Skip to main content

The Decline of the Auteur

Sight and Sound's latest issue features a wild bunch of out-there auteurs. Also, a fawning interview with director Quentin Tarantino. I haven't been to Cannes or seen his latest Nazi hunter film, though I know his production company once expressed interest, about ten years ago, in a Nazi hunter screenplay I'd co-written. I'll be interested in seeing his movie. I actually think Tarantino has done some expressive, stylish and startling work of importance, especially in Kill Bill 1, and he seems a key cultural figure of the 1990s. I also think it is a sad reflection on the decline of the arts, and the auteur, that, in 2009, as significant an arthouse journal as S&S should be hanging on this indie maverick's every word.

The problem, it seems to me, is that QT's ideas - if translated into a literary or literate medium (and he often speaks in terms of novelistic devices, like chapters) - would be sub-par, or even old-hat. Apart from his explorations of genre, via the lenses of violence, soundtrack and character - which he does with genius - the man has little to say. Certainly, it has become tedious to consider that his movies continue to be indulgent adolescent male fantasies, populated with sexy women, killers, and other pulp tropes. I am all for low culture meeting high culture - I am the poet who wrote a poem called Gun Crazy, after all.

I suppose I am worried that film is being colonised by a very low common denominator. Of course, Hollywood and commercial film product can and should entertain - but Tarantino makes claims to be an artist, much like Welles was, and magazines of note like S&S support such claims. Welles made the supreme B-movie - Touch of Evil - and its bravura helming is still breathtaking.

Many of the nouvelle vague films were crime-inflected, to be sure. And, the best of the film noirs are high art - as with Aldrich, one of the key original autuers, and a maker of the great Kiss Me Deadly. But is Tarantino in that Welles-Bresson-Aldrich league? Is he a Huston? I fear not, if only because his emotional palette appears so limited. He badly needs to explore humanity (if not morality) in one of his next films, much as Scorsese has done, or Spielberg. It is true that Hitchcock remained a supreme master, but also focused on depravity and murder - but his Vertigo explored a major theme that has been superficially touched upon in Tarantino's work: love.

Comments

Cheryl said…
I actually thought that his best film was Jackie Brown, for exactly the reasons that you mention. It was a shame that he didn't develop that further and instead fell back and away from the character. (I'm not saying that Jackie Brown was his most perfect film-- I'd have to give that one to Pulp Fiction, but Jackie Brown had the most heart).

(I'll go back into lurk mode now...)
Unknown said…
I just saw Inglourious Basterds. I think it might actually be his best work! After seeing it, it feels like...despite being so long...and despite being so...trying to be epic...it has a real light touch! So many of his films (even including Jackie Brown, which is fairly light), fail to be coherent. This one makes extra effort to be coherent, despite the fact he really doesn't have too. It's awesome film. I want to see it again, even though I don't have to. I knew what happened throught. But all the same, I was enthralled by it.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".