You can listen to the interview here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007yyqc#-
Quentin Tarantino |
Interviewer: Francine Stock
The topics discussed: Tarantino’s new movie “Death Proof” and the techniques he used in it as a director
Introduction: a short introduce of Quentin Tarantino (talking about his hit movies and a brief of his upcoming movie “Death Proof” which is the main subject of the interview) a short scene from the movie is played in the radio.
Initial questions started with the interviewer asking that the film is a part of Grindhouse movies so she wants to know what it added to the Grindhouse.
He started by saying “you know me, i always have a particular style, my own thoughts, own concerns etc.” Then he gave examples from Reservoir Dogs about his style. And he said “This is kinda the same situation. I came up with the idea that I wanted to make a slasher film. But not like a normal slasher film where there’s a serial killer with a knife or something.” It wasn’t apealling to him. So he started to write the script with the structure of a slasher film. But somewhere in the halfway it started to show the female power to the audience and it evolved into an action film. And he is proud that when you watch the movie, you don’t really know when that happens. It suddenly changes colors before you know it.
Reaction to answers: She often laughs when the interviewee makes jokes.
Follow up question: Is that why there were all those techniques in the beginning? Like there are stratches, sometimes the color coming out of the picture and plotlines that don’t go anywhere. They’re not in the second part of the movie. Are you talking about this kind of a transition? (It’s obvious that she watched the movie before and is also interested in it. So her reactions are not fake and she asks the questions in an interested way.)
Answer: A little bit. The thing is actually to duplicate a true grandhouse experience. Because nowadays a movie is out and it’s played everywhere with the best quality. But back then a movie was first played in for example Dallas (and god knows what quality of projectors, theatres and stuff they had) and then it’s moved on and played in Houston. So the quality of the film decreases. I thought it would be cool to add a certain kind of oldness to the film. And as a collector, I think there’s a charm or even an anxiety in watching a dodgy film. (You know, some scenes are missing due to bad quality.)
Question: There are missing parts in this film, aren’t there?
Answer: Which parts?
Question: You know, some romantic texts go on between the girl and the boy.
Answer: It has a result. She texts him and he doesn’t show up and he says you’re an a**hole and that’s it. That scene has a result.
Question: what about the policeman who talks about the serial killer? And he is also the policeman in Kill Bill too.
Answer: He’s the dividing line of the movie. After his part, the second part of the film starts. He actually has the same role in Kill Bill.
Question: Do you deliberately have missing reals in a film to make the viewers curious? Answer: Yes. I did that in grindhouse movies. I’m only playing with the exact form of watching a film. Not just in a connected way. I want you to be involved in the characters, I want the story to mean something to you and I think it does. I’m playing with the exact form of cinema and making you deal with it.
Question: There’s a possible danger in that. You use all those techniques but most people are not familiar with all these as you are so they don’t understand and simply think it’s a bad film?
Answer: I don’t think they think it’s a bad film. I only made it bad in prints. I didn’t make a crappy movie. If the question is “Does everybody have to get that in order to enjoy it?”, the answer would be no. Because those who get my tricks in movies, just get it and those who don’t get it might enjoy it even more than everybody else.
Question: I observed in a totally unscientific way that you’re more engaged in female power in your movies than the early movies with the exception of Jackie Brown.
Answer: I’m really proud about the movie in this way. I’m so proud of the woman characters in my movie. Their dialogs etc. That’s how young ladies talk today. From women I know, this is how they talk and my job is to write the scripts. If you see this movie at the right age (when you’re between 15-20), it could be one of your favorite movies. It would be something you and your girlfriends love and watch from time to time in little summer parties, hang outs, pizza nights etc. Eating ice cream with a broken heart and watching Death Proof…
Question: You’re trying to get more emotional engagement into your films right? In Kill Bill nobody would think the bride had emotions. She looked more like a fancy character.
Answer: I disagree with that. I don’t specifically do that. There’s nothing ironic or distant about my characters and their feelings.
Question: So you aren’t trying to get more viewers? Answer: No. There’s always been a depth in my characters. This is not a new thing.
The interviewer ends the interview by announcing that Death Proof will be in cinemas soon.
If I was to interview with Quentin Tarantino, I’d start off by saying he’s truly the best director I’ve ever seen and is the one who made me like cinema. (He really is.)
Then I’d ask him:
1) I really like the details you give about foods in your films and how you show a character eating something in a mouth-watering way. Is there any specific reason you do that? Is it only because you love food?
2) Are there any black people who got offended by the terms you use in your films? How did you react and what do you think about this whole “black dialect” issue?
That’s all. I hope you liked my project. If you still haven’t
watched, go watch “Death Proof” before it’s too late.
Meryem, perfect, thank you.
YanıtlaSili'm happy you like it!
YanıtlaSil