I read your comment with interest and hear where you're coming from , from but have to disagree with every one of your points – it seems we're diametrically opposed on this one. I'd love to get into it but right now am working on a new section of TFT that's launching on Monday so maybe we can revisit this later?

In the meantime if you're interested here's some more of our posts and podcasts on Kubrick and Tarantino, (including an interview with Dan Richter who worked closely for a year with Kubrick on 2001 and an hour discussion on Eyes Wide Shut):

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/08/06/2001-podc…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/08/28/stanley-k…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/02/13/stanley-k…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/08/31/inglourio…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/01/04/kubricks-…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2008/08/28/my-favori…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2008/08/22/the-film-…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/10/19/5-things-…

There s barely anything common between kubrick and tarentino
- storytelling : kubrick has mainly adapted famous litterary work (lnabokov's lolita , clark's2001 , stephen king's shining )always trying to get rid of anything he deemed unnecessary to the them and the main plot . Lot of writers have thus complained about how the Kubrick movie was unfaithful to the book. The method of kubrick was to purify and then translate the essence into images.
in the other hand tarentino almost always come up with his own script (even though heavily influenced by previous film) . And far from looking for a storyline as simple as possible he always make it as twisted as possible(his non linear storytelling is one of his trademark : the man's just unable to tell a story without dividing it in chapter).And he s not getting any better : in IB he obviously mixed two different plots (the bastard and shoshanna) for a very confusing result . It s the exact opposite of what kubrick was doing.

dialogues: kubrick as a former photographe was obsessed by images and never had any ambition about making memorable lines : they were mere by-products of an awesome movie . in AFI s memorable quotes you only find “Open the pod bay doors, HAL” which sounds extremely flat if you take it out of context . In the other hand Tarentino is obsessed by making cool lines or at least lines that sounds cool . And he brags as much as he can about it : remember when he send his script of deathproof to dylan because he thought that dylan , a recognized lyrist , would enjoy the exceptionnal quality of his lines ?

Music : Kubrick was a huge advocater of classic music and he s world known famous for that : 2001 , orange and barry lyndon are the epitome of this.
Tarentino is into pop music in the broad meaning of the term: leone soundtrack , rap , folk , and so on .

I could go on for ages like this …. my point is this comparison is pure non sense. I don t mind comparison now and then when it s relevant . But this is so wrong that there aren much to discuss

ghinzdra

I read your comment with interest and hear where you're coming from , from but have to disagree with every one of your points – it seems we're diametrically opposed on this one. I'd love to get into it but right now am working on a new section of TFT that's launching on Monday so maybe we can revisit this later?

In the meantime if you're interested here's some more of our posts and podcasts on Kubrick and Tarantino, (including an interview with Dan Richter who worked closely for a year with Kubrick on 2001 and an hour discussion on Eyes Wide Shut):

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/08/06/2001-podc…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/08/28/stanley-k…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/02/13/stanley-k…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/08/31/inglourio…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/01/04/kubricks-…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2008/08/28/my-favori…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2008/08/22/the-film-…

http://www.thefilmtalk.com/2009/10/19/5-things-…

There s barely anything common between kubrick and tarentino
- storytelling : kubrick has mainly adapted famous litterary work (lnabokov's lolita , clark's2001 , stephen king's shining )always trying to get rid of anything he deemed unnecessary to the them and the main plot . Lot of writers have thus complained about how the Kubrick movie was unfaithful to the book. The method of kubrick was to purify and then translate the essence into images.
in the other hand tarentino almost always come up with his own script (even though heavily influenced by previous film) . And far from looking for a storyline as simple as possible he always make it as twisted as possible(his non linear storytelling is one of his trademark : the man's just unable to tell a story without dividing it in chapter).And he s not getting any better : in IB he obviously mixed two different plots (the bastard and shoshanna) for a very confusing result . It s the exact opposite of what kubrick was doing.

dialogues: kubrick as a former photographe was obsessed by images and never had any ambition about making memorable lines : they were mere by-products of an awesome movie . in AFI s memorable quotes you only find “Open the pod bay doors, HAL” which sounds extremely flat if you take it out of context . In the other hand Tarentino is obsessed by making cool lines or at least lines that sounds cool . And he brags as much as he can about it : remember when he send his script of deathproof to dylan because he thought that dylan , a recognized lyrist , would enjoy the exceptionnal quality of his lines ?

Music : Kubrick was a huge advocater of classic music and he s world known famous for that : 2001 , orange and barry lyndon are the epitome of this.
Tarentino is into pop music in the broad meaning of the term: leone soundtrack , rap , folk , and so on .

I could go on for ages like this …. my point is this comparison is pure non sense. I don t mind comparison now and then when it s relevant . But this is so wrong that there aren much to discuss

ghinzdra