He Did It His Way

Here's an article that asks about Quentin Tarantino "Could it be that one of the most overrated directors of the '90s has become one of the most underrated of the aughts?" Since I don't think he was overrated in the 90s, I'm not sure if I should care that he's underrated now.

He has shown a certain growth as director. Or perhaps I should say he's gotten better at spectacle. I suppose that comes with experience, and bigger budgets. But it also comes at the expense of a lot of other things--in particular, his earlier films, even with heightened dialogue, were still within the realm of human possibility. And his earlier films couldn't afford to be as self-indulgent. He seems to now be in a period where everything is bigger than life. I'm more interested in Tarantino the director as someone who fulfills the vision of Tarantino the writer, and if the vision is less interesting, who cares how accomplished the direction is?

His films (haven't seen his latest) are their own genre (as much as people try to copy them)--inspired by the exploitation genre, they're smart and talky in a way no one else is. (Alas, the piece I link repeats the canard that Reservoir Dogs "lifted many of its tricks directly" from City On Fire. The surface similarities aren't nearly as important as the differences; you could say the same for Death Proof versus Dirty Mary Crazy Larry.) I wouldn't go so far to say he's got the Citizen Kane problem, but as of this date, he still seems to be chasing after the stunning one-two punch of Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. Perhaps that's why he's moving away from that style. Or perhaps it's just a natural growth. Either way, he seems willing to do it his way no matter what the critics say. And as long as he makes money, I guess he'll keep doing it his way.