Quentin Grind

email this story
read comments (37)
post a comment

To promote/salute Grindhouse (Weinstein Co., 4.6) in the Los Angeles area, Quentin Tarantino is programming the New Beverly Cinema with so-sleazy-they're-hip-in-retrospect exploitation films. A double-feature every two or three days, playing now through May 1st -- and just about every one a diposable wank except for Roger Vadim's Pretty Maids All in a Row (1971), which shows 3.25 through 3.27. (Rock Hudson as a high-school teacher and lecherous poon-hound, plus one or two nude Angie Dickinson scenes....I'm there.)

When and if these films ever get released as a Tarantino-approved DVD box set, I wonder if I'll care enough to even rent one or two.

Has Tarantino ever sat down and written a definitive manifesto that explains what it is that he finds so wonderful about these films? The thing he worships about them, I think, is their low-rent vitality and lack of pretension, and (I guess) the occasional standout performances. They have all that, yes (if you want to be generous), but they're not about anything the least bit internal or profound.

Tarantino is a lazy wallower -- an attitude huckster, an iconographer, a street- corner smart-ass. Inherent in this is a disinclination to believe in (much less seek out) art or transcendence -- in any sort of practice or exercise or canvas-splattering that tries to imagine a world beyond the mundane.

There's nothing wrong with wallowing in and of itself -- I like to go there from time to time, and I'll probably enjoy Grindhouse when it comes out -- but celebrating '70s grindhouse films as brash and nervy and better than people realized at the time....I don't know. I think it's basically horseshit.

Malicious doc<< previous | next >>Bauer Martinez on the ropes?

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on March 4, 2007 at 2:40 PM

comment #1

Devin Conroy says ...

I'd like to share my opinion before 5 or 6 other people jump down your throat...like they do with every post (not sure why they get satisfaction from spending their day reading a column and rejecting every conclusion the columnist makes).

I agree 100% Tarantino, despite his attempt at these gimmicks, is an elitist prick.

Posted by Devin Conroy at March 4, 2007 3:46 PM

comment #2

christian says ...

PRETTY MAIDS ALL IN A ROW is a weird vadim wonder that is beyond pc. i saw it at qt fest 3 and it was my favorite of the fest.

these films are fun because they're mainly about MOVIE GOING AS EXPERIENCE.

see ya there!

Posted by christian at March 4, 2007 3:58 PM

comment #3

Reedyb says ...

Star Trek's Gene Roddenberry wrote Pretty Maids. It is a strange movie, especially with retrospect.

Posted by Reedyb at March 4, 2007 4:09 PM

comment #4

christian says ...

and don't forget the osmonds did the fantastic PMAIAR theme song.

and THE LADY IN RED is a terrific gangster film written by john sayles. there's also paul shrader's awesome ROLLING THUNDER.

join us...

Posted by christian at March 4, 2007 4:12 PM

comment #5

jeffmcm says ...

Let me give a quick response to Devin Conroy: when somebody spends as much time spewing self-righteous garbage as Wells does, it's only the right thing to do to call him out on it and not let his blatherings go unchallenged. Especially on the subject of Tarantino, where his description above is very much a pot and kettle situation.

Posted by jeffmcm at March 4, 2007 4:26 PM

comment #6

Mr. Peel says ...

Pretty Maids all in a Row is a terrible movie. I am so going to be there.

Posted by Mr. Peel at March 4, 2007 4:34 PM

comment #7

corey3rd says ...

When it comes to the Grindhouse, Tarantino will always take a back seat to the real maestro giving direction in the experience: Michael J. Weldon of Pyschotronic fame. It's a shame Tarantino didn't try to hook up with Weldon to create some sort of website/film guide to this series.

Tarantino strikes me as the guy who isn't going to write a massive discourse about the nature of these films and other BS. He just wants to hunt down the prints, get wasted and watch 'em. Sure he may talk a mile a minute, but he ain't gonna type it out that fast.

It's great he's found a theater willing to show the films. Shame it isn't a drive-in.

Posted by corey3rd at March 4, 2007 4:46 PM

comment #8

Geoff says ...

It would be great if Tarantino could make a film with none of the usual baggage attached. Basically, something original in the sense that there aren't endless homages thoughout. Maybe his Inglorious Bastards is something special, but you can already here The Dirty Dozen comparisons.

Posted by Geoff at March 4, 2007 4:56 PM

comment #9

Undercover Brother says ...

I have to chuckle at that "Black Shampoo" marquee over Quint's shoulder. If someone wants to demonstrate that grindhouse worship is completely misguided, watch that. There's a golden moment or two in it, but otherwise it's completely pedestrian and numbingly dull on every level.

Posted by Undercover Brother at March 4, 2007 5:01 PM

comment #10

AH says ...

I find it hard to criticize someone who wrote and directed Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown, and Kill Bill ... especially since I haven't created any works of art.

Posted by AH at March 4, 2007 5:04 PM

comment #11

kingofnails says ...

Actually, for whatever it's worth, next week they're playing something I've always been dying to see, and might actually be sort of good, or at least half-interesting as a historical document -- ROLLING THUNDER, starring William Devane and Tommy Lee Jones, and written by Paul Schrader.

And I've long been fascinated by PRETTY MAIDS ALL IN A ROW. Something about the title, it's kind of sinister and sexy, no?

Posted by kingofnails at March 4, 2007 5:07 PM

comment #12

Geoff says ...

AH: I often feel the same way. For the sake of conversation and argument it's fun, but I respect the hell out of Tarantino and realize I'm a nobody. In fact, it's why I could never envision myself as a movie critic. I appreciate it all too much.

Posted by Geoff at March 4, 2007 5:12 PM

comment #13

christian says ...

qt will talk his ass off about the films and place them in context.
he loves doing it.

as per PRETTY MAIDS just check it out and revel:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ta1iVADS68E

Posted by christian at March 4, 2007 5:45 PM

comment #14

Jeremy Smith says ...

And you know they're "disposable wanks" because you've seen them all? Doubtful. As noted above, ROLLING THUNDER is a particularly strong film, probably one of the best revenge films I've ever seen (written by Paul Schrader in his screenwriting prime). Shit, I'll be there this evening to watch THE MACK with an audience for the first time in my life, and I'm certainly hanging around to see whatever THE CHINESE MACK is (never heard of it, know nothing about it, and I'm keeping it that way until 9:40 tonight).

And while Tarantino may not have a written manifesto extolling the brilliance of these films, his pre-show introductions for them are legendary. It's a mistake to discount his affection for these movies as strictly childish.

Posted by Jeremy Smith at March 4, 2007 5:59 PM

comment #15

JD says ...

To answer Jeff's question, I think one of the reasons Tarantino loves these movies is the writing. Yes, the writing. Whereas traditional Hollywood scripts are endlessly re-worked and standardized before production so that all eccentric, disturbing or surprising moments are eliminated, these movies are all about those moments. They may not be overflowing with substance or important themes -- not that Jeff would notice if they were -- but, at their best, American drive-in/exploitation films can be as entertaining as any major Hollywood production. Unlike most Hollywood films, they have personality and personal vision. Watch any of Larry Cohen's early films, for example. They're incredibly cheap, but also really witty and engaging. And Devin Conroy doesn't know what he's talking about. Celebrating low budget cinema is not elitist, lookind down your nose at it is. Tarantino is doing for 60s/70s exploitation cinema what the French New Wave did for filmmakers like Howard Hawks, Samuel Fuller, and Nicholas Ray: showing respect where it was previously forbidden.

Posted by JD at March 4, 2007 6:13 PM

comment #16

christian says ...

and some of john sayles best scripts were born out of this period. sayles wrote great stuff and had no condescension to the genre. he even worked in a great pro-union theme in THE LADY IN RED.

Posted by christian at March 4, 2007 6:24 PM

comment #17

rocco says ...

but they're not about anything the least bit internal or profound.

Perhaps there are those who watch movies for sheer enjoyment who search for meaning or redemption outside of the confines of dark theaters and away from laptops and home entertainment systems??

Posted by rocco at March 4, 2007 8:22 PM

comment #18

Pelham123 says ...

I'll certainly be checking out a few of those double features. Here's a website with some more information & one-sheets...
http://sergioleoneifr.blogspot.com/

Posted by Pelham123 at March 4, 2007 8:40 PM

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

I'll comment later, but for anyone interested, there's a rumour that Grindhouse will play early there. (See "sneak preview" on the calender.)

Posted by D.Z. at March 4, 2007 8:53 PM

comment #20

D.Z. says ...

"The thing he worships about them, I think, is their low-rent vitality and lack of pretension, and (I guess) the occasional standout performances. They have all that, yes (if you want to be generous), but they're not about anything the least bit internal or profound."

Can't vouch for them all, but The Mack deals with a number of social issues which are still relevant to the L.A. urban community. Plus you can tell which scenes were "borrowed" for Jackie Brown. The Chinese Mack, though, was crap. (It might have been slightly more tolerable if it was subbed, but not much.)

I'm not terribly interested in most of them, though. I wish he'd pick the better ones of the genre, instead of the mediocre ones.

Posted by D.Z. at March 4, 2007 9:03 PM

comment #21

Terry McCarty says ...

Re kingofnails on ROLLING THUNDER:
I saw it in my late teens and thought it was a somewhat conventional revenge-genre "B" movie--though directed by John Flynn, who did the superior THE OUTFIT.

I vaguely remember Schrader complaining at the time that ROLLING THUNDER wasn't the same as he originally wrote it.

Posted by Terry McCarty at March 4, 2007 11:18 PM

comment #22

Terry McCarty says ...

And re MACHINE GUN McCAIN, which screens later this week, it can be regarded as, if nothing else, the film which gave Cassavetes the cash to make HUSBANDS.

Posted by Terry McCarty at March 4, 2007 11:20 PM

comment #23

Dan Revill says ...

AH, don't forget that Tarantino also wrote True Romance, which I feel is a classic at this point (and next to Man on Fire, the best thing Tony Scott's ever directed).

Anyhow, I've never really understood all of the hate directed towards Tarantino. He hasn't made a 'bad' film yet it seems. True he might have one too many homages in his films, but I seriously doubt they take away from the enjoyment of the films for most.

At least Tarantino is doing what he loves when it comes to making films.

(Also JW, were you not a fan of Pulp Fiction way back in the day?)

Posted by Dan Revill at March 5, 2007 5:32 AM

comment #24

nemo says ...

If Tarantino ever shuts up long enough to write a book, he's missing a good bet if he doesn't lift some jacket blurbs from Wells.

"A street-corner smart-ass." -- Jeffrey Wells, Hollywood Elsewhere.

If a blurb like that doesn't sell some copies, I don't know what will.

Posted by nemo at March 5, 2007 8:54 AM

comment #25

Ju-osh says ...

Even casual fans of Tarantino know by now that every time he releases a new movie, he likes to promote the films that directly inspired it. When Reservoir Dogs came out, he way hyping the Cohen brothers 'Blood Simple' and Hong Kong new wave. When Pulp Fiction hit, he was recommending French new wave and Brian DePalma's early work. Jackie Brown = blaxploitation. Kill Bill = 70's kung fu and revenge pics. Now that he's showing grindhouse pics (and coincidentally, he's got a movie coming out titled Grindhouse), do you really think that this means that those are the only types of movies he likes?

Posted by Ju-osh at March 5, 2007 9:19 AM

comment #26

MilkMan says ...

Quentin Tarantino is the greatest filmmaker who had never left his sophomore year dorm room in college, where getting stoned and trying to find the significance in the movies of Bryce Mack is seen as some kind of intellectual stunt. Tarantino is juvenile and puerile and smart enough to be a master conman and thief, which is what he is. I think it's telling that his best movie was his first. He refuses to elevate himself, and I think it's because he's been flash frozen, like a mosquito in amber, circa 1993. Recycling pop trash is sooooo fall of the Berlin Wall, and his programming at the New Beverly betrays his garbage aesthetics by being both witless and indulging in grade-school juxtapositions. If he was such a maverick and iconoclast he would dig a little deeper into the pile and come up with some titles that have nothing to do with him ditching school on some random day in March of '78. Rolling Thunder? Revenge of the Cheerleaders? He's like an absentee Uncle who rolls into town every Thansgiving armed with old Cro-Mag and Black Flag cassettes, trying his hardest to pawn them off on some teenage nephews who have moved on to the Jesus Lizard and Rapeman. Why he refuses to grow up is both fascinating and typical. Tarantino could have been the American Godard. He might still have a chance, if that's what he wants, but first he'll have to put away the bong and open himself up to experiences that have nothing to do with him and his memories of himself when he was a kid and how it felt to sit in some dank South Bay theatre, munching on popcorn and getting a boner every time Sybil Danning lit a cigarette. Or maybe I'm just projecting. Or maybe Tarantino suffers from some kid of low-grade autism. Either way, I'm going to stay away from the New Beverly during Tarantino's tenure unless he somehow has a change of heart and programs a double bill of Salo and The Whoopee Boys.

Posted by MilkMan at March 5, 2007 11:22 AM

comment #27

Hallick says ...

"Now that he's showing grindhouse pics (and coincidentally, he's got a movie coming out titled Grindhouse), do you really think that this means that those are the only types of movies he likes?"

What was initially fascinating about Quentin's enthusiasm for movies was that he promoted the entire spectrum of films, from French New Wave to grindhouse drive-in flics. It lent credence to his love for the grindhouse stuff because he WASN'T just another splatter junkie ranting about his favorite no-budget sleaze fests.

But in the last few years, all he ever seems to be talking about are the junk food films, and he's seemed to devolve into being purely a fanboy of schlock - one of the most eloquent, passionate and talented ones out there, but still a shlock lover. Which is 100% his decision to make. But the promise he showed in the beginning, when it looked like he could be the genius who'd be creating amazing hybrids of high and low art, looks like it isn't going to materialize now. It seems that he's decided to dive whole-hog into the low end of the spectrum and that's kind of a shame.

Posted by Hallick at March 5, 2007 11:36 AM

comment #28

D.Z. says ...

Ju-osh: "When Reservoir Dogs came out, he way hyping the Cohen brothers 'Blood Simple' and Hong Kong new wave."

Except for Ringo Lam...

"Now that he's showing grindhouse pics (and coincidentally, he's got a movie coming out titled Grindhouse), do you really think that this means that those are the only types of movies he likes?"

I think the movies he likes are the kind which
have some sort of camp value, mixed with populist appeal, which is why I wonder why he's been called an "indie" director all these years.

Milkman: Um, his first movie belongs to someone else. And he could never be another Godard, unless Godard started tripping out on acid and weed while shooting a picture.

Posted by D.Z. at March 5, 2007 12:14 PM

comment #29

Ju-osh says ...

Here are a few of my favorite films that I'd never have seen (or seen a hell of a lot later than I did) were it not for Tarantino pushing them in his interviews:
Mr. Majestyk
Vanishing Point
White Lightning
Blow Out
Blood and Black Lace
The Street Fighter series
Five Fingers of Death
Five Deadly Venoms
Master of the Flying Guillotine

...and that's just off the top of my head!

How many other directors do you read about that push other directors' work as often as their own? There aren't too many.

Posted by Ju-osh at March 5, 2007 12:21 PM

comment #30

D.Z. says ...

I saw Master of the Flying Guillotine when it screened in L.A., and it had nothing to do with Quentin. I also was familiar with the Venoms and The Streetfighter without his help, too. No thanks to him, though, I was forced to sit through an Iron Monkey with changed music and dialogue, and a dub-only Fist of Legend.

Posted by D.Z. at March 5, 2007 12:30 PM

comment #31

The Movie Man says ...

Has anyone seen DEATH PROOF yet? What's the buzz on it?

Posted by The Movie Man at March 5, 2007 1:54 PM

comment #32

christian says ...

cool poster.

Posted by christian at March 5, 2007 4:28 PM

comment #33

Craig Kennedy says ...

Hallick, I think you make a great point. For now I'm content to go along for the ride, but I really hope Tarantino doesn't just end up spinning his wheels. Whether you like his early films up to Jackie Brown or not, I think it's fair to say his was up to something a little deeper than he has been lately. Kill Bill and Grindhouse are fun diversions, but if he keeps at it, it will seem like a waste of talent. I'm not sick of it yet, but I could see it happening.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at March 5, 2007 4:29 PM

comment #34