Take your seats, class: Senior writer Chris Nashawaty concludes his in-depth weeklong study of all things Quentin Tarantino with his final installment of EW University. Check out our gallery of 20 Tarantino movie and movie poster faves, our look at the original 1978 Inglorious Bastards, our guide to the film-geek references in Tarantino’s Basterds, and our Quentin Tarantino final exam.
Imagining Hollywood — and the world beyond it — without Quentin Tarantino
No one divides moviegoers like Quentin Tarantino. Those who are in his corner love his infectious cineaste enthusiasm, his references to obscure B-movies, and his pop culture-drenched, rat-a-tat-tat dialogue. The haters find his movies too long, too talky, and too … well, just too much of everything. But just for a second, try to imagine Hollywood without him.
It’s harder than you think.
Ever since the video store clerk-turned-world famous auteur unveiled 1992’s Reservoir Dogs, his influence has rippled out and affected movies and moviemaking in countless ways. Love or hate him, there’s no denying Tarantino is the most famous brand-name director since Steven Spielberg (I mean, did Michael Mann guest on Letterman when his movie came out?). But just for the sake of argument, let’s imagine a few ways in which movies — and our lives beyond them — might be different if Tarantino had never graduated to the other side of that video-store cash register.
Harvey Weinstein would be just another anonymous, brash indie film hustler: Weinstein has often said that his former company, Miramax, was “the house that Quentin built.” The partnership between Tarantino and his pugnacious patron dates back to Reservoir Dogs. And while that film wasn’t any great shakes at the box office, it made Tarantino’s name, defined his outsider bad boy rep, and led to their second teaming, Pulp Fiction — which we all know won the Palme d’Or at Cannes, went on to make $107 million in theaters (on an $8 million budget), and got nominated for seven Oscars including Best Picture (Tarantino won the screenplay statuette with Roger Avary). Sure, Miramax still had its twee little corset-clad arthouse bonbons, but Tarantino’s swagger largely made Weinstein’s studio what it was in its ’90s heyday. Without it, it’s easy to picture the studio capo as just one of many indie hustlers on the make at Sundance still looking for the break-out film to define the company that’s no longer his anyway.
There wouldn’t have been a John Travolta comeback: When Travolta signed on to star in Pulp Fiction, he was a fading star — and that’s being charitable. The guy who had rocketed to the A-list with Grease and Saturday Night Fever was, by the early ’90s, starring in cruddy movies like The Experts. If he had never resurrected his career as badass assassin Vincent Vega, there would be no Get Shorty, Face/Off, or Primary Colors (don’t laugh, that’s an underrated movie!). In fact, right about now, he’d probably be turning up in Look Who’s Talking XII: Just Who Isn’t Talking?
Actually, there wouldn’t be any big actors starring in indies at all: Before Travolta’s lightning-strikes Pulp Fiction gambit, A-list actors for the most part wouldn’t be caught dead in a low-budget film that debuted at Sundance. Travolta not only made it okay, he made it cool — a brilliant career move that Hollywood’s agents quickly scrambled to duplicate for their clients. Without Tarantino, there would be no Robert DeNiro in Jackie Brown (his last credible performance), no Kurt Russell in Death Proof (he’d still be cranking out family films like Dreamer, leaving his one-time badass Snake Plissken persona to further fade into dust), and no Brad Pitt ‘wantin’ his Nazi scalps’ in Basterds. And that’s just in QT’s movies. Without the Tarantino/Travolta blueprint, all indies would still star people you’ve never heard of outside of a John Sayles retrospective.
Pulp Fiction wouldn’t have been nominated for a Best Picture Oscar: Obviously, if there’s no Tarantino, there’s no Pulp. And if there’s no Pulp, we’re going to have to find a new fifth film to round out the top category at the 1994 Oscars. The other four movies that year were Quiz Show, The Shawshank Redemption, Four Weddings and a Funeral, and, of course, Forrest Gump. Let’s hypothesize that without Pulp in the mix, a movie like — oh, I don’t know — The Ref gets the fifth slot. Maybe that messes with the voting. Maybe the Gump boosters get all twitchy. And maybe, just maybe, we’re all now saying “Ladies and Gentlemen, Oscar-winning actor Denis Leary.” Scary, right?
The world outside of the cineplex would feel topsy turvy, too: Tarantino’s greatest gift may be the way he writes extended riffs that take some small nugget of pop-culture ephemera, riff the hell out of it, and spit out a new form of conventional wisdom. Without QT’s cinematic B.S. sessions, suddenly we’re left reeling. We no longer know what Madonna’s “Like A Virgin” is really about (Reservoir Dogs). We no longer know that Top Gun was really a subversive tale about a Maverick’s struggle with his own homosexuality (Sleep With Me). And we no longer know what to say when we want to order a Quarter Pounder with Cheese when in Paris (Pulp Fiction).
Would you want to live in a world like that? Neither would I.
Comments (1-30) of 54 Add your comment
No mention of Kill Bill?
How about Tarantinos wicked guest spot on Alias? “I had some of your drink…and there was backwash!” He’s done other acting gigs as well, including Film Noir/Vampire Hyprid “From Dusk To Dawn” Speaking of which…giving a career boost to Robert Rodriguez.
John Travolta showed the best of his acting ability in Phenomenon. His performance was exceptional. He made some bad choices, but that alone should let people know that he’s anything but a flash in the pan. Travolta carried Pulp Fiction because it’s difficult to play that type of role without having people believe the character too much. No one seemed to walk away thinking that Vincent Vega was really a killer junkie. Most people just believed that he was just good at it. Travolta’s movies have been underrated but he is a very talented actor.
I can easily imagine movies without him. Seriously.
Boy, you make your arguments eloquently and persuasively, Eliza C.
I can see how one could imagine a world w/o QT’s public persona, but certainly I wouldn’t want have a world without his movies. You take the good with the bad, and Tarantino isn’t the only åssbag in the industry.
lulz. you COULDN’T imagine movies without him because all movies now are made after him. that’s like saying “imagine movies without orson welles”. literally impossible.
We probably wouldn’t even have Judd Apatow’s humor either. His pop culture namedropping is almost definitely influenced by Tarantino. And what, Robert De Niro in Stardust wasn’t a credible performance?
Yeah, that is a totally underrated movie and his performance was really good too
Tarantino is a one-trick pony. Old news. Washed up. Sadly, this doesn’t mean he can’t sell tickets.
You forgot to mention Quintin’s acting chops – first rate!
Steve,
Few things are as washed up as your choice of cliches.
You can’t be serious. Tarantino needs to, at least, go back to high school and take a few classes over.
As for Alias. I lost all respect for the show when Tarantino showed his face. In that very episode, the leading lady broke steel bolts by spraying them with a fire extinguisher and then hitting them with the butt of the fire extinguisher. Give me a break. That was typical for Tarantino involvement.
From that point on, they were using butane lighters as cutting torches, thin pieces of metal for wrenches. etc.
Tarantino’s work is just too far fetched. He doesn’t even attempt to make things believable.
I don’t disagree with anything in this post, other than to quibble with the reasons why Pulp Fiction’s inclusion on the list of Best Picture nominees had an impact. It paved the way for indies to be recognized by the academy, culminating in the list of 1996 nominees including four indies and only one studio picture.
Was anyone really concerned that “The Ref” would be nominated that year?
For Tarantino
One of favorite my songs
Captain Kirk – Mr Tambourine Man
Ouentin has “first rate acting chops”?? Ummm…NO. Not by a long shot.
Anyone who saw his misguided attempt on Broadway in “Wait Until Dark” knows that he is hopeless as an actor. And he’s a mediocre director who still doesn’t know how to tell a story with clarity. The one thing he can do is sell himself.
Wait a minute, though it isn’s a dramatic performance, De Niro was plenty credible in Meet The Parents. Yet another example of you “film experts” discounting the amount of talent it takes to make credible comedy! A large percent of actors agree that it is HARDER to do great comedy than great drama. Get with the program, or better yet, EW get a new writer.
A fantastic action/thriller writer and director to be sure. But what a truly ugly guy– second only to Clint Howard for the ‘Ugliest Actor Alive Award’.
The Ref is an incredibly underrated movie. You’re saying it would be a travesty if Denis Leary had an Oscar when Roberto Benini, Helen Hunt, and Mira Sorvino have all won???
Trying to imagine Hollywood without Quentin Tarantino is like… trying to imagine American Politics without the NRA. He is definitely the most widely accepted connoisseur of violence in entertainment today. … for artistic reasons, to be sure.
While I agree he has had a huge influence on popular movies. He does a decent job of making hollywood movies seem “artsy” . But Pulp Fiction wasnt a B movie with A stars. This was an A list all the way, it was just also popular with B movie fans. And his acting is awful, youve got to be kidding, its just bad. Watch David Lynchs’ Blue Velvet again and tell me if you still think QT is an original director. Excellent script writer, pretty good director, terrible actor.
So basically, what you’re saying, that without tarantino we wouldn’t have Tarantino, because all the examples you give are tarantino stuff.
Thats what I don’t like so much about his movies. It’s too much about him. A simple example is Death proof. The girls are making a dialogue which is what tarantino would make with himself. It’s stupid and out of place.
Kill Bill is his best for the homage it makes to anime and mostly without him being all the time talking to himself. Still not great, but good. Then Pulp Fiction. The others are just watchable, nothing special.
1. QT is an absolutely awful actor. It’s embarrassing to watch.
2. None of his films were interesting to me. Blood and gore are an amateur filmmaker’s stock in trade.
3. His dialogue is laughably stupid.
4. There is no evidence in this article that the advances made in the industry would NOT have happened without QT. Assume QT and Pulp had never existed. Does that prove that Sundance and indies would have never become influential? That’s quite a stretch of logic.
5. I walked out on “Four Rooms,” the “Mariachi” disaster, disliked “Jackie Brown,” and thought “Pulp” was nothing special. Take away shocking violence and what exactly is left?
6. If the guy never makes another movie, what will we be missing?
“Blood and gore are an amateur filmmaker’s stock in trade.”
Really? Sam Raimi (Evil Dead series, Drag Me to Hell…A Simple Plan, Spiderman), Peter Jackson (Bad Taste, Brain Dead…Lord of the Rings) and Danny Boyle (28 Days Later…Slumdog Millionaire) are amateur filmmaker’s?!
Um… hobbits saving themselves from peril isn’t blood and gore. Nor is Slumdog. Blood and gore is gratuitous violence, and by the looks of your list, you’re a big fan. Enjoy.
Cormac – Penny was just pointing out that some great filmakers have/continue to use “blood and gore”, giving an example of such a film, followed by a movie the general public can enjoy.
You’re ridiculous…all of the directors you list matured and blossomed after learning their craft with their early movies. QT rips off his favorite films and directors to the point of plagiarism and brings gore and violence to absurdist levels to please his core adolescent audience. He is also possibly the worst actor to ever stink up the screen. There is certainly “pop culture” merit to several of his films, but who cares? Naming this douche-bag in the same breath as real directors is insulting to them and to anyone with half a brain. It’s unfortunate that an insufferable asshole like Harvey Weinstein gets to keep breathing based on QT’s lamentable success.
lets analyze your misinformed frankly stupid statement
“I walked out on Four Rooms.”
Well genius Tarantino had nothing to do with that movie until the final segment.
“the “Mariachi” disaster”
He literally had NOTHING to do with the trilogy.
disliked “Jackie Brown,”
There was no violence…other then one scene (which happened off screen) and it was excellently done… with fantastic acting… so…
and thought “Pulp” was nothing special. Take away shocking violence and what exactly is left?
Now this one gets me. Ok lets take out the “Shocking Violence”. This leaves us with 9/10 of the movie. The only violent scene was between butch and marclessus, and that was an amzingly suspensful scene. hitchcock, kubrick, leone, kurowsawa are all very talented at building suspense and they have had violence in film, and yet I would assume you don’t look down on them? And going back to pulp, it wasn’t the violence pulp fans enjoyed. It was the storytelling techniques and style that won us over.
How to know when your acting career is kaput: Quentin Tarantino hires you.
There has always been, and always will be violence in films. To address Cormac, Sergio Leone, Scorcesse, Coppola, Kurosawa, and Kubrick have all created their masterpieces with an amount of violence. Inglorious basterds did glamourise violence, but it also showed us the ugly side of it. Nonetheless, at the end of the day it’s just a movie. This is not reality, and while film reflects on reality, it isn’t. Sometimes you have to just sit back and enjoy a good story with fantastic imagery and a beautiful score.
@David
Everything you describe about the ‘Alias’ episode is exactly what makes pulp fiction (not the movie) enjoyable. The finer details of reality are eschewed in favor of a more unbelievable, yet still fun and entertaining ride-along, utilizing quick witted dialogue. It is a style of storytelling from comics and movie serial shorts of yesteryear. Quentin was the one who brought it back to us and it works!
Tarantino isn’t the only director to go on talk shows. Apatow is an example. Tarantino is the only one who would do American Idol though.
I agree with everything on the list except for John Travolta’s comeback being so all-fired important. He’s incredibly one note…if I have to watch one more movie where he just happens to dance I think I’ll scream.
For all of you Tarantino-Haters, for me to judge if any of your words have any worth, I have to judge YOUR taste in movies and directors.
So who are the directors whom you think Hollywood can’t live without?
That is not a fair question. None of the other directors are as big at self promotion as Tarantino. With very few exceptions, we do not even pay attention to who directed a movie. It’s just that Tarantino is so incredibly bad, we make a point to not watch him if we can help it.
My family enjoyed Sin City, but we thought something was really screwy and out of place during the car chase scene. Then we watched the extra features on the disk and got pissed off that someone would voluntarily let Tarantino have a hand in their work. (or was it the fact that we sat through it?)
So, to answer your question…I have no idea who directed the movies my family likes. And that is the point. If a director is good, his/her work will stand on its own merits. Let the movie makers argue about who the best is. We don’t really care. Just give us something worth paying for.
The fact that we are discussing the merits of Quentin Tarantino is a true testament to how uninspired Hollywood has become.
I don’t think Tarantino is bad, it’s just not good enough. His movies are watchable and to some point entertaining. But he is not the genius you fans think he is. It just that. I’m not a Tarantino hater. I hate people thinking he is a genius, because he isn’t.
I have many directors I like and respect. The obvious ones are the classics like spielberg, ridley scott, james cameron (hope he still nows about directing after 10 years
), Tony scott. Less well known, Fernando Meireles, Danny Boyle(known for slumdog Millionaire and 28 days later, but his best is Trainspotting), Sam Mendes, Christopher Nolan (Batman is great for action hero, but has done better movies, memento being the top one).
I think I’m missing someone, but has you can see it is pretty different directors. Mostly I like directors who knows how to tell a story. Tarantino makes just what he likes to do. Story is minimal and with no respect for it. He mostly does things, because he thinks it’s cool.
I’m about as big a Tarantino fan as you can get. Hell, sometimes when I see his films I swear they were made for me and me alone. Something about his sensibilities really stays with me. At the same time, I don’t think that he’s the only brand-name director to make an impact on modern filmmaking. Peter Jackson, Michael Bay, Nora Ephron (queen of the rom-com), Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Spike Lee and to a lesser degree, up and comers like Judd Apatow, Guillermo Del Toro, Danny Boyle, Christopher Nolan and Zack Snyder… their contributions to filmmaking may not always be as cutting-edge as Tarantino’s, but Hollywood certainly couldn’t survive without them. They may not appear as guest judges on American Idol, but they are household names to anyone who’s ever picked up an issue of EW.
I see a lot of reaching in this article, it’s like when i wrote a paper in highschool and had to fill the last few pages *sigh*
he couldn’t carry wes anderson’s Jock btw.
Oh, the usual QT bashing. How predictable. Either you like his films or you don’t, but to deny his impact just because you don’t like him is preposterous. His films are at the top of favorites in my house. Everyone in my family loves them. Speaking of which, The Ref is the only one of the 1994 class mentioned that SHOULD have been included in the nominees. That movie is our family’s “It’s A Wonderful Life”. Not a christmas goes by without watching it. If you want to talk about an overrated director, how about Spike Lee?
Hear hear!
i would love to read the article but there is a dumb car banner in the way. will not come back. this site sucks.
2 things:
1) Ed Wood probably would’ve been nominated, not The Ref.
2) Judd Apatow movies. Seriously, tell me Judd Apatow isn’t the Tarantino of raunchy comedies.
I love The Ref!! It is my Xmas movie every year!! I’m sorry but the line – you’re husband’s not dead, he’s hiding – is AWESOME
I meant your – not you’re….I hate it when people mix those up!!
You may not like his movies, but he definately has had a profound effect….that is undeniable. Like any major rock in the pond of popculture, it has it’s ripple effects.
it’s almost fifty/fifty on liking and hating Quentin Tanrantino. If someone doesn’t like his films then don’t watch. The few that do like them watch them for the laughs, the action, the blood and the story it tells. I don’t take his movies so seriously that I’m going to avoid them since they are so graphic. I just enjoy them. He’s a heck of a writer…not as an actor though. But when I do see him in any of his films I have to grin cause I know he’ll be so bad that I have to laugh. I absolutely LOVE all his movies. I do think what he’s done has brought better attention to films that probably would have gone unnoticed before. He’s one of the celebs on my list that I’d like to meet, simply because he does a great job at what he does.