[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 112 KB, 910x596, 1386679414647.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4354859 No.4354859[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Does Quentin Tarantino's dialogue stand with the best the world of literature has to offer?

I can't think of a single novelist/playwright who's written dialogue as good as Tarantino's (inb4 shakespeare).

Also note I'm only asking about his dialogue, so no need to go on about his plots, characters, etc.

>> No.4354865

>>4354859
The Coen Brothers are much better.

>> No.4354869

Tarantino dialog is really not that great. There's some moments when it shines, but sometimes it just sounds so weird. True Romance is good though

>> No.4354897

>>4354859

>I can't think of a single novelist/playwright who's written dialogue as good as Tarantino's (inb4 shakespeare)

Wow, read more. I personally like carver's dialogue, but even lesser writers shit on tarantino

>> No.4354912
File: 103 KB, 450x677, url.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4354912

Inherent Vice is the only Pynchon I've read; but if the rest of his oeuvre has dialogue as good as this one's then I'd say Pynchon writes better dialogue.

>> No.4354918 [DELETED] 
File: 143 KB, 736x689, 1386187474903.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4354918

>> No.4354934

>>4354859
what the fuck

he does the theatrical 2clever4me style well, but if you were to define 'best' as 'naturalistic' he'd be right around the bottom of the list next to whedon and the guy that did 'in bruges'. fucking morons thinking there is an objective measure for art.

>> No.4355024

Everybody considers tarantino dialogues to be awesome. I think they arent and they never were, its just the hype and the social conditioning that makes you believe that.

>> No.4355033

i think tarantino movies are shit and so are the dialogues

>> No.4355035

>>4355024
>everybody
Nope, just teenagers who want to be able to say "look at me, I watch 'alternative' films with deeeep messages, I'm such a cinéphile" etc. The same sort of people who glorify Kubrick or Citizen Kane.

>> No.4355036

>>4354859
>Does Quentin Tarantino's dialogue stand with the best the world of literature has to offer?
Yes.

>> No.4355045

>>4354859
What? No it's mostly just edgy conversations about nothing. Very entertaining but as soon as they try to go into anything deep it's awful. Jules wanting to just leave everything behind and walk the earth? Come on, that's college girl tier it's just a nod to lone Ronin type of stuff that Tarantino loves.

>> No.4355049

>>4355045
The film never made any claims to be deep. In fact, it put all of its intentions in the title: "Pulp Fiction". It's only good on a first watch, when you're unsure what's going on and what's going to happen next, but you know some serious shit is happening.

Watching it a second time was the worst thing I could've done, it was embarrassing how banal it was looking back on it. The only thing it counts for is the experience.

>> No.4355064

>>4354934
Talk bad about whedon again and I'll kick your fucking teeth in

>> No.4355069

>>4355035
What movies do you watch?

>> No.4355071

>>4355064
I think you mean 'write a really whiny blog'

>> No.4355085

>>4355035
>Kubrick
Please talk shit about Kubrick so I can laugh at you

>> No.4355089

>>4355085
Uh oh, Kubrick brigade is here. Guys, keep it low

>> No.4355092

>>4355085
but he already did

>> No.4355112

>>4355024

>just the hype and the social conditioning

Not the one you responded to but that's just factually wrong because I had only heard that his movies were good (not reasons why) when I downloaded and watched Pulp Fiction for the first time and I thought the dialogue was fantastic. It's not really elevated language but poetry in vulgarity and banality. Letting conversations flow like they would in real life (about burgers and godly intervention) over a real meal just works for me.

To be fair though, I don't think it's as good as Shakespeare because it doesn't carry the same weight, both poetically and philosophically, but it's still great.

>> No.4355153

>>4355112
>Letting conversations flow like they would in real life >like they would in real life
>real life
confirmed for never had an actual conversation. you seriously think people talk like this?

>> No.4355171

>>4355153

Alright, I'll concede that it isn't real in that sense but it does contain subjects that people actually talk about.

>> No.4355173

>>4355112
He was the first to just include conversations for the sake of it which was probably refreshing for the industry and strengthened his title of Pulp Fiction. It's like he said, they'll talk about normal stuff, except the "they" is two ridiculously cool guys. Their dialogue is also well polished. However, I wouldn't consider it the best. It's what happens when you write and consistently rewrite dialogue for a long period of time. But i think no matter how good it sounds, it's still void of a deeper meaning. It's mostly a sensory experience, and like all such experiences, the rewards of the experience diminish with prolonged contact.
Without any underlying meaning, it becomes boring and lifeless, something that would take longer with dialogue which had layers of meaning, like in Taxi Driver, and Dostoyevsky.

>> No.4355175

I get the feeling a fair amount of his dialogue is just filler.

>> No.4355177

>>4355064
easy there sir impetence
see>>4355071

>> No.4355180

>>4355036
No.

>> No.4355184

No way. There's an overweening precocity to Tarantino dialogue which makes me feel like the only possible response is to pat the boy on the back and give him his gold star while I cringe and cringe inside and start looking for the remote.

>> No.4355187

>>4354859
What does good mean in this context? Is it enjoyment?

>> No.4355190

>>4355187
>autism

>> No.4355199

>>4355190
>logic

>> No.4355206

>>4355173
>He was the first to just include conversations for the sake of it
>Without any underlying meaning
I know OP didn't want to talk about plot, but here it is essential. Inb4: Pulp Fiction is pulp fiction.

It is a gratuitous exploration of the MacGuffin, and probably the best exploration of it ever. I've heard it said that the movie is very 'self aware.' Trolls can tear that explanation apart but then they miss the point of it.

Oh and comparing Tarantino to Shakespeare is ridiculous regardless of who you think is "better." They do different things. You'd be better off comparing Foucalt to hamburgers

>> No.4355236

>>4354859
>Does Quentin Tarantino's dialogue stand with the best the world of literature has to offer?
Absolutely not. Tarantino is great, but you've set that bar sky high.

>> No.4355240
File: 19 KB, 380x311, oscar wilde.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4355240

>>4354859
>I can't think of a single novelist/playwright who's written dialogue as good as Tarantino's (inb4 shakespeare).
Oscar fucking Wilde or James Joyce for that matter, or any number of other authors for whom a meal did not consist of potatoes.

>> No.4355245

>>4354934
>not liking In Bruges
Oh, come on, it was smart, funny, and poignant.

>> No.4355255

Reminds me of the picture I saw of "everything will become a meme if you say it enough times"
I think you are just confusing Tarantino with good dialogue because you are heavily influenced by all those awsome katanas flying around and but so you lose your ability to think.

>> No.4355257

>>4355245
>being this pleb

>> No.4355264

>>4355257
>being this devoid of meaningful criticism that your attempt to debase a film focuses solely on someone who enjoyed it

>> No.4355269

>>4355245
>>4355257
>>4355264
Not in this conversation so far, but Martin McDonagh is truly bad.

>> No.4355274

>>4355206
>>4355206
>>4355206
What they do is really not all that different. Both are crowd pleasers with works inspired by/directly drawn from well known stories and other artists work. Both work outside of genre, incorporating comedy, action and romance. Both are keenly aware of the medium they work in, and comment on it within their work. Think of the players in Hamlet and the actors/directors in Inglorious Basterds.

I'm not even sucking Tarantino's dick, I think the man himself is a child. But he makes excellent movies that are loved by people from every audience, pretentious film critics, ghetto plebs and blockbuster loving suburbanites. There's another similarity, wide appeal.

I would go as far as saying Tarantino is to movies what Shakespeare is to literature.

>> No.4355279

>>4355245
I didn't say it wasn't, just that it's dialogue is very theatrical.

>> No.4355302

>>4355274

>I would go as far as saying Tarantino is to movies what Shakespeare is to literature

Well, then you go too far.

>> No.4355322

guise what about David Mamet?

In terms of realistic and engaging dialogue he seems pretty high up there

>> No.4355340
File: 400 KB, 1350x1800, le-roi-et-l-oiseau.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4355340

Prévert's are way better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZJtMim3Cag
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZqAl5fERJgA

>> No.4355349

>>4355274

shakespeare didn't even write plays you fucking pleb

>> No.4355370

>>4355349
lol wut?

>> No.4355375

>>4355274

>I would go as far as saying Tarantino is to movies what Shakespeare is to literature.

Not even Tarantino would agree with this absurd statement.

Face it, Tarantino is basically a film geek re-making his favorite films by using their techniques, styles, motifs, and sometimes even their same shots to erect his cineboner to massive levels. That whole first scene of Inglorious Basterds is ripped straight out of Once Upon a TIme in the West, a far superior film in almost every aspect to anything Tarantino has ever done and probably will ever do.

Tarantino is great fun to watch, especially if you're a film geek. But to consider him the Shakespeare of film is pretty much like saying Radiohead is the Mozart of modern music...just please don't.

Besides, there are far better directors out there to watch and study. Cohen Bros, Jeff Nichols, John Hillcoat, etc. etc.

>> No.4355378

>>4355370

meant literature. whatever. that's pretty funny though... heh

>> No.4355523

>>4355375
Okay, yeah. You're right. I was mostly excited that I could draw parallels between the two. Anyway my point was that they both do similar things, even if they're nowhere near on the same level.

But how was the the Inglorious Basterds scene taken from Once Upon a Time? I see the similarities but it's not like it's an exact copy

>> No.4355535

>>4355035
yeah fuck people who watch movies

>> No.4355634

>>4355024
Watched his movies without knowing anything about him. Frankly I thought they'd be boring but he's great at his style. It's engaging, stylish, characterises the speakers. Gives a lot for the actors to work with too, I think.

>> No.4355710

If you can't enjoy Tarantino I'm interested to know what kinds of films you do like watching

>> No.4355740
File: 2.87 MB, 500x280, 1384489523178.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4355740

>>4354912
>oeuvre

>> No.4355746

>>4354859

the dialogue is nothing special at all, paul schrader would kill him in that department.

there's something about tarantino that makes people think they're clever

>> No.4355752

Why do plebs think Tarantino is the greatest thing since sliced bread?

It's like you've never seen a movie past 1990. Anyone with a brain Tarantino just rehashes and "pays homages" to movies and genres he liked. Pulp fiction is, guess what, a take on actual pulp fiction! He was a movie geek who got a lucky break and basically just recreated (stole) shit from his favorite films and call it a homage.

>>4355710
>If you can't enjoy Tarantino I'm interested to know what kinds of films you do like watching
Other films by other people? Are you this autistic?

>> No.4355787

>>4355340
awh shit I watched this in catalan as a child and it has seriously stuck with me since.
I sometimes have surreal nightmares about that king

>> No.4355800

>hating kubrick
Protip /tv/: hating good directors does not make you a special snowflake, especially when you willings eat up total shit (breaking bad, game of thrones, etc)

>> No.4355817

>>4355800
And the same goes for the tarantino and citizen kane hate: you come across as massive try-hards, hating things because they are popular for banal nitpicky reasons that mainly involve the audience and not the film itself.
Get the fuck off my /lit/

>> No.4355862

>>4355800
protip: Breaking Bad was excellently written

>> No.4355869

>>4354859
Quentin Tarantino's 3 Writers That Influenced Hi:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFlX-fsPWwQ

>> No.4355883

>>4355752
>Other films by other people? Are you this autistic?
i can tell you're neurotypical by the way you completely failed to glean that he wanted you to list specific films/directors

>> No.4355911

When did this board become more elitist than /mu/

>> No.4355914

>>4355911
You must be new here.

>> No.4355918

>>4355035
Kubrick is pretty cool though, and from a cinematographer's perspective Citizen Kane was really groundbreaking, objectively. Both are fairly worthy of the praise they receive

>> No.4355947
File: 37 KB, 510x508, fuck u.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4355947

>>4355800
>when you willings eat up total shit (breaking bad,

and go fuck yourself