It’s a rare thing that you come across an article that you utterly disagree with, and yet must admit is excellent at the same time. Katrina Onstad over at The National Post (one of Canada’s national newspapers) has written such an article. In it, she discusses Quentin Tarantino and why she believes he belongs in the “Academy of the Overrated” (I like that phrase).
For the most part, her article deals with what she perceives to be a basic lack of real substance or “soul” to any of his films. One of her more interesting observations is that often “hit” movies like Tarantino’s don’t necessarily become hits because they’re that good… but rather:
…overrated movies are those that generate a similar collective nervous energy, a sense that one must participate or miss the cultural conversation. When Star Wars and The Blair Witch Project were released, their content — good or bad — quickly didn’t matter, but their momentum did. It’s not necessarily superior filmmaking that causes the public to line up for hours; it’s fear of being left behind.
It’s a point that’s well made. I remember having a discussion with a friend of mine in Saskatoon named Shannon, an insanly talented musician, about the rise of N’Sync despite the lack of talent. Her observation was that it doesn’t take talent to become the “in” thing. All it takes is a hook. The hook can be one catchy sounding song, good looks, dating the right celebrity or whatever. Popularity becomes it’s own driving force and becomes self perpetuating. I remember a friend of mine telling me I had to watch Will and Grace because “it’s what everyone is watching now”. Seems to make Onstad’s point doesn’t it?
Onstad insists that Quentin Tarantino’s film lacks real depth and soul while relying mainly on pop culture references, old movie tributes and connecting the spectacular with everyday life. I can’t disagree with her. Actually I think she’s 100% correct. HOWEVER, it begs the question “what is soul”? or “What is depth”? or “What is art”? I agree with Onstad’s arguments… I just don’t agree with her conclusions.
Yes, I like movies that make me think… but making me think is not a prerequisite to being a good movie. Movies are an art… But the art is entertainment. There are different brushes and mediums to achieve this goal of entertainment in the art of movie making. Despite herself, Onstad seems to believe there is one exclusive formula to making “ART” in film, human interest love stories I guess. philosophical debates or a contemplation on the meaning of existence. All that stuff is good… but it’s only ONE brush… it’s only ONE medium.
Quentin Tarantino, in my opinion, has a gift for making entertaining, emotion arousing films that keep many of us wanting more. Is that not an art? Like I said though, it is an excellent article that you really should read. Anyway, I’m just babbling now. Go enjoy your weekend.
