(L/C?) "If you have to ask, you won't be able to understand."

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
That one's easy. The hard one is what was in the briefcase in PF?



[/ QUOTE ] NotReady, here's a fantastic essay on exactly what's in that briefcase:

Straightdope

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Tarantino is all style, no substance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really, I'd love to see you define "substance".
I disliked "300", which was very heavy on style, but I can articulate the reasons why. The characters were paper thin and not particularly likable, the dialog and acting were poor and the plot didn't engage me (probably for the former reasons). With the exception of Kill Bill which ignored character depth and plausible dialog for the most part, I don't see Tarantino's work in general having a substance deficit.

[/ QUOTE ]

After a rambling reply, I came to the conclusion that I don't think many big-budget movies have much substance. Still, I identify Tarantino with the approach in particular. Some whole genres (like grindhouse, kung-fu, zombies...) seem to emphasize style, and Tarantino likes those genres. Many of the conversations are ultimately inane, but great fun because they're given in a very polished way (anything with Agent Pink is a good example, especially the tipping argument). Absurdity and shameless fan service heighten the impression (basically all of Kill Bill, and much of Pulp Fiction)... The stories are usually simple in structure, and I rarely feel personally enriched afterward.

This isn't meant as criticism - I think it's by design. QT is a masterful entertainer, and that's all he's trying to be. Also I wouldn't call Snyder "style-over-substance." He can't do either, IMO. A glossy finish isn't the same as real style. And maybe Tarantino could do "substance" if he wanted to. He'd probably do better than most of the recent Oscar bait.

Define substance? For books, if I learn something new about life every time I read it, then it has substance. I'm not sure if that translates well to movies. Maybe, "if you put effort into it, you can get something meaningful out of it." I don't know. Compare "Kill Bill" to "Three Colors" and you'll see what I mean. It's almost different mediums, you can't really compare them. Or at least I can't - I should add a disclaimer that I'm a film newbie.

[foal]

I think films that put a lot of effort into character depth and nuance can be enjoyed in ways that other films cannot. I guess you could compare this to a slow and complex piece of classical music. The viewer/listener has to put effort in to get something out of it, like you say.

I agree that Tarantino doesn't shoot high in this regard. I also don't think he shoots lower than average either (Kill Bill being the exception).

[tame_deuces]

I typically enjoy films with no 'deeper' meaning alot more than I enjoy films who try to have such meaning. Most of the time such films just comes of as either pretentious or trying to hard to be special imo.

It is a bit better on the book side, but after having read maybe 1-2 books a week for some 20 years the patience for intellectual masturbation, fake and dishonest deeper meanings and pretty sounding profound truths grows exceptionally thin.

But the worst part is people who obviously force themselves through such things in a vain attempt to achieve intellectual superiority. (No not directed at anyone here, but I'm sure most of you know which kind of people I'm talking about).

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
With the exception of Kill Bill which ignored character depth and plausible dialog for the most part, I don't see Tarantino's work in general having a substance deficit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kill Bill had the most character depth and none of Tarantino's dialogue is "plasible." Hell, very little movie dialogue is "plausible."

[foal]

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, very little movie dialogue is "plausible."

[/ QUOTE ]
I mean--as someone who--who you know, like... um types out--transcribes audio tapes, I mean, I know this all too well, you know.