Quentin Tarantino vs. David Lynch - Random Quote Alert

I would agree with you that Lynch is lower key (well, maybe not in Wild at Heart) and probably more subtle than Tarantino, yet I'm uncomfortable with that mania of calling a film "better" than another.
I love Lynch when I understand him, I love Tarantino, why create conflict? There is room for both, in my book.

Reply

Tarantino's violence is cannabalistic, it feeds on itself. It is violence for no reason, for the sake of itself. It is just carefree fun stuff. But, to Lynch it is only the way to something more. Yes, Tarantino has taken alot from other filmamkers and made it pop-worthy. Bringing it to the masses as it were. But, I guess I am just a flunkie, because I don't see the connection between their work. I do think that Lynch is a better filmmaker, but, I don't think their styles, or lack there of are similar. I guess the closest is Wild At Heart?

Reply

The cultural caliber I would put Tarantino at is the level of the likes of Howard Stern and Marilyn Manson. In other words, these guys have the gift of shocking people into paying attention to their works, nothing more. I made a mistake of renting "Kill Bill" dvd and had to stop it halfway through because it is basically the work of a plagiarist posing as a "homage artist".

The funny thing is, the genre Mr. Tarantino has been paying repeated homage to, namely, the Chinese martial-arts movies, is of so little artistic value that even the native filmmakers of those flicks would readily admit that they're only producing fluffs. An analogy here is if a French chef were to make a career out of "paying homage" to McDonald's hamburgers.

When we talk about "talent", we must mention "originality". The only originality in Tarantino's works is that he has the chutzpah to cram those vile things into his films; that is to say, he's got the guts, that much I'd give him. But comparing him with David Lynch is like comparing Marilyn Manson with Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin -- it's not fair.

Reply

No, I will compare Marilyn Manson with Led Zep. More to the point, we will be correct for time, and use Alice Cooper (same difference). You see Led Zep, classic, probably the creater of the rock song. Beatles are and were pop, therefore we can't count them. However, Alice Cooper was pop, shock rock at that. Now, keeping those two in place, we will slip in Tarantino and Lynch, you can guess what goes where. Tarantino is an artist out of violence. Like for instance if you remember when Christopher Walken said to that really cool italian actor, whose name I can't remember, in Man On Fire that Creasy (Denzel) (I probably just butchered the spelling of the characters name), "Creasy's art is death, and he's about to paint his masterpiece". Say what you will about the movie, but, Walken is the man and that line was awesome. Tarantino's art is movie love. Why can't that in and of itself be an art. It was once said of Kubrick that he was an artist, it didn't matter if it was film or sculpting or painting. Kubrick simply would have always been a great artist, no matter what medium he chose. I believe this is true of Lynch as well. I have seen many of his paintings and such, and it is good stuff. Mind you, I know nothing of art really, but, I know what I don't like. And I don't don't like his stuff. There I think that made sense. At any rate, both Tarantino and Cooper are artists in their own medium. Cooper created an art of dark theatrical shock, Tarantino and art of violent real world violent action, while at the same time perfecting the styles of the masters before him. Would you chastise Lynch for shooting a DV film and using the bad resolution and grain to create what he considers art in and of itself. Well, that's what he is doing now. Wouldn't that be copying pretty much everyone of us here who has held a Hi8 in their hands and tried to shoot home movies like Scorsese. Which Tarantino also already did in a cut scene for Pulp Fiction. As far as Kill Bill goes, well, I could ask alot of people that used to shop at my Suncoast Video Store in Aurora (poorer part of Colorado) if they thought that martial arts films could be an artistic film style in and of themselves. They would of course say, yes. These people can go off for hours on the history of these films and the people who made them. And for the record, to the best of my knowledge, the Shaw Brothers are quite fond of their classics. And Bruce Lee was also always fond of his days on Green Hornet, although there is the irony of having come up with the idea for Kung Fu, losing the part to the man that would eventually play the big bad Bill in a film that so fondly remembers his costume from Green Hornet, including theme song.

Reply

i don't see the comparison between the two . . . or perhaps better said, i don't buy the critical need to compare the two.

lynch is one of my most favorite directors (with the imaginative and creative range to make film's as structurally different as "the straight story" and "mullholland drive" [which, as an aside, i think is one of the most poignant films i've ever scene]).

tarantino offers very interesting eclectical mixtures of pop culture and serves them up, by and large, as very interesting and compelling films. i loved "kill bill volume 1," for example, and felt that his use of anime for one sequence was absolutely spot on (and could easily have been a pretentious disaster).

david lynch is one of our great auteurs. he'll go down, in my opinion, as one of the greats of american cinema. but it seems uselessly mean spirited to use that point as the basis for trashing a worthy and distinctive director like tarantino.

besides, isn't one of the points of the ear-slicing scene in "reservior dogs" the fact that the representation of violence offered up to the viewer is just that, a representation of violence? in other words, i didn't come away from that scene feeling that tarantino was trying to claim some ontological meaning, trying to find some transcendent reason for the scene to have occured. it seems to me that he was offering a hyper-distilled moment of violence. nothing more and nothing less.

cel

Reply

just to complete my thought . . . i think tarantino is fully aware that the violence he's representing in the ear scene doesn't have any meta-narrative significance; in fact, it could be argued that he's reveling in that realization.

cel

Reply

I dunno, comparing Tarantino to Lynch is like comparing Roy Lichtenstein (self referential pop infused art) with Picasso (abtract, unique, twisted logic)....seems like abtract art is experienced (a view of the ocean is an abstract image)...whereas realism tells a real story (like an image of a gangsta shooting another gangsta)..the other difference is that Lynch pays a price for his approach...it's still an uphill battle for financing.
www.cine101.blogspot.com

Reply

pseudo-intellectual crap.

Reply

To consider putting both names in the same article is an insult to creativity. David Lynch is a master. Quintent Tarrentino is a hag. YES A HAG.
There is THE ELEPHANT MAN and THE STRAIGHT STORY
and then there is KILL BILL 1; 2; 3; 4 ETC...

Reply

Truthseeker, if you are trying to bait me into one of your fights, you are going to have to expand upon your insult of Tarantino. What is your problem with him?

Reply

"Quentin Tarantino is interested in watching somebody's ear getting cut off; David Lynch is interested in the ear."

And whose ear-scene was more memorable?

Another fact: Pulp Fiction, QT's playing with time sequence came out in 1994. Mulholland Drive, DL's playing with time sequence came out in 2001.

Reply

Playing with time in film isn't new for anyone at this point. Lynch's ear scene is obviously the more memorable film moment. It is the catalyst for the entire picture. A picture that is leaps and bounds ahead of Reservoir Dogs.

Reply

Funny how you all insist on comparing these two only because they both have a scene in which an ear is severed. Shall I compare 2001 and Starship Troopers because - oh, my, they both take place in outer space!

I'm not a huge fan of Tarantino, and I despise most of Lynch's work. But I see a Tarantino flick to have fun, whereas Lynch is for those who want a few neurons to fire off.

Just as Tarantino could never aspire to be Lynch, so Lynch could never create a masterpiece of empty, entertaining fluff like Pulp Fiction.

The only commonalities are the celluloid and the severed ear. The statement about the severed ear is correct - what Wallace fails to recognize, like so many other intellectual snobs, is that both have a place int his world - unless you are the type who has filet mignon and lobster for every meal, at which point you will get what you deserve when the revolution comes.

Reply

L'Emmerdeur -- I think the comparison with ears started simply because of the referenced quote. I agree, though, the similarity of the two scenes ends in their focus on the ear.

And while I don't think less of someone who wants only "deep stuff" or only fluff (that's why there are different movies: because there are different tastes), you are right that a balanced diet is a key to nutrition.

There is plenty of room for both at my table, and very little room for comparing entertaining (if highly derivative) apples to stimulating (if sometimes murky) oranges.

and by the way, TheMovieGoer.com:
I don't know what bothers me most -- the fact that you would accuse one of the most original filmmakers in the world of pilfering the use of time-travel in movies from Tarantino, who just used a very old storytelling trick in a movie full of (fun but) old tricks -- or the fact that your name is a URL.... confusing.

Reply

I'd like to focus on the beheading scenes in "Kill Bill" for a moment, and I invite the fans of Mr. Tarantino to defend this particular directorial choice of his.

In some neighborhoods in the Middle East, it is reported that the most popular DVD is a compilation of the beheading scenes of hostages taken by Islamic extremists. The sick minds who think it's "fun" to view those gruesome footages of human heads being cut off will, in all likelihood, find the DVD of "Kill Bill" on a display rack nearby. And that is the tragic crux of this debate regarding Mr. Tarantino's "talent".

"Kill Bill" was filmed in 2003, 2 years after 9/11 -- 2 years after the world started to have an inkling that those brutal religious extremists have a special love for beheading people who disagree with their religious views, and yet, in his comfortable studio bungalow, Mr. Tarantino racked his brains to conceive, write, and storyboard the most spectacular beheading scenes, just so his fans could have some "fun".

Please don't say those characters who have their heads cut off are bad guys and deserve it. Please, take a deep breath and ask yourself, "What is the balance between artistic creativity and human dignity?"

Reply

First things first Sundroid, the beheadings you reference occur mainly involving the hostages taken in Iraq, post invasion. Kill Bill was already written. And I wouldn't care if it wasn't. There is a beheading in the beginning of Star Wars 3 and that only came out this year. At least that one was execution style. Also, despite what Lucas claims, I know that was written post 9/11. Simply put, Kill Bill is a film based on a long line of martial arts films, and in all those martial arts films there were a lot of rolling heads. I mean, seriously, Do you think anyone is going to go from real execution videos and then pick up Kill Bill and say, "Oh, now that gives me ideas, now all I need is a Green Hornet mask"?

Reply

David Lynch has been "playing with time" since Twin Peaks, circa 1990. I think it's a bit strange to be comparing these two directors, they make such different art. I happen to think Tarantino is a bit like guilty junk food, whereas Lynch is a fucking straight up master who makes enduring art that will stand the test of time. Also with Tarantino the point is usually fairly pornographic and even pointless, whereas Lynch forces you to think and solve many puzzles which often mirror the strangeness of real life.

Reply

I am in the camp that thinks Lynch is an absolute artist and Tarantino a pop star. But the problem with Lynch is... he doesn't make any sense. Twin Peaks floundered at the end of season because everyone expected the detective story to actually make sense, and Lynch later admitted he and the other main writer (can't remember his name) didn't have a clue when they started, and didn't think anyone would watch anyway. Blue Velvet is his most complete work and does make sense (read a terrific essay somewhere comparing Blue Velvet to Freud's sense of the uncanny and the song "Mr. Sandman" but my favorite is Mulholland Drive, which is, I think, after Sunset Boulevard, one of the best films ever made about Hollywood and the myth of dreams and stardom. But in the end, all the great little pieces don't really add up to coherent storytelling. Which, considering Lynch is a true artist, is okay with me.

Reply