Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
THE QT QUESTION: Talkin' Tarantino
#71
(08-13-2020, 05:28 PM)arjen rudd Wrote: Yeah, basement scene in Basterds is pretty much my choice for best scene in a Tarantino film.

Crap, then for podcast purposes I should probably come up with a different take.  What are my other options?  I feel like KILL BILL isn't anyone's favorite overall, but it has some contenders for top sequences (House Of Blue Leaves, the confrontation with Bill) scattered throughout.
Reply
#72
Pick any extended dialogue scene that isn't about TV or movies.
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Reply
#73
Well, Bill is monologuing about comic books when Beatrix confronts him, so I guess that's the winner.
Reply
#74
One of the things I find most refreshing in OUATIH is that there are very few pop-culture discussions. Sure, Act 3 hinges on a standard QT Hot Take, but for the most part the characters are all in the business and don't have to educate each other.
"I'd rather wake up in the middle of nowhere than in any city on Earth."--Steve McQueen
Reply
#75
(08-18-2020, 05:46 PM)hammerhead Wrote: Pick any extended dialogue scene that isn't about TV or movies.

So, the entirety of HATEFUL EIGHT?  I'd be cool with that.

But for me, my fave Best Tarantino scenes would be...
Walken/Hopper scene in TRUE ROMANCE
The Vincent and Mia stuff in PULP FICTION
Jackie and Max at the end of JACKIE BROWN
Almost everything with Cliff in ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD
Reply
#76
I love the scene with LaPadite that introduces Landa

basically the moment I knew I was totally in the movie's clutches

which was then later continued in a similar vein with the basement scene
Reply
#77
(08-18-2020, 05:54 PM)hammerhead Wrote: One of the things I find most refreshing in OUATIH is that there are very few pop-culture discussions. Sure, Act 3 hinges on a standard QT Hot Take, but for the most part the characters are all in the business and don't have to educate each other.

I would apply that compliment to BASTERDS instead.  OUATIH is lousy with pop culture discussions, but they feel different because they are pulling from a different era - FBI and LANCER are not contemporary touchstones, and even if THE GREEN HORNET and THE GREAT ESCAPE and BATMAN kind of are - and because they are distorted through the alternate history lens.  I honestly got annoyed when QT was doing press for the movie and all he seemed to ever want to talk about was the alternate hypothetical career paths he had mapped out for Rick Dalton in his head if he doesn't go to Italy, or if he does, or if the murders don't happen or if they do.  

That annoyance was sort of the secret origin story for this podcast, as it got me thinking about how the (imo) much more interesting thematics about the relation of history to entertainment and fantasy seemed to be almost incidental for him, and his real heart seemed to be entirely ruled by the geeking out over film industry minutia.
Reply
#78
(08-13-2020, 05:28 PM)arjen rudd Wrote: Yeah, basement scene in Basterds is pretty much my choice for best scene in a Tarantino film.

Not Dennis Hopper's monologue in True Romance?

Reply
#79
Basement scene and the opening interrogation at the farmhouse are both just about perfect.
Reply
#80
(08-18-2020, 06:10 PM)Nooj Wrote: I love the scene with LaPadite that introduces Landa

basically the moment I knew I was totally in the movie's clutches

which was then later continued in a similar vein with the basement scene

Two interrogation scenes where they interrogator is hiding some of their cards, which is, as we were discussing, the QT special.

I'm also convinced that the basement scene was originally conceived to be a Landa scene, and reworked to introduce and dispatch Hellstrom when he realized it was trending toward a bloodbath and he would still need Landa for the finale.  Much as I am convinced that Walken and Gandolfini's characters in TRUE ROMANCE were the same guy in the first draft, and only got divided because they could only get Walken for one day or something.
Reply
#81
(08-18-2020, 06:16 PM)schwartz Wrote: Much as I am convinced that Walken and Gandolfini's characters in TRUE ROMANCE were the same guy in the first draft, and only got divided because they could only get Walken for one day or something.

Never thought of that before... Interesting!
Reply
#82
(08-18-2020, 06:16 PM)Steve Gandhi Wrote: Much as I am convinced that Walken and Gandolfini's characters in TRUE ROMANCE were the same guy in the first draft, and only got divided because they could only get Walken for one day or something.

I have no idea what in the script leads you to this conclusion, but I'm intrigued.  What's the source for this notion?

Walken's character even goes so far as to say he doesn't get his hands dirty, and he's portrayed as rolling with numerous henchmen, but he's going to wait by himself to muscle information out of Arquette's character?

Reply
#83
Just the general sense that screenwriting 101 would say there is no reason to have a one-off villain just disappear after killing a fairly significant character, only to have another one-off villain from the same crew with the same objective pop up to go through such similar paces in the next act. For a movie that otherwise doesn't leave any hanging threads at all, Walken's character just not bothering to follow up personally when the plot moves to LA always felt a bit weird.


*Gandolfini has a brief scene with Floyd and is in the background of the Hopper interrogation, but it feels like a one-scene wonder performance
Reply
#84
It's an interesting concept. I mean, Vincent Coccotti has no other scenes in the film, right? Could've easily been Gandolfini's character from the get go. It'd make sense, having the same threat showing up again here and there. There is that one shot in the trailer or something Walken saying he wants Clarence "taken off at the neck." Was that in the film? It's been a while, I can't quite remember.
Reply
#85
(08-18-2020, 06:45 PM)Steve Gandhi Wrote: *Gandolfini has a brief scene with Floyd and is in the background of the Hopper interrogation, but it feels like a one-scene wonder performance

This is EXACTLY what I was looking for a copy of the movie to check!  I had a dim recollection that Gandolfini was one of the henchmen in the background of that scene (giving him an introduction before the motel room confrontation), but it's been a few years ... TIME FOR A REWATCH OF ONE OF MY FAVORITE FILMS!

Reply
#86
Isn't Walken saying he hasn't killed a man since 1982 (or thereabouts?) the perfect reason for him not showing up again in the rest of the film? It's a perfect encapsulation of Hopper getting to him and the exact reason he doesn't show up again. Him personally going after them would rob the moment of it's power and Tarantino knows that.

I can't imagine Walken showing up to dish out a beating like Gandolfini did. That's the exact reason why you have have henchmen as a mob boss. To get their hands dirty while you sit in the shadows. Why would he still get personally involved when the last thing he wants is to be a murder suspect. Walken not showing up again is the most realistic thing in the entire film.
Reply
#87
(08-18-2020, 09:40 PM)Shreds Wrote: Isn't Walken saying he hasn't killed a man since 1982 (or thereabouts?) the perfect reason for him not showing up again in the rest of the film? It's a perfect encapsulation of Hopper getting to him and the exact reason he doesn't show up again. Him personally going after them would rob the moment of it's power and Tarantino knows that.

I can't imagine Walken showing up to dish out a beating like Gandolphini did. That's the exact reason why you have have henchmen as a mob boss. To get their hands dirty while you sit in the shadows. Why would he still get personally involved when the last thing he wants is to be a murder suspect. Walken not showing up again is the most realistic thing in the entire film.

Steve's theory is bold, but perhaps too bold.

Reply
#88
I believe Walker’s character is written to be a one scene Walken character. The speculation is that in an earlier version of the script, those roles could easily have been combined as they serve a similar narrative function. If they’re one character, one assumes they’re a combination of the two.

This is not an alternate cut or anything. Just fanwank about the writing process, as apparently Tony Scott straightened out an earlier, less linear Tarantino draft.
Brigadier Cousins on PSN
Reply
#89
I believe the theory is True Romance, Reservoir Dogs and Natural Born Killers were once one long meandering script, before being split up into three different movies. The most obvious clue being Lawrence Tierney asking Mr. White how Alabama is doing.

The Walken/Hopper scene hinges on Walken's character being Walken's character to such an important degree that I don't believe that Tarantino, the screenwriter who has seen every gangster film ever and who thrives on subverting your expectations while playing to those expectations, intended for that guy to be the same character who beats the shit out of the female lead, especially considering it was once part of a much longer script with even more different characters.
Reply
#90
Ok. Well, it’s all speculation.
Brigadier Cousins on PSN
Reply
#91
Right, this is just my conjecture about what might have been in the earliest forms of the scenes, probably before there even was a complete script. The idea of Walken and Gandolfini being one character makes a ton more dramatic sense to me than establishing two layers of mobster baddies (in Walken and the never-seen Blue Lou Boyle) that the heroes never even encounter. Sure, it is maybe more realistic that an underboss wouldn't make the trip to LA, but it creates a loose end in a movie otherwise devoid of them and anyway the movie is not exactly striking for its realism in any other way*. Depriving the Worleys, and audience, of the chance for bloody familial vengeance for Hopper's murder also doesn't seem to gibe with the Tarantino sensibility as we see it in the rest of his filmography.

In any case, the contortions it takes to envision this version of the script seem to pale in comparison to what would be required to, for example, square away the characterization of Alabama we get in the movie with some sort of past as a bank robbing partner to Mr. White. But it is generally accepted that there was a some nascent version of the character that blended the two with parts that ended up in other movies (personally, it always seemed to me that Mr. White's reference in RESERVOIR conjured up something closer to Yolanda/Honeybunny in PULP FICTION than Arquette in ROMANCE).


*it is very gritty, but the difference between grittiness and realism is a topic John and I love to bat around
Reply
#92
I can see all that being used together in an FX series a'la Fargo. True Natural Dog Romance
If I could change to liquid, I'd fill the cracks and bend the rocks.
Reply
#93
You could certainly have Pumpkin and Honeybunny show up as well, and at some point you should at least have an easter egg of someone using Max Cherry Bail Bonds to get out of an arrest.
Reply
#94
With sneaky low-key alt-history suggestions, too.

Fuck it . . . I kind of like the idea.
If I could change to liquid, I'd fill the cracks and bend the rocks.
Reply
#95
And the Vega Brothers, as always.

Honestly, I think there’s a solid chance something like that happens.
Brigadier Cousins on PSN
Reply
#96
And yet, with Michael Keaton as Ray Nicolette showing up in Steven Soderberg's OUT OF SIGHT, I feel that everything JACKIE BROWN should stay in the "Elmore Leonardverse" rather than be included in a "Tarantinoverse." Having those realms combined seems wrong to me for some reason.
Reply
#97
I think you can simultaneously keep Nicolette in the Leonardverse, but have Ordell Robey cameo in the Tarantinoverse to supply the Reservoir Dogs with their weapons, complain to Marsellus about losing on a fixed fight, or what have you.
Reply
#98
Meh. I liked Jackson's quick cameo at the end of OUT OF SIGHT, but was glad he wasn't playing a QT character or anything.
Reply
#99
What was that movie with Mos Def as Ordell Robbie and John Hawkes as the DeNiro character? Does that fit in the Nicolette-verse?
Brigadier Cousins on PSN
Reply
The real Leonard-verse is obviously Carla Gugino crossing over to Justified as "Not Karen Sisco"
Reply
JUSTIFIED was so frickin good.
Reply
Arjen: I had no idea it existed. LIFE OF CRIME, based on the novel THE SWITCH by Elmore Leonard, so def Leonardverse.
Just watched the trailer, is it as obnoxious as it looks?
Reply
Life of Crime stunk.
Reply
Preview for JACKIE BROWN:

"Across 110th Street" is still a banger.
Reply
OOOOOOOO

oooOOOooooo

ooOOOOooooOoooOoooo
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)