3 hour QT western...I'm in!Originally Posted by coldmess
3 hour QT western...I'm in!
"The Dark Knight Rises" suggests otherwise.
It doesn't surprise me that "Django Unchained" is potentially three hours, as the best of Leone's best tended to be that long.
Now they need to hurry the hell up and announce the soundtrack release.
Last edited by OscarsFan 2.3; 11-07-2012 at 12:38 AM.
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION - INOCA 2012
Tarantino looks like Madam of Wayland Flowers and Madam.
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION - INOCA 2012
Is Blanchett still peeing on film stills?
"Monsieur Candie, whenever you're ready."
Want now.
FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION - INOCA 2012
Bullseye?
You can't have a western without cheese.Bullseye?
“I met six different actors and had extensive meetings with all of them, and I went in-depth on all of their work,” Tarantino tells Playboy (in the issue that will be on stands Nov. 20). “Idris Elba, Chris Tucker, Terrence Howard, M.K. Williams [from HBO's Boardwalk Empire], Tyrese. They all appreciated the material, and I was going to put them through the paces, make them go off against one another and kind of put up an obstacle course. And then I met Jamie and realized I didn’t need to do that.” So what was it about Foxx that led Tarantino to cast him? “He was the cowboy… Forget the fact that he has his own horse — and that is actually his horse in the movie. He’s from Texas; he understands. …He understood what it’s like to be thought of as an ‘other.’”
On quitting making movies: “I just don’t want to be an old-man filmmaker. I want to stop at a certain point. Directors don’t get better as they get older. Usually the worst films in their filmography are those last four at the end. I am all about my filmography, and one bad film f—s up three good ones.…When directors get out-of-date, it’s not pretty. I’m on a journey that needs to have an end and not be about me trying to get another job. I want this artistic journey to have a climax. I want to work toward something. You stop when you stop, but in a fanciful world, 10 movies in my filmography would be nice. I’ve made seven. If I have a change of heart, if I come up with a new story, I could come back. But if I stop at 10, that would be okay as an artistic statement.”
On writing Calvin Candie with someone other than DiCaprio in mind: “I don’t want to say who, simply because when I finished the script, I realized they were a little older than I wanted the character to be. That’s a problem I have. I’ll be thinking about somebody and not take into account that I’m thinking of them from 20 years ago.”
On originally seeking Will Smith to play the lead in Django Unchained: “We spent quite a few hours together over a weekend when he was in New York doing Men in Black III. …I think half the process was an excuse for us to hang out and spend time with one another. …It just wasn’t 100 percent right, and we didn’t have time to try to make it that way.”
On getting high while in production: “I wouldn’t do anything impaired while making a movie. I don’t so much write high, but say you’re thinking about a musical sequence. You smoke a joint, you put on some music, you listen to it and you come up with some good ideas.…I don’t need pot to write, but it’s kind of cool.”
On rewriting history in Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained: “You turn on a movie and know how things are going to go in most films. Every once in a while films don’t play by the rules. It’s liberating when you don’t know what’s happening next.…I thought, What about telling these kinds of stories my way — rough and tough but gratifying at the end?”
On his ideal wife: “If I want to live in Paris for a year, what the f—? I can. I don’t have to arrange anything; I can just do it. If there is an actor or director I want to get obsessed with and study their films for the next 12 days, I can do that. The perfect person would be a Playmate who would enjoy that.”
On the Aurora, Colo., shooting during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises and the issue of films glorifying violence: “I think that guy was a nut. He went in there to kill a bunch of people because he knew there would be a lot of people there… That’s no different from a guy going into a McDonald’s and shooting up people at lunchtime because he knows a lot of people will be there.”
On rising to the level of his earlier work: “I want there to be anticipation. I was actually quite proud when I read that Django is one of the most anticipated movies coming out this year. It’s a black Western. Where’s the anticipation coming from? I guess a lot of it is me. That’s pretty f—ing awesome.”
Lol at his ideal wife. I can listen to him talk about film for days.
Django will come in and sweep the awards...My only wish.
Preach.
Also love his talk about the last four films in an aging filmmakers filmography usually being bad. Not only honest but it's pretty spot on
I wonder who had in mind for Calvin Candie
I wonder, too.
What stupid bullshit.
John Ford’s last 4 films: The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Donovan’s Reef, Cheyenne Autumn and Seven Women. Two masterpieces, one of his absolute best, a fascinating cult film that only gains followers as time passes by andyes, one weaker film.
John Huston’s: Dubliners, Prizzi’s Honor, Under the Volcano, Annie (one stinker, two very solid films and the one that’s probably his best)
Robert Altman: Dr. T and the Women (the stinker) and then Gosford Park, The Company and A Prairie Home Companion.
Visconti: The Innocent, Conversation Piece, Ludwig, Death in Venice, all of them great to say the least.
Ophuls: Lola Montes, Madame de, Le plaisir, La ronde
Dreyer: Gertrud, Ordet, Two People, Dies Irae,
Leone (his biggest influence): Once Upon a Time in America, Duck You Sucker, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Good the Bad and the Ugly.
Etc.
What happens is that young critics appear all the time and they like to praise the newer things, their generation’s things, the novelties, and the directors that have been for too long before the critic was even born are derided as something from the past, not attuned to the new times, etc. But this only speaks about the inanity of most critics than about the evolution of most artists. And time puts everything and everyone in its place.
McTeague, Tarantino isn't talking about ALL directors, he said USUALLY. You're arguing for the sake of argument, but Tarantino's actually right here. I think, although he didn't specify, that he's more referring to directors who work within the studio system. Huston, Ford, and Altman stayed vigorous, but what about Preminger or Wilder? Surely those are examples of directors who just totally lost it in their old age. Or Lumet, who had a run of bad films (although I guess his last one was well-received). Or Spielb------uh wait let's not go there.
Lumet happened to make his best movie just before dying, but that's not the point.McTeague, Tarantino isn't talking about ALL directors, he said USUALLY. You're arguing for the sake of argument, but Tarantino's actually right here. I think, although he didn't specify, that he's more referring to directors who work within the studio system. Huston, Ford, and Altman stayed vigorous, but what about Preminger or Wilder? Surely those are examples of directors who just totally lost it in their old age. Or Lumet, who had a run of bad films (although I guess his last one was well-received). Or Spielb------uh wait let's not go there.
Precisely, it's the "usually" what I'm arguing. If you think he’s right, provide the examples. Hitchcock may be the only clear one, but although his last four movies are not on the level of what he made in the 40’s, 50’s and early 60’s, they’re still better than his first 10 or 20 movies, so not even Hitchcock works as an example.
And really, there is no reason why it would work. Unless they get a mental illness or really have an age-related crisis (of values, of conformity, of whatever), artists, just like everybody else, get wiser and freer with time. Think of musicians, painters, writers or architects. Most of them make some of their absolute best when they’re nearing death.
So yeah, it’s bullshit. Put examples of what Tarantino says if you want to counter-argue.
No, I think Tarantino may have been generalizing a little too much, but many artists do kind of go on a steady decline once they reach 60-65. I think artists all have different sorts of temperament, there's no one type of person that all artists can be classified as. And some of them burn hot early and then the flame goes out. I think Tarantino's right to worry about that. I don't think age necessarily leads to either wisdom or decline, but that that depends on the individual. And what really matters here is that Tarantino's thinking he might suffer a creative decline in the next 10-15 years, and he wants to stop making movies before that happens. Much of his work has been based on capturing a modern zeigeist, and for someone like Tarantino, it would be horrifying to be out of touch with the zeitgeist.
McTeague is right, what Tarantino is saying is not true. Another example is Mizoguchi. The best films he has made are his last films in the 50's. The four last films of Ophuls are also his best and all are masterpieces.
What is true, however, is that as he grows older, a filmmaker is going to make different kind of films, more reflective. And for some directors, it may work to their advantage and compel them to make great films - whereas for some directors, such as action or dynamic directors (and Tarantino problably believes he falls within that category) it may diminish the vigor of their style. So it all depends on the temperament of the artist and his visual style.
Last edited by Semp; 11-15-2012 at 03:23 AM.
Posting Permissions
