Muvski kritić

[peralozac]

Topic da se zabavimo pre, za vreme i posle premijere. 

 

Za sada imamo praznu IMDB stranicu, znamo da glavni lik nije poznata kritičarka, da se ne radi o osveti i da neće biti vrućih scena.

 

Nevezano za novi film, znamo za pištolj.

 

Imamo i poll sa velikim pitanjem. Ja ne verujem, navijam da će se brzo smoriti u samonametnutoj penziji.

[Jimmy Kowalski]

Jedini scenario da mu ovo ne bude zaista poslednji film je da ispadne los i da onda oseti potrebu da se iskupi. Inace mu verujem. A nece sigurno biti penzioner, snimice neku seriju (vec ima napisane epizode za onu vestern seriju sa Leovim likom iz OUTIH), pisace knjige, mozda ce prilagoditi neki svoj scenario za pozoriste.

 

Ali mu se ideja da mu filmografija bude tacno 10 filmova strasno svidja i kad pogledas to je razvukao na preko 30 godina, tako da je opet dugacka karijera. Citajuci Cinema Speculation predosetio sam da bi poslednji film upravo mogao biti o... filmu 70-ih. I da ce biti vrlo lican, da zaokruzi svoju filmsku pricu..

[peralozac]

Krivo mi je što ništa nije ispalo od raznih Star Trek glasina (film, serija, mini-serija, režija, scenario). Može u penziju, ali prvo da mi ispuni tu želju  Evo, recimo film o vanzemaljcima što imaju 5+6 prstiju i naravno koriste undecimalni sistem, a on posle može da trubi kako je 11 najkul broj u svemiru i kako je sve odavno najavio:

 

[Mil@n]

Odslušao sam nedavno nekoliko njegovih podkasta. Mrtav ozbiljan je kada priča da je to poslednji film. 

Spominjao je i tu seriju. 

[Misko]

Verovatno jeste, istrosio se covek, i nece da snima na silu..premisa mi na prvu loptu ba si ne obecava, naorocito jer me OUATIH nije bas odusevio..ali, i ovako, trantno je doovljno ostavio iza sebe, da moze mirne duse u penziju..

[peralozac]

 

Spoiler

Interview
Quentin Tarantino : «I loved it all. But I’ve given it all. I want to retire undefeated.»

In a exclusive and introspective interview, the sixty-something American cineaste talks about devoting himself to writing rather than risk making one film too many, as he prepares to shoot his tenth and final feature, «The Movie Critic».

On June 9th, Quentin Tarantino received the Fitzgerald Prize in the Belles Rives hotel in Antibes, a palace on the French Riviera where the author of The Great Gatsby lived for several months. Tarantino was not rewarded for his movie career but for his latest book, Cinema Speculations, published in France in March and already selling over 200 000 copies worldwide. On this occasion, he gave Libération an exclusive and wide-ranging interview, touching upon his writing process, the art of film criticism, the charms of seventies porn, a mysterious “racist film” which enraged him, superheroes franchises and, first and foremost, his intention to retire after his next film, entitled The Movie Critic, due shooting this year.

The following conversation was slightly edited for length and clarity.

You’re collecting a literary prize today. Who is it we’re conducting an interview with, the writer or the filmmaker ?

I’m definitely a filmmaker. But I do feel like I pulled-off the transition to being an author. I’m a much better writer now that I’ve gone through the book process twice [for the novelisation of Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood and Cinema Speculations]. Got the detailed notes from an editor, went through the proofreading process, the whole thing…

How do you write?

All by hand. A big unwieldy, sloppy mess. Then I start typing it up. That’s when I get it into shape.

It’s very peculiar to go from acclaimed filmmaker to meticulous critic. Usually, it’s the other way round. Why are you doing a “reverse Truffaut/Godard” ?

I’ve been and I am a filmmaker and I’ve done that for a long time. I’ve been able to tell the stories I wanted to tell, create the characters and fictions [I wanted], work with the genres I’m interested in. But I also like watching movies, talking about them, discussing them… But to me, talk is just dribble. Talk, talk, talk is dribble. Sometimes, it’s better than not, but I feel I have things to say. Even if I wasn’t a filmmaker, I would have things to say, but coming as a filmmaker, I have a different perspective on it and I come with a certain authority. And I think I am also a film scholar, and I can talk about it in that category. And I’ve been writing for 30 years so I’m adept with a pen. But this is harder writing for me.

Harder to write than a screenplay?

Much harder than a screenplay, yes. That’s a skill I’m very adept at. But this is much harder, it takes many more revisions on these different chapters to get them to where I’m happy. The first pass, it just reads like the kind of junk you read on the internet [laughs].

Do you feel that your expertise is needed now, in a time where criticism is probably far less influential than it used to be, at a time when anyone can rate and comment a movie online ?

It’s strange. A case can be made that there’s never been more movie criticism available ever. Some of the people out there writing are quite good, and I appreciate the way some of these websites can specialize in genre writing, which was not the case for newspapers or magazines [in the past]. Back then, you might have that one guy that knew what he was talking about when it came to Baby Cart at the River Styx, but that was it ! Now everyone specializes in this kind of stuff. But that’s not the real difference. For exemple, when I made a movie, say Kill Bill, I would get a stack of reviews in English. Did I know the critic for the Sacramento Bee ? Probably not. The critic for the Knoxville Sentinel ? Probably not. But there would definitely be critics I knew by name. And I had a sense of what they liked and what they didn’t like. And I could despise them or think they were terrific, but I knew them by name. Now, I don’t know anybody by name. It’s like, they write for CinemaBlend, Deadline. It’s the websites I know.

In your book, there’s a whole chapter devoted to Kevin Thomas, a journalist who bashed your films his whole career...

[Today], the names, I don’t know at all. And I don’t know how much is their fault and how much is my fault… I hear people around me say “there are still good critics out there”. And I would say, who ? Not being sarcastic. They would say “Manohla Dargis [the New York Times’ chief critic], she’s a good critic”. And I’d say give me three movies she liked, and three movies she didn’t in the last 8 years. And they can’t do it. Why? Because, they don’t care ! They don’t care. Ok, if there is a New York Times sitting there, they would pick it up. But that’s it. Whereas me, those writers [back in the day], I knew what they liked and didn’t, I knew their voices, their tastes. And it’s not me picking on Manohla Dargis, they can’t do that about anybody. The bottom line is that I don’t care enough about her voice to read about what she thought of Notes on a Scandal or the fourth Transformers movie.

There’s a saying that a film critic is a frustrated filmmaker. But are you a frustrated critic?

I would have been a tough critic. It’s not for nothing that all the movies I’m talking about are 40 years old or more. I can’t talk like that about new movies. That just wouldn’t be fair. If I lay a ton of bricks on a filmmaker that made a movie last week, it’s like I’m attacking them, jumping out of a bush with a hammer. It’s just not fucking fair. They’re still my colleagues.

Some did that to you in the 90s. Spike Lee did…

That wasn’t cool. Go figure why...

Your next film’s main character is not only a film critic, but a film critic who writes for a “porn rag”. In Cinema Speculations, there’s a chapter about Hardcore, Paul Schrader’s film about the 70′s XXX industry, and you’re not kind about its puritanical posturing. Which made me think : your primary influence is exploitation movies, which means violence, but also explicit sexuality. But your films, though bawdy in tone, in the dialogues especially, are pretty much devoid of sex scenes and nudity, while the violence is always very graphic. Why ? And is your next film going to change that?

Well... I really, really, really enjoy sexuality in movies. I like sexy movies, though I’m not a big fan of porn, of XXX. I’ve seen ones that I like, but by and large, I think they’re bad movies. But, as time goes by, I don’t think the seventies’ ones are good, but I do like that weird seventies vibe. They exist as outlaw cinema. I like the aesthetics of them. And I’ve always liked sexploitation movies, the stuff of out Sweden released in America [in the 70s]…

Like I am Curious (Yellow), that Cliff watches in a theatre in a passage of the novelisation of Once Upon A Time... In Hollywood?

Stuff like the German Schoolgirl Report… They’re fun ! They’re cool. I like eroticism in cinema. I just never really had the… impetus to do it myself. To deal with actors and actresses simulating sex, talking an actress into showing this, or getting disrobed, or doing this and that. It’s just never been my bag. It’s not how I want to spend my time on a movie set.

Today, you also have “intimacy coordinators” to deal with...

That makes me even less inclined.

Which brings me to the question of sensitivity. In publishing houses now, there are sensitivity readers. Hollywood seems to follow suit. For example, it’s been reported that Martin Scorsese’s Killers of the Flower Moon was made with the blessing and input of the Indian tribes depicted in the film. Do you think art, and then films, should avoid to offend ? Even if that means that they should be, in some way, “supervised”?

[Long silence] I reject the word “offended”. Because anybody can say he’s offended by anything. Frankly, I think that for the most part, and there might be examples of the contrary, to say that you’re offended about something is the first response of a tiny mind. “I don’t like this, and here’s why, tadadada…” : that’s OK. But fuck being offended. Art is not offensive. There can be exemples of the contrary, yes. But even then, it’s just ridiculous to be offended by something [in films]. There was a movie – I won’t say which – that I saw in the last ten years that did offend me. But the more I thought about it, [the more] I realised that was my problem, my fucking problem.

What offended you?

I felt it was racist. And it just absolutely offended me. I had a knee-jerk reaction to it. I wanted to punch the director in the nose, but that was a bad reaction. I still think it’s a racist film. But it’s just a fucking movie, man.

In your early days, you were a herald of pop culture, of all those despised niches on the fringes of the industry, starting with comic books, which are now the main engine of the Hollywood machine. It’s been said that “the geeks have won”. Is it good or bad news?

That’s a really funny question. “The geeks have won”. I guess they did, alright. To some degree, I wish this shit was happening when I was younger. I would have been very excited that even the most marginalized comic book that I used to read were getting this gigantic cinema treatment. The fact that it’s happening when I’m 60, when I don’t give a shit anymore, well, it’s kind of a drag, haha. And [also the fact] that it apparently seems to be the coin of the realm…

Would you go as far, as some did, to say that this franchise obsession is killing “adult cinema” as we knew it?

We came out with Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood in the summer of 2019 as the only big movie that was completely an original story. Not based on a franchised character, not a sequel, not part of a series, not an adaptation of something from another medium, etc. An original story with original characters : that was a big deal to us, to Tom Rothman at Sony [who produced the film]. “That’s what we’re doing. That’s how we define ourselves” : for me, that was really exciting. But it didn’t bode very well for the industry, even at that time. And I’m talking about 2019, the last year Hollywood was still kind of going full-blown. We were kind of the last birds to fly out of the window.

Do you feel like the last of the Mohicans, part of a dying breed ? Or do you think the authors will come back, like this pendulum movement in the early nineties after the 80s backlash to the Movie Brats you write about in your book…

I do think the pendulum will swing back again. It’s the nature of art. Even of politics. It swings one side, goes as far as it can go, and then it swings back. And for both sides. There are always young people coming out, filmmakers who are working, that are unsatisfied with the direction of the pendulum. And it’s usually through that dissatisfaction that the work comes out. For instance, when I did Reservoir Dogs I was interviewed for a magazine by Dennis Hopper, of all people. He saw the film at a film festival, and he really liked it. And he had also seen Man Bites Dog, El Mariachi, and Romeo Is Bleeding around the same time. And he goes : “I think there’s this genre, this movement. It’s like bang bang, snicker snicker, and I dig it !” But what was fascinating to him, is that all those movies came out the same year. “And you didn’t know him, and he didn’t know you, and you came from all parts of the world!”, he said. It’s like the expressionist art movement. It’s not like these guys got together and said, “hey, let’s paint that way from now on”. It’s just that there was something in the air, and these guys had the antenna to read those waves. And I think it’ll happen again. In 10 years, 15 years, 8 years ? We’ll see.

The last thing I wanted to address regarding the franchise discussion is the idea of a “cinematic universe”. One could say that from the Red Apple cigarettes to your recent tweet mourning the passing of Rick Dalton, you’ve been doing it from the beginning…

I’ve been doing that from the beginning ! I’m egotistical enough to think all my movies exist in a worldview, on a certain planet. And lots of those things are connected by brands, movies, characters. Now, none of that is important. What matters is the story in each film. It’s like footnotes in a book. But often time, the footnotes are the best fucking shit in the book. And now, fans know about it. So you could say I’m pandering to them, but it’s just a fun thing. You dig it. [To go back to franchises], it’s a drag that I give an interview for a podcast about Marvel movies where I think I’m articulate about where I’m coming from, and that this interview is just cut and pasted in a zillion different articles on the internet as if I’m slamming them down. That was not it. I was talking about me reading Marvel comics. I dug all that shit. This idea of universes, characters going from that world to that world, etc.

I want to talk about the matter of legacy. You’re adamant about making only ten movies, to leave behind a “flawless filmography”. Isn’t it a bit morbid to think so much about what you will leave behind once you’re gone?

Haha, it’s not that big of a deal. Usually, my answer is that I’ll say directors don’t get better as they get older. And 7 times out of 10, I’m right. But really, that’s an easy thing to say in an interview because frankly, I don’t want to share with the world the nine other different thoughts I have about this - it’s nobody’s business. But the bottom line is that I’ve given this thirty years of my life, I gave it my all.

But you loved it, didn’t you?

I loved it all. But I’ve given it all. I left nothing on the table. I worked at the highest level of my art form. I want to leave a powerhouse legacy. I want to retire undefeated. Also it’s kind of funny, because it sounds like “Hollywood can reject you, but you can’t reject them”. They can stop hiring you, that happens all the time, but god forbid walking away, on your own terms. That’s what I’m doing. Setting my own terms. Also, I’m getting older and the great thing about working on these books is that once I’m done working, it’s done, I am done. On a script, you work, and work, and work, and when it’s done, it just begins !

You don’t enjoy the shooting phase of making a movie anymore?

Of course, I enjoy it, but there’s a gigantic attraction to give it all to the page. And when you’re done, you’re done.

Is the writing phase, the pure imagination work, the highest accomplishment?

No, that would be a miscategorization. Listen. At a certain point, if you’re a rock artist and you’re not listening to the Top40, what are you doing? If you don’t know the hits, if you don’t give a fuck about the new groups the kids are into, well, you’re not part of it.

You feel that way right now?

I’m getting there. Getting there.

And you want to quit before getting there.

Yes.

When you retire, is there a film you’ll regret not making ?

I’m not regretting anything now. But maybe, several years from now, I’ll come up with a story. And there’s several ways I could do it. But again : what am I leaving ? I’m saying “I’m not gonna make any more theatrical features”. But are there gonna be theatrical features eight years from now ? That’s an open question.

 

[peralozac]

Najnovije glasine/tračevi:

 

I'm American, honey. Our names don't mean shit.

Spoiler

Ailing screen action hero Bruce Willis could be set to make a poignant farewell appearance in a big Hollywood blockbuster - even if he is too ill to act.

His friend, iconic filmmaker Quentin Tarantino, wants him for a cameo role in his tenth and final film The Movie Critic, which starts shooting in September, according to a senior production source.

Willis, 68, officially retired last year after struggling on sets for more than a decade before being diagnosed with the degenerative brain disorder aphasia.

In February this year, his family announced he is now suffering from frontotemporal dementia, which robs victims of cognitive abilities.

Last month, however, the Die Hard legend appeared looking fit and happy in a video posted by his daughters following a family visit to Disneyland – and Tarantino is hoping he is well enough to perform a brief cameo.

The two became firm friends after Tarantino cast him as ageing, on-the-run boxer Butch Coolidge in his 1994 crime classic Pulp Fiction, which helped Willis reestablish himself as a major star following a career slump.

At the time, Tarantino declared: “Bruce has the look of a 50s actor. I can’t think of any other star that has that look.”

Now he wants to pay tribute to his old pal, according to the production source, by offering him a small role in The Movie Critic, which will be set in 1970s Los Angeles.

“Quentin hasn’t approached Bruce’s family yet – and will completely bow to their wishes if they say he’s too sick,” said the source.

“If that’s the case, he aims to try to work a brief clip from one of Bruce’s many previous movies into the film.”

Willis is being cared for by his wife, former model Emma Heming, 45, with whom he has two children, as well as his ex-wife, G.I. Jane actress Demi Moore, 60, and their three grown-up daughters Rumer, Scout and Tallulah.

A family spokesperson declined to comment on the possibility of him appearing briefly in Tarantino’s film, but our source pointed out that the nod of appreciation would be a “fitting end” to a glittering career of 129 films.

Willis first found fame in the 80s TV comedy drama Moonlighting opposite Cybill Shepherd but the source added: "His final few films all went straight to video or streaming because of his condition.

"Quentin wants to pay tribute to him with a quick glimpse for his legion of fans back on the big screen where he belongs."

 

I ain't Jewish, I just don't dig on swine, that's all.

Spoiler

Here’s some predictable news. Samuel L Jackson has been cast in Quentin Tarantino’s “The Movie Critic,” according to insider Daniel Richtman. 

This would be Jackson’s seventh collaboration with Tarantino and, as we all know by now, it’s the filmmaker’s 10th and final film. Production is/was supposed to start in late September, but, due to the strike, there could certainly be a delay. 

Why is this predictable news? Because just yesterday, when interviewed by Vulture, Jackson refused to comment on whether he’s in Tarantino’s next film. 

 

[Jimmy Kowalski]

Tu ce biti zanimljivo koga ce izabrati za naslovnu ulogu filmskog kriticara. To bi trebalo da bude neko u 30-im, gotovo sigurno neko s kim do sada nije saradjivao, osim ako ne bude Austin Butler recimo..

[peralozac]

Ajajaj Džontra i SLJ, držimo fige!

 

According to Hollywood insider Jeff Sneider, John Travolta is slated to have a role in The Movie Critic. While no official announcement has been made just yet due to the Hollywood strikes, the whole film is said to be casted. If the rumors are true, Travolta will be starring alongside Samuel L. Jackson in the film.

 

[Jimmy Kowalski]

Ovo starring je malo misleading, jer znaci da je glavna uloga, ali sve te face iz prethodnih QT filmova Willis, Travolta, SLJ bice u nekim manjim rolama uglavnom (Bruce verovatno samo ono sto zovu extended cameo zbog svog stanja).

 

Iako jos nije zvanicno potvrdjeno, navodno ce Paul Walter Hauser biti u ulozi tog filmskog kriticara..

[Sludge Factory]

Ovaj lik moze da glumi Milijusa, a ne tamo nekog filmskog kriticara. 

[peralozac]

@Sludge Factory, da budemo precizni, porno rag filmskog kritičara. Ja prvi put čujem za PWH, ali recimo gledajući ga u ovom klipu ne vidim neki problem.

 

 

[peralozac]

Dodajemo na listu (glasina) i Kurta Rasela. 

[Sludge Factory]

Bez Kurta Rasela nije film. 

[Misko]

Ne znam, moguce je i da ce svi  kojima je radio kroz karijeru(a da je pritom ostao u dobrim odnosima, da su takodje u momentu dostupni), proc kroz film, ako zatvara radnju, pa za oprostaj..s tim, sto naravno, ne mogu svi da dobiju po lupam minimum 10 minuta, nesto ce cameo biti sigurno..voleo bih da se  pojave, i  dobiju vise do camea dobiju, makar neki od sledeceih: Kajtel, Tim Rot, pa i Medsen(uesto sto reklamira   neke usrane kladionice)..zatim Volc, Melani Loran, Dajana Kruger, Dzej Dzel Li, Pem Grir..Pit i di Kaprio nisu obavezni(ovog prvog gotivim, ali, bio je u prosldom filmu glavni, ovog drugog ne crkavam od zelje da vidim)