/lit/ - Literature

Pic unrelated, I hope.

>>2571332
Pic very related. Tarantino said he'll become a 'man of letters' at age 60.

Ya, not Quentin Tarantino. His writing is terrible. His direction is average. And he claims he's a genius. It seems when you move to Hollywood, writers give themselves an IQ boost the same way actors give themselves a height boost.

>>2571338
First of all, what the fuck are you talking about? One doesn't just "become" a "man of letters."

>>2571343
I suppose you could do better?

>>2571345
What? Of course you do. Don't be retarded.

>>2571350
Sorry to shatter your dreams, Johnny, but they don't.

>>2571345
There's all that hormone therapy and counselling followed by microsurgery.

>>2571343

His writing is phenomenal. He has an incredible ear for dialogue, and he is a gifted storyteller.

I actually like him right where he is, since the actors he works with and the incredible soundtracks he puts together only add to the brilliance of his writing.

Doesn't matter, I would read anything he wrote immediately.

I remember Michael Fassbander the boon of /tv/ relating some story about Tarantino on NPR a while back. Apparently Fassbander put on a dramatic performance of Reservoir Dogs in high school, and when he told Tarantino this while making Inglorious Basterds, he was like "Heyyeahwhatevermanaslongasyou'renotmakingmoneyoffmyshit."

>>2571338
That doesn't sound very smart. Tarantino is a movie guy. His movies are all about referencing other movies. He's seen every movie ever. He's not a literature guy.

>>2571349

I could be hungover and bleeding out and still do better. Tarantino is a hack. When you grow up, you'll realize this.

>>2571343

The mistake people often make with Quentin Tarantino is confusing his shitty personality with his talent and his genius, because he is both very talented and a genius, but because he's a dick, people feel they can write these things off.

>His direction is average.

Just like that.

I would be interested in reading something from Jason Friedberg.

Yeah, Tarantino is borderline-illiterate. Most filmmakers are working primarily in their chosen medium for good reason - the Coen brothers turn out great, amazingly-readable screenplays but I'd rather rewatch The Ladykillers than reread Ethan's book.

It's amazing to me how that even 20 years later, people are still sucking Tarantino's dick because of Pulp Fiction. Sure he made an all right movie, but Roger Avery pretty much wrote the whole thing and Tarantino took credit. Then he formed his whole aesthetic around what Avery wrote. Educate yourselves.

There was a thread a while back about books that should exist The two mentioned I remember were Aaron Sorkin's coke diaries and David Spade's memoir about his friendship with Chris Farley. I would read the shit out of those two.

>>2571383
Speaking of Roger Avery, The Rules of Attraction is horrifically, criminally, wanted-for-war-crimes-at-The-Hague overlooked.

I suppose you kids think that Tarantino just came up with all that dialogue in his head? No, he just stole from people he heard growing up and used the words they said. Why has everything hes written since Jackie Brown has horrible dialogue? Because hes already used up all the lines he saved up.

>>2571383
>>2571405
Too true. Watch some of his interviews
He's so bad at speaking he has to constantly flail his arms about to get his point across

>>2571383

No doubt, a great deal of that praise involved the directing.

>>2571405

Source? Also, how the hell do you figure that the dialogue since Jackie Brown is terrible? Who are you kidding?

Michael Bay would be the best novelist.

>>2571383

They both wrote it. Tarantino contributed as much to the script as Avery did, and Avery isn't bitter about it, so why are you?

>>2571405

>implying Inglourious Basterds doesn't have top notch dialogue that could hold it's own against the likes of Goodfellas and No Country for Old Men.
>implying any dialogue is actually original and not just "stolen" from personal acquaintances of writers and conglomerations of their favorite movies.

Jackie Brown was his best film.

>Leeeewis

>>2571441
>implying Inglourious Basterds doesn't have top notch dialogue that could hold it's own against the likes of Goodfellas

See, here's the thing: Tarantino has basically lifted Scorcese's dialogue style. Hell, he basically lifts everything and gets praised for it.

>>2571467

Eh, sorry, I'm not really seeing this. Could you post some examples?

I'd love to see what kind of novel this man would write...

>>2571467

I'll give your argument some consideration if you post something that lends it credit. A source of some sort, that proves that you're not just trying to find ways to discredit Tarantino despite his accomplishments.

But to prove I'm not just sucking Tarantino's dick here,

>>2571430

This, I'd buy. The world's first pop-up novel.

Also, didn't somebody mention here a while back that Kaufman was thinking about writing a novel? I don't know how well he'd be able to, er...adapt to that medium, but if it were anything like his films, it would be interesting.

>thinking QT is anything but a hack

I seriously hope you are less than 23 years of age.

>>2571487
>>2571487

I'd love to see a Kaufman novel, it might turn out to be shit, but it'd be interesting to see how he puts together a narrative solely with prose...

>>2571490
>>2571490

>Implying Tarantino isn't an intentional hack

>>2571487
>The world's first pop-up novel.
Dude. That made me laugh so hard.

>>2571478
See anonymous 2011 p234 in which it was decided that liking relatively mainstream directors who decide to go beyond the call of hollywood cliche but don't qualify as art house must be inherently hateful because it's not cool to be good at making movies.

Groovy Uwe

>>2571501
Oh so it's the whole "I want people to see me as an intellectual but my worst fear is people seeing me "trying" to be seen as an intellectual" attitude that fuels 95% of the people on /lit/.

Tarkovsky could have been a poet.

>>2571467
>Hell, he basically lifts everything and gets praised for it.

"Hey QT, your movie is exactly like this movie."
"I never seen that movie."

A different interview:

"Hey QT, your movie is exactly like this one."
"Uhh, I was paying homage to it."

Another interview:

"Hey everything you do is like all these directors and all your films have already been made."
"Homage"
"Why are you a hack?"
"Homage"

>>2571525
>>2571525

He was.

Quentin Tarantino love, and hate, is something I've always found interesting because it's something that exists almost completely outside his own personality and viewpoints. No one can tell what his movies are supposed to be about. Haters and lovers frequently make up a personality for him, as well as a filmography related to him.

It really is amazing how one guy managed to turn into this weird, polarizing cultural phenomenom. That's how things go I guess.

>>2571501
>>2571513

Well, yeah. The incredible thing is that it's not as though /lit/ is stupid - I'd venture a guess that most of the people here are smarter and better educated that most people their age. But they're still bound to the same stupid tendencies people have. Like when a great work of whatever comes around, and people heap unwarranted praise on the author - they're not acting rationally, because they ought to be able to scale it back somewhat, and form a balanced opinion. And then the likes of /lit/ comes along, and, in an attempt to step above the status quo by one level, and say, "No, actually FUCK this guy, he's not that great." And just like that, a person has evaluated a fairly decent author's work as utter poop, probably because he dislikes something about it, and thus feigns some sort of superiority over all the suckers who actually thought this novel or whatever it was is great.

Where as, the few true intellectuals I've ever come into contact with almost always have this in common: they're always hesitant when reviewing something, and when asked, "is such and such good or bad?", they'll answer by giving an answer that expands far beyond this one-dimensional, bipolar spectrum, and give an honest answer. It's absolutely disturbing how rare that is on this board. You would think that, for a people that spend as much time as they do here, enjoying art and literature, we would be able make full use of our experienes and our minds and form careful, rounded opinions on works, but instead, it's just
>Quentin Tarantino is a poopy face and I hate his fuckbutt dialogue trololololo

>>2571563
>>2571563

This anon agrees with you 100%, sir. So much snobbery and anti-snob snobbery on this board, so few opinions actually get through the dreck...

>>2571563
This is a point, but most people are criticizing not the work itself, but rather the biography of the director. They're calling him a plagiarist, which kinda makes the whole point moot. A well-educated man would probably dismiss an interesting work if he found out it was plagiarized from something. So, wheter QT is a plagiarist or not, this is what's defining /lit/'s opinion of him.

>>2571563
true. most people just give like one line sentences or responses and never really put more than 15 seconds of thought into what they say.

In Tarantino the titans of the Information Age see the world remade in their terms, with their cliches, according to their formulas. He is pointing the way to a golden future in which there is no longer any difference between what people are told they want and what they think they want. In his frail, hyperactive body the industry sees the two great functions of "creative" and "marketing" coalesce seamlessly and ooze with sincerity; making, selling and living junk; the dream of perfect reception fulfilled.

>>2571576

And my response would be, given what
>>2571531
said, is that we're not really adressing plagiarism, but Tarantino's focus on "homage", and relabeling it as plagiarism because it's more fitting to call it that if we hate him. If the anon I referenced were able to pull out some groundbreaking citations that proved that Tarantino were merely a plagiarist - and, I'm not entirely involved in the film community, but I've not heard of any controversy regarding this - then I'd give this anon some credit. But as it is, it just looks like he's taking Tarantino's habit of bringing us dated and dead genres of film - blaxploitation, ninja, western, etc. - and his habit of carefully crafting dialogue (apparently stolen from Scorsese?) and using it to justify the idea he already has about Tarantino. And that's how bad opinions are formed: backwards.

The 'fun' argument for Tarantino is based on a consensus, and if this consensus wasn't in place, based on the presumption that he *knows* that we know, and man isn't this just so incredibly fucking cool that we both know, nobody would be having any fun with Quentin. When his frail body crouches, we eagerly open our mouths for more of his special chocolate because we know that we will recognise the taste.

>>2571592

you're honestly overthinking it... he's a schlock filmmaker who likes making references to old films... he's pretty damn brilliant at putting together scenes and he's not a bad writer. I fear that people discount him as a filmmaker for the fact that he's not an artist, it's honestly irrelevant

>>2571596
Well, there's a thin line between homage and plagiarism. There's this movie called "Who do you think you're fooling" that claims Reservoir Dogs shared its plot with an earlier Hong Kong crime movie called City on Fire. And according to the guy who made the film, Tarantino claims not to have seen it. So, anti-tarantino people will point that out as an example of alledged plagiarism.

Of course, as far as I know, they're making shit up as they go, since I've never seen any interview of Tarantino saying anything about these movies.

>>2571651

>>2571550
Indeed, all the others that have been posted are ridiculous. Do people actually enjoy their movies?

>>2571658

I honestly have a hugely wide margin of taste... I like art house as much as some mainstream flicks... But Tarkovsky's working on an entirely different plane, his work is insanely brilliant and original

mfw watching tarkovsky movies

>>2571563
Well, yeah. The incredible thing is that it's not as though /lit/ is stupid - I'd venture a guess that most of the people here are smarter and better educated that most people their age. But they're still bound to the same stupid tendencies people have. Like when a mediocre work of whatever comes around, and people heap unwarranted criticism on the author - they're not acting rationally, because they ought to be able to scale it back somewhat, and form a balanced opinion. And then the likes of /lit/ comes along, and, in an attempt to step above the status quo by one level, and say, "No, actually FUCK this status quo, he's great." And just like that, a person has evaluated a fairly decent author's work as utter genius, probably because he likes something about it, and thus feigns some sort of superiority over all the suckers who actually thought this novel or whatever it was is trash.

>>2571668

It's not for everyone, haha.

David Cronenberg.

I really can't think of any. Kubrick probably could have written a good book. So could Aronofsky I bet. But when I like a director, it's specifically because they're good directors. I don't the skills needed to be a good director and a good writer necessarily overlap.

-I'm alienated

-Let me save you


-No.

>>2571682
>aronofsky

>>2571483
Hey look. The only real writer present in this list.

>>2571682
>>2571692
Aronofsky creates amazing visuals. That's it. He's an amazing director who I love and hope he never tries to write a fucking book.

Harmony Korine (has one novel out and I wish there were many more), and Werner Herzog

>>2571695
What makes you say that?

>>2571694
he's working on a novel now!

>>2571695
What Aronofsky is good at is giving a visual representation of what is going on inside someone's head i.e Pi, Black Swan, and Requiem. He just hasn't done any solo writing that I find impressive. The theme of Black Swan was basically, 'chicks need to get laid.' Seriously? Could he prose oversweep such a lame theme as well as his visual presentation?

>>2571719
Shut up! When's it coming out?

>>2571694
>>2571694

>implying Bergman, Solondz, Tarkovsky, etc. aren't writers...

>>2571720

His only decent film is The Wrestler, and he didn't write it...

>>2571723
No word yet, just keep an eye on beingcharliekaufman.com they'll have the news first. And ignore their April 1st post about the plot obviously.

>>2571775

>lol he hasn't seen the fountain

>>2571777

nice trips. do you know what the plots supposed to be?

>>2571779

I've seen all his films, The Fountain impressed me very little, but it wasn't as bad as Black Swan. Requiem is passable as entertainment but The Fountain is a little shlocky and poorly acted. His visuals are always fairly impressive but that's about it... The Wrestler was a pretty fantastic character piece, though.

Tarantino is the only one I can really think of. I'm sure there are other writer/directors that could do well in literature, but most good directors express their stories best through film so I wouldn't necessarily want them to put their stories into literature instead. Tarantino, however, just sits back and lets Bob Richardson/Sally Menke tie together his great scripts. I think I'd enjoy reading a Tarantino novel more than I enjoy watching one of his films.

also the Coen Bros., but it'd be hard for them to top their work in film. Barton Fink is a fucking masterpiece of cinema

>>2571780
I wish I did. I'm excited to find out, he's never disappointed with anything he's written imo.

Todd Solondz could write something pretty good I bet, even though his last two films were total shit.

>>2571799

I've only seen Happiness and Dollhouse, fucking loved both of 'em.

>>2571787

The Fountain was beautiful. It's my favorite film.

Agree to disagree.

I've always thought Greenaway was possibly the most literary writer/director (at least to work in English) in film history. It's too bad his later films neglected narrative and dialogue, because his early films employed them so well.

Did David Milch write any books?

>>2571787

>poorly acted

Bitch, Jackman was the shit on that film. He made me cry a little when the tree died Don't know about the other whore, I don't remember the details.

>>2571810

Fair enough, sir. Taste is an interesting and diverse thing.

>>2571823

Sorry, I didn't think Jackman or Weisz were all that good, but such things are subjective.

>>2571813

well, to be fair he sort of started leaving literature aside and play more with visual techniques and effects because he wanted to develop a language that was purely cinematic, as opposed to just making visual literature

not sure he succeeded, but that's what he was aiming at

>>2571827

Why do you think they weren't?

I'm interested.

>>2571670

Copy/pasted with a few changes is sometimes a really vague argument because it can range anywhere from complete sarcasm to slight modification of the original argument, so you'll have to forgive me if I don't quite know what's going on here.

Though (a) I haven't read Snow Crash so I don't know what the popular take on that book is or how good it is, and (b), yes, it certainly works the other way, where a decent work will be vaulted to the top of public opinion by an elite few, for the same purpose I listed before: to appear or feel superior, but it usually doesn't happen that way, unless it's a semi-obscure work to begin with, and the person reviewing it has the opinion that, "No, you guys don't understand just how good it is." Usually it's a decent work with heaps of praise that cynical reviewers completely dismiss.

>>2571849
>>2571849

Weisz's performance in particular struck me as rather forced, it felt unnatural. Jackman was decent, i suppose, but nothing to rave about. I didn't feel much for his character, I don't think he gave the performance what he is probably capable of doing

a man who excelled at both

>>2572067
I hope his writing is better than his films.

I've only seen 120 Days, but there was something so static and wooden about it. Not a very cinematic film.

On Aronofsky: I still think Pi and Black Swan are his best. Pi made me think he could write a good novel. The Fountain was beautiful, but parts of it were just soooooo hoaky to me, Like blasting off in a bubble space ship to the milky way, or whatever. I didn't think the acting was great.

And Requiem for a Dream, ugh. Did not like. Too heavy handed and too many sequences were just like movie videos. We get it, addiction is bad. You don't have to intercut a guy getting his arm cut off, a woman raped, and I forget the other situation to rape our minds... We get the idea. Everyone knows addiction can do bad things to you.

I loved, loved, loved Black Swan though.

Peter Greenaway Bro: Have you seen Nightwatching? It's a bit of a return to his earlier style .

I think Kaufman could write a great novel.

>>2571487
> don't know how well he'd be able to, er...adapt

Lol Adaptation pic not found

>>2571328
Not fucking quients that's for sure.
He only works in film because he rips off all the b-movies he watched while working at the video rental store.

Gotta say Neill Blomkamp with District 9

>>2572105
>I've only seen 120 Days

Get the fuck out with that shit. Come back when you've seen the following and tell me he is 'wooden and static'

- The Gospel According to St. Matthew
- Accattone
- Mamma Roma
- The Decameron
- Teorema

Also, read his novel 'A Life of Violence' and tell me again how misguided you are

>>2572281
>A Life of Violence

Should be 'A Violent Life'

>>2572281
Wait, I thought you were arguing against him being wooden and static? You've pretty much just posted a forest in a lightning storm.

>>2572287
Explain to me why you think he is 'wooden and static' then. I'm intrigued to know.

>>2572287
How can you argue against him being "wooden and static" when these terms have simply been thrown out into the aether? If someone were to actually apply these terms to an aspect of his direction rather than casually throwing them around and expecting people to understand such extremely vague criticisms they might get a better response.

>>2572295
Guy doesn't know how to set up a shot. Look at how he always positions his actors, head centre of shot. It's like how someone like yourself would take pictures of his friends while you sit in a field drinking white lightning.

>>2572308
>>2572308

Watch more movies, friend. Accatonne and St. Matthew are both amazing films.

Lars Von Trier could tell you what's up

he does it through films instead though

>>2571822
Wrote a novel while at Yale/Iowa Writer's Workshop. Would likely be the novelist of a generation had he kept at it. Robert Penn Warren and Cleanth Brooks stamp of approval.

Took the TV/heroin route, I feel sad for that.

>>2571822
To further this, he didn't want to publish said novel.

David Milch is in a different category intellectually than anyone listed here save Terrence Malick, and Milch's mind and gift would serve literature and/or drama much better.

Even to compare a collage artist like Tarantino to an artist of David Milch's capability is awfully pleb, /litizen.

The only answer is Charlie Kaufman

Jim Jarmusch maybe

lol Tarantino, no thanks lol

Martin Mcdonagh

>>2574853
mcdonagh's playwriting is great...what more could you want? i guess a novel of his might turn out like the pillowman, which is his play i like least....

also tarantino is pretty similar to mcdonagh, man, and mcdonagh's a big fan of him!

>>2576223
although, having said that, i'm playing the taste wars- as much as i love tarantino, he couldn't write a good novel i'm betting

>>2571430
>BOOM BOOM BOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM! KA-BAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You are correct,sir. Winning literature indeed.

>>2571723
http://m.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/03/charlie-kaufman-gets-book-deal-childish-lives-chi
ldrens-authors/50503/

Looks like it's still way up in the air. I'm very excited for it, though, it'll be interesting to see what he does given that kind of absolute creative control.

Some Other Thoughts: I love Milch but I also kind of love it when he gets taken down a peg. I feel like he is the artistic equivalent to a handsome man who needs to be slapped across the face on a regular basis lest he turn into James Franco. If that makes any sense, which it doesn't. I think Milch ended up on Richard Yates' shit list for some reason, a situation which doesn't necessarily speak badly of him and which I don't wanna research right now. I think it was kind of an Anakin/Obi-Wan situation, if Obi-Wan had been a miserable drunk.

For me the big problem with film/tv artists-turned-writers is that they usually don't have the same level of best-in-the-game talent as prose stylists that they do as screenwriters or directors, and who can get that mad at them for it? To use a less lofty example, Tina Fey's book is fun and entertaining and clearly identifiable as the work of a smart, witty person, but it's nowhere near as shit-hot as a pretty good episode of 30 Rock.