “the movie being made” and the others are being made for the money, for a budget, for a schedule, for a release date.

that pretty much gets it to the point. people nowadays are working business in movies, they’re not trying to get a great idea on screen, they’re trying to get any idea on screen to make money with.

now i think, QT’s approach to movie making is very good, he thinks about what he’s like, what the fans would like and and he doesn’t really care about the success at the box office.

these two points you posted, I actually agree with it.

  1. there are tons of movies that just suck, but have a few scenes in it that make you buy the movie (Mission Impossible 2, for example)
  2. of course Blonde is a fucking asshole (see topic in the Dogs section), I never doubted that. I don’t know why people sympathise with the fucker, I don’t get that. I didnt like him before OR after he cut the poor SOB’s ear off…

The thing is though its always been the same - yes there maybe a few years in which a number of good films come out but all in all there are only five or so good films out each year, yes people are looking to make lots of money but what im trying to get at is the ‘golden tough’ what seperates James Cameron’ sci-fi work from everything else.

Is it just STORY?

Both points are main things that separate QTs films from other average program pictures that are churned out every year.

QT creates his films in novelistic ways, for him, doing it the regular linear way is boring. He really is all about fucking up the way we experience movies. The way he tells his stories are novelistic and off center, but it also makes the stories more resonant. They stay in your mind longer. Theyre also a big breath of fresh air.

Story and characters are most important in a film. If you dont have those you cant do anything special. What separates QTs films from the rest is his a) writing and b) his love of cinema.

If youre a screenwriter you need to find your own voice. You DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT be making movies for other people alone. You should be making movies you would want to see.

I think QTs best talent is his way of speaking to the audience. Yet, hes not following, hes leading us. He tells the audiences that go see his films what HE thinks is cool. Some people listen and get it and enjoy it, others just dont. Hes making a huge contribution to modern cinema with his unique way of executing the stories he tells.

films are made to make money!!!

whats better to have millions of dollars or have a rabid cult fan community?

you have to walk the line between both like Ridley Scott does