Grindhouse

April 26, 2007

I thought we were comparing cinematography to music production here? ;)

My general point was just that the comparison between musicians who play their own instruments/self produce for themselves and directors who shoot their own stuff is not as direct as it sounds. Stevie Wonder and Prince could have careers as sessions musicians in their own right (Wonder has guested on Quincy Jones albums, Prince even played guitar on Wonder's last album!) and both have produced and performed for countless other artists (i.e directed vocal performances and played multi-instruments). You never hear of director/cinematographers like Soderbergh, Hyams, Rodriguez shooting other folks projects, and while yes we all agree there wouldn't be the financial incentives one would get directing/producing their own material, they have their own artistic agenda that prevents flexibility working under another director. Musicians like Prince and Wonder on the other hand can adapt to suit the needs of whatever artist they produce/perform for. To this end I think the director/cinematographers and self producing musicians are a world apart that cannot really be viewed as parallel.

Yikes, that's a headful...

Keith Mottram · April 26, 2007

I thought we were comparing cinematography to music production here? ;)

My general point was just that the comparison between musicians who play their own instruments/self produce for themselves and directors who shoot their own stuff is not as direct as it sounds. Stevie Wonder and Prince could have careers as sessions musicians in their own right (Wonder has guested on Quincy Jones albums, Prince even played guitar on Wonder's last album!) and both have produced and performed for countless other artists (i.e directed vocal performances and played multi-instruments). You never hear of director/cinematographers like Soderbergh, Hyams, Rodriguez shooting other folks projects, and while yes we all agree there wouldn't be the financial incentives one would get directing/producing their own material, they have their own artistic agenda that prevents flexibility working under another director. Musicians like Prince and Wonder on the other hand can adapt to suit the needs of whatever artist they produce/perform for. To this end I think the director/cinematographers and self producing musicians are a world apart that cannot really be viewed as parallel.

Yikes, that's a headful...

sorry if i seemed pedantic i just don't see it as an apropriate analogy actor/producer versus musician/producer makes sense and in this case we see plenty of actors who produce for other people and perform in their own and other productions. musically speaking the equivelent of a director is not really compareable. and if you were to use a closer (yet still dodgy) analogy then you would look at directors who also perform in other directors work and of this there are some tarantino being one...

April 26, 2007

I agree-

perhaps DPs could be best likened to music engineers? You get some producers who both engineer and produce on the same record (the Phil Spector's of the world keep it as a seperate discipline).

Christian Appelt · August 8, 2007

Today I saw DEATH PROOF - the "European version" also described as extended version with 127 minutes running time.

I thought QT had intended to replicate the look of 1970s exploitation films, but if he tried, he has failed except for the main titles. I thought very high of QTs visual abilities based on his other films, but it seems that without a good DP he is lost in the woods. DEATH PROOF looks just like bad lab work and IMHO captures none of the special visual texture that you find on 1970s low budget films.

Maybe the shorter US version has more impact, but this 127 minute cut is definitely the most boring film I have seen for years.

People talking boring stuff. Women's feet.

More boring stuff. More woman's feet.

A bit of action.

More boring stuff. More woman's feet.

Final action with a strangely cut-off climax.

Even Kurt Russell could not save this neverending unfunny picture.

About one fourth of the audience left mid-show.

If you have not seen DEATH PROOF, better get a DVD of SUPERVIXEN'S (1975), MOTORPSYCHO (1965) or FASTER, PUSSYCAT! KILL! KILL! - films with great cinematography, larger-than-life characters and direction that deliver.

But I enjoyed those "lab test ladies" during the end credits! B)

Edited August 8, 2007 by Christian Appelt

Dan Salzmann · August 8, 2007

I agree fully. Russ Meyer's work blows it out of the water. I saw the European release of grindhouse and found it to be complete rubbish. Not even worthy to be considered an homage to anything. A completely disappointing excuse for a film. Truly annoying in every sense of the word.

Ignacio Aguilar · September 1, 2007

The long version of "Death Proof" has been released here in Spain this weekend. It looks pretty bad, as intented, but the second half looks better in comparison. While the first part of the film seems to haven been pushed or even severily duped, with a lot of added dust, speckles and vertical lines, the second looks more clean and much less grainy.

What was the point? Did I miss something?

Any technical info on this title would be greatly appreciated ;)

Dan Salzmann · September 2, 2007

You didn't miss anything. In my opinion if you didn't see that film you wouldn't have missed anything.

A sad attempt at a copy of film genre. His influences blow that film away. One look at Russ Meyer's "Faster Pussycat Kill Kill" and you'll get what I mean.

Another example of Hollywood at it's worst.

Sorry for the rant but I really find that film annoying on all fronts.

Max Jacoby · September 2, 2007

What I find ironic is that they spend all this money to imitate films that were made incredibly cheap in the first place. Kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Dan Salzmann · September 2, 2007

Definitely, but with all that money they couldn't find today's Tura Sutana or anyone even close!

Marc Alucard · September 2, 2007

Definitely, but with all that money they couldn't find today's Tura Sutana or anyone even close!

You got that right!!!! "Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" was made for less than 1% of the budget of Grindhouse.

"Grindhouse" was a cool idea, and I love the concept but they broke Hitchcock's rule: "The length of a film should be directly related to the endurance of the human bladder"

I can't imagine what the 127 minute version of "Death Proof" is filled with.

The DVD releases are coming up. We will see how many versions are put out.

My favorite parts of "Grindhouse" was the fake trailers.

Christian Appelt · September 4, 2007

I can't imagine what the 127 minute version of "Death Proof" is filled with.

Boring talk. Women's feet. More boring talk. And so on...and on...and on...

Maybe Tarantino and the Weinsteins believed what the temporarily blind film director in Woody Allen's HOLLYWOOD ENDING said: "The French will love it". ;)

Marc Alucard · September 4, 2007

You didn't miss anything. In my opinion if you didn't see that film you wouldn't have missed anything.
A sad attempt at a copy of film genre. His influences blow that film away. One look at Russ Meyer's "Faster Pussycat Kill Kill" and you'll get what I mean.

Another example of Hollywood at it's worst.

Sorry for the rant but I really find that film annoying on all fronts.

"Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!" was on TCM last night.

Paul Bruening · September 4, 2007

I know someone that knew Tarantino casually back when he was a video store clerk up in Tennessee. While Tarantino has been celebrated as a genius in popular culture, the real person is not quite the same. Without sounding like a bad-mouther of someone successful when I am merely a total nobody, his reputation in the area is not one of a mature person. This seems to manifest frequently in his work. I respect him for his achievements, but I don't think I could stomach his company for very long. As well, his works seem a bit juvenile to me, albeit enjoyable.

Max Jacoby · September 5, 2007

Personally I think that while some of his films might have been all the rage when they were released, they also will age very badly. In a hundred years time, what will the point of 'Kill Bill' be?

Marc Alucard · September 5, 2007

Personally I think that while some of his films might have been all the rage when they were released, they also will age very badly. In a hundred years time, what will the point of 'Kill Bill' be?

Hello Max,

What percentage of films, theater, literature or music stand up to the "hundred year test'?

A handful of films a year is a generous estimate IMHO.

I have an over 2000 DVD library and I don't know if I have 50 that would qualify for a 100 years of relevance.

Cheers,

Marc

Lavern Templeton · September 5, 2007

Planet Terror succeeded in it's goals. Trashy, tasteless film-making that celebrates lowlifes, stylish violence, shameless sex scenes and shock value. All of QT's movies before this shared similar qualities and just added great acting. DeathProof however, sans nice editing, was a complete failure. While RR and his cast seemed to have had a hell of a lot of fun on the set, QT simply digresses into endless references, pointless conversation, and full frontal narcissism. Even the characters were cut-outs from his old movies(ex. Kim and Zoe=Jules and Vincent). DeathProof showed QT can create realistic dialogue, but someone should remind him to do what he does best. Craft grossly entertaining films. On a side note, the "MACHETE" trailer was hilarious.