Should Directors Retire Early or Keep Making Movies?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 พ.ค. 2024
- This video essay examines Quentin Tarantino and Martin Scorsese's different philosophies on retirement. Tarantino is going to retire at 60 after directing ten movies, ending with 'The Movie Critic', whereas Scorsese fears he is running out of time and won't get to tell all the stories he wants to tell. So who is right? Do directors get worse with age? Do bad movies on your filmography lower your quality as a director?
FAIR USE NOTICE:
This video may contain copyright material; the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is made available under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976, allowance is made "fair use" for the purposes such as criticism, comment, review, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that otherwise might be infringing. All rights belong to its owners.
Music used:
Mulholland by King Canyon
The Loner by DJ Williams
Trips by Topher Mohr & Alex Elena
Blue Dream by Cheel
Blue Danube by Strauss
Timestamps:
0:00 Retirement Philosophy
1:40 Why Directors Should Stop
7:20 Why Great Directors Should Keep Creating
#tarantino #scorsese #moviedirector - บันเทิง
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 62 | คู่เอก "มงคลแก้ว vs อีที"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/q7QuSUtUN94/mqdefault.jpg)
As a writer myself, I can understand the mentality. If anyone has ever written more than one book or made more than one movie, they will know that artists are in constant competition with themselves. We are constantly comparing our current work to our previous work. It often feels safer to go out with a bang than to continue and risk making something subpar. Of course, for me at least, the creative drive will always resume after a few months of hiatus. It’s impossible to live any other way. Even if Quentin never makes another film, he will never stop being creative.
That’s just the problem though. He thinks he can retire from directing.. to write??? He should bring his director chops to worthy scripts by fresh voices. He’s too steeped in auteur theory, that’s the problem
I think it's just fear of failure. One should push forward. Art is a person's expression. It is their therapy and chance to connect with others.
That's it.
@@jordand1345 He has already tried that and absolutely hated it. No its got nothing to with the Auteur theory (whatever that means). Its do with the fact that the vast majority of writer/directors only ever trust their vision and nobody else's. David Lynch is also like that and hasn't made a full feature length film in 17 years since Inland Empire back in 2006. Paul Thomas Anderson one his long time mates also has that mindset. Billy Wilder was one of the very few with that mindset in Old Hollywood. Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton also very much had that mindset in the Silent era. Other big examples include Andrei Tarkovsky, Ingmar Bergman, Akira Kurosawa, Rainer Werner Fassbinder and Werner Herzog. Just remember at the end day the vast majority of Directors do not write own their scripts. So its an entirely different mentality and creative mindset when they do it.
I don’t do that at all. I have toured created many bands in many genres, sometimes acts that existed/performed in the same periods. I didn’t compare any of it to one another. I don’t compare my film work to one another. Or my scripts. I don’t look back in that way. Each project requires something different. How can I compare them to one another? Create like no one is watching. Create in excess.
@@CreepyNoodlesK Well, good for you, but most artists think otherwise. This just feels like bragging, to be honest.
I think Paul Thomas Anderson is a great example of a filmmaker whose films have matured throughout his career with his age. Most directors at the beginning of their careers go from smaller, more tight-nit stories to bigger, ensemble type films towards the later parts of their careers. PTA seemingly had an opposite trajectory with his early films being huge and ensemble filled dramatic epics, and now creates much more intimate and restrained work.
I think he peaked with there will be blood though
@@johnjohnsonjohn That’s many people’s favorites but I honestly love his most recent films Phantom Thread and even Licorice Pizza, and The Master is my all time favorite of his. I just feel like there is way more introspection and emotion in these later films that was lacking a little bit in his earlier ones. This is just my opinion.
@@Jovanni_Ruizagreed completely. Also "There Will Be Blood" is of course phenomenal, but I think a big part is due to Daniel Day Lewis's performance, and while I know a director plays a part in an actors performance, it still is majority the actors doing.
@@johnjohnsonjohnPhantom Thread.
Paul Thomas Anderson is a underrated filmmaker that never gets the recognition he rightfully deserves and is much better than Tarantino that seems to have a formula and likes sticking to it until he feels like he can't do it anymore.Its no wonder he wants to retire when Scorsese who's been doing it for so long knows what stories and projects he wants to tell and won't quit until he does and that's very what a good artist should be.
I agree with you. If a great director ends up making a "bad" movie accidentally, I won't forgot all the good work that they did (in fact, I'd hold all of that even more dearly).
One important thing to keep in mind regarding Tarantino’s decision is that he didn’t come to this conclusion after his 10th movie. He placed this limitation upon himself way back, which means he started out knowing that he only gets to make so many movies. Each time he made another one he had to ask himself is this the story he wants to tell, is this good enough? In a way Tarantino and Scorsese are not so different - they both acknowledge they have limited time to tell their stories. They just approach it differently.
You said it yourself though, it’s the same thing. Soo why limit yourself to 10 instead of trusting your future self to know more about you than your current self does. It really sounded like he just wants to go do other things, which again, why continue to make movies if you want to create something else? So idk, to me it’s very silly and more ego driven than anything
This is Tarantino’s fear and ego and narcissism.
@@rbu2136I don‘t know anything about that guy. But his movies are my favorites. Why even listen to the dude who made the stuff, when his art speaks for itself.
A point on Hitchock - even if his last few films weren't great, his best films came out 30+ years and 40+ movies after he started. Rear Window was his 44th film.
Sidenote: Frenzy is among Hitchock's best in my book.
I think it's less about the amount of movies, and more about age. Rear Window was his 44th film, but he was 55 when he directed; similar age to Tarantino when he directed "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood". It's a sad fact of life that cognitive functions decline as we age, sometimes without us even realizing it, and I think that's what Tarantino wants to avoid.
Yeah, totally agree with this, The Wolf of Wall Street is one of my favourite Scorsese films and I really liked The Irishman too, if the Coen Bros stopped at 10 we wouldn't have got No Country For Old Men!
Hopefully Tarantino has a change of heart and keeps making films anyway.🙂
Silence is great too
Hell, Inside Llewyn Davis is my favourite Coen Brother movie so I'm glad they didn't stop
Irishman is meh movie for old people who got a short memory loss. The characters are repeating half of conversations over and over.
@@Bork_In_Volcanick
I still think he's right. Part of why Scorsese is still making movies is because a huge chunk of them are adaptations. Quentin Tarantino draws from his own imagination and as an aspiring writer. That can be really limited.
I think it's an ego thing, not wanting to taint your own lifestory by letting yourself go on forever. Still, the concept of you have a specific, limited time to do this might also add to the motivation of crafting out the best work possible with what's on hands.
You're underestimating how much age drags you down. Directing well made movies is physically and mentally exhausting. The older directors spend past their inability to work hard and it shows in the final process. I'd also imagine part of it is he doesn't want to commit 2-3 years to a film when he only has a few years left of good health. It's all down hill after 60, I can promise you that. My guess is he wants to write a higher volume of movies, and let the youth direct them. Maybe pump out 10 more written by him before 70.
The mona lisa comparison doesn't quite work though, because the Mona Lisa is famously an unfinished work of art. Leonardo never intended to leave it in this state
I was looking for this comment. The only reason that painting is famous is because Da Vinvi carried it with him at the moment of his death since it wasn't finished. The painting itself received a lot of damage due to his manhandle.
This topic has been my mind forever because of Quentin Tarantino.
I believe Quentin Tarantino just doesn’t want the same fate that his heroes who did not end their career well, to happen to him as well. Obviously, Quentin is very aware that Martin Scorsese is alive and well still making movies. Maybe he believes he’s just not one of those directors that can just keep on going no matter what. And because of that self conscience behavior, he doesn’t believe he’s worth much after he gets to a certain age. Not everybody wants to keep working at the same age as Martin Scorsese, but Martin Scorsese believes he was born to make movies until the day he dies.
Quentin Tarantino has been very open how he doesn’t want to be known for just directing. He wants to write books and plays and other things as well. I believe he just doesn’t think he can just keep going like everyone else that’s really it. 🎥
A big difference between the two is so many of Scorcese's movies are adaptations, or a pairing written by good screenwriter, whereas QT is all about writing original stories (Jackie Brown excepted) which (probably) takes a good deal more out of him. Not to diminish Scorcese at all, the man's never made a bad film
@@johnjohnsonjohn one of the biggest reason why Nolan is sucking hard nowadays. He should've retired ages ago
@@riverman6462I'm excited for Openheimer though
@@riverman6462I'm so glad I strongly disagree with you
@@riverman6462 Nolan was better when he worked with his brother.
Whenever I think about this issue Tarantino has raised, I think of Manuel Olveira, whose career begins in earnest at about 50, and whose films get more interesting and more appealing as Olveira ages past 100. There are other wonderful filmmakers like Theo Angelopoulos and Raul Ruiz who simply grew their passions and innovations in cinema as they grew older.
To make a movie AFTER PASSING 100 is INSANE, absolutely MAD props to Manuel Olveira.
He lived to 106, and directed 3 feature films after he turned 100, 4 short films, and two segments of larger omnibus films. All 3 of his last feature films star his grandson, who is middle-aged in those movies. There's gotta be a lot of world records there. It's something I love to think about.@@debrachambers1304
As much as I love Tarantino and don’t want him to quit. All directors should do what they want to do. It’s their prerogative
I’m on Tarantino’s side. Often times, I feel artists lose their touch in their later years. Sometimes it can even ruin their legacies by retroactively ruining the earlier works of art. There are exceptions, but it’s a risk each person must decide whether to take or not
It’s quite funny, Tarantino loves cinema like a holistic entity. He cares about cinema as an artform even more than loves creating stories.
I bet he figured that he could get to make and see more masterpieces if he ran a studio or stuck to writing, giving the director’s chair to younger artists.
Imagine if we could get 1-3 movies a year produced with Tarantino’s love and dedication to the craft, but in the hands of new voices and perspectives? That could be very exciting.
To be honest, whenever Tarantino brings up aging directors who aren’t as good any more, I think of Dario Argento. He hasn’t really managed to make gold or truly interesting movies since Stockholm Syndrome and his last one was pretty lackluster. I’m glad he’s still going out there to work and offering more opportunities to his production teams, but the movies are nowhere up to the same quality as his older films
Fans want content just for the sake of Content. But some people want good writing content, and think about the story first before the film needs to exist. Do you have a direction? you need great writing, great characters, great dialogue, everything etc..
Look at Marvel for example, they keep going after endgame giving us content for the sake of content and everyone is complaining because there’s no direction and nobody knows what is going on anymore.
Three points: 1: no director (or any person really) owes nothing to anyone, so if they don’t wanna direct anymore - it’s their choice; 2: if you wanna tell stories - you will try to tell as many of them as you can, like Scorsese says (can be different mediums though); 3: if Ridley Scott actually thinks he’s doing his best work now, he is delusional😅(just take Prometheus and Alien:Covenant alone, oof).
Maybe he's no longer making consistency making his best work, but The Martian and The Last Duel were both fantastic and I'm glad that both of those movies exist.
Not to mention Napoleon that is soon to be released with one of the best actors of our generation.
@@mizal7893 i agree
Speak for yourself. I loved Prometheus. It was a beautiful and ambitious film that unfortunately we did not get a worthy sequel to (because of stupid detractors that only wanted a new Alien movie). The music was great, visuals stunning, and there was a sense of wonder to it that captured my imagination back when I watched it in theaters. I guarantee that in years to come it will be looked back upon as a masterpiece.
You should retract your comments for the Upcoming NAPOLEON
In the case of directing in my opinion as stated in the video the peak should be considered by the director himself if he doesn't think he has the ability, drive, or want to keep making films then they probably shouldn't, but I definitely don't believe the peak is determined by age.
I don't think it has to be an age thing - for instance Eyes Wide Shut is my favorite Kubrick film - but QT's right about the trend of directors tending to fizzle out. I've always felt like it's a case of, despite age breeding further experience with the craft, there does tend to be a slowly dying hunger coupled with running out of things they're aching to *say* ...as well as perhaps getting a bit too familiar with their creative habits to the point of not expanding their muscle in a way that's organic.
@@chrisjfox8715 Or just the science based approach, your fluid IQ drops off a cliff. Great directors are highly intelligent people, once they hit 60 that intelligence drops off. IQ correlates to your ability to react and make fast paced decisions. When you're a director your constantly making endless micro decisions. Your work will suffer as you age. Either you need excessive time to do basic tasks, or you create bloated bland movies, that look like they were made by corporations rather than individuals.
I think this retiring story is a strategy by Tarantino so that the academy can finally give him the Oscar for his "last film". In addition to the fact that he is going to make a lot of money.
@@alexjackson2778 that's why he is making this strategy. But, probably it is just false hopes from me.
@@alexjackson2778 I don't know why it's a shock to anyone that he wants to write only. It's taken 35 years to make 10 films. I'm sure he could write a great film once a year maybe even 2-3. When you write creatively the hardest part is sinking all your life into 1 project. Wasting 3 years while your in your 60s for a movie that bombs is such a waste.
I think it's fine to value finitude in this case, no matter the reason. As much as I cherish the idea of dying doing what you love, I think Tarantinos position is interesting to put into perspective regarding what's happening right now with AI, holograms and post mortem exploitation of artists' work. When I imagine myself at 80 years old drawing, I imagine doing it for myself, because there's so much in art to discover and learn. I think that's why old artists tend to be self indulgent. But when it's to please an audience, as part of an industry, I find this idea more bleak. Yes, ppl should keep doing their thing until they die because they love the art and want us to see what weird thing they got into lately. They shouldn't keep doing it to feed an insatiable demand or for the hope of birthing another masterpiece.
That's my contribution to this discussion but this was a really great video 😊
I completely respect Tarantino on this. I'm self-protecting and neurotic so I'd rather perfect things than ebb and flow between greatness and failure. That's not going to work for everyone, but if he'd rather go out with 10 great (or at least good) films I say more power to him. It's a powerful statement and very self aware.
We might miss out on some greats from him but what a wonderful oeuvre he'll leave behind.
We should bear in mind that Tarantino isn't going to stop being creative, just stop directing specifically
He said he's going to continue to write scripts, novels and non-fiction. Maybe still produce films for other directors, who knows?
He may feel he won't have the energy to turn up on set in his 60s and 70s and have the same impact he did when he was a younger man
I'm disappointed to hear his next movie will be his last but I respect his decision if that's what he truly wants to do
Same could be said for actors as well. I think they put their all into it when they're trying to get established and then over time they get type cast - Robert de Niro or just phone it in - Anthony Hopkins.
Hopkins gave one of the best performances of his career in The Father a few years ago
@@bfunderb5899 that's fair enough but I imagine that that was a smaller low budget film not your MCU, Werewolf, Hitchcock sort ot thing.
De Niro's issue is that he got burst out playing psychos. You can't play a woman beater/rapist etc forever. He did a hard 180, once he gave up playing bad guys. It's quite clear that he got fed up with the emotional costs of being a true artist.
@@dixonhill1108 he's also got a growing family so he needs easy money from lots of roles that aren't too taxing 😂
Tarantino’s view is self-fulfilling. By worrying about his legacy, he has stopped taking risks- the very thing that diminishes a director who plays it safe to maintain a career. Instead, he could just accept that there are seasons to everything. He thinks he is being smart, but he has always lacked wisdom.
To be fair I have find that perhaps duo to ego Tarantino is kind of getting worse with time. And they things like his love for hyper violence have become more and more childish. I did not read his novelization of Once Upon A Time On Hollywood but I did read segments in his first non fiction til critic book and I was unimpress.
@@stephennootens916I wouldn't call it childish
@@mrstrangeworld5977 at best in my view his views are more in line with a teenager at best and at worst slightly disturbing. In his book he talks about laughing when he saw Taxi Driver and claimed the rest of the audience did as well. He went on to say that most directors lie when it comes to talking about the violence on their films and in truth from his view they all love filming violence. He said that Scorsese defiantly had hard on film the violent ending of taxi driver. This is enough proof to be to question all Tarantino's views on film.
@@stephennootens916maybe hes just speaking the truth and saying what others are afraid to say
Thats total BS. OUATIH was anything but “safe” and you have no idea what his next film will be either
Well if you are Martin Scorsese then there's no problem if you want to make more movies since he hasn't lost his touch. I think it also applies for Tarantino since he is one of the best filmmakers in the world. With Tarantino it is his call to end after 10 movies which is a pity for the world but since its his decision, you'll have to accept it.
Definitely on Scorsese's boat here. Your perspective when you're 20, 50, 80 is very different and age and life experience influences your creativity in many ways. So you can always create something new from a different perspective. Whether your work is generally loved, hated or ignored should not be a key factor as a creator.
Your mind will slow down as you age. What a 20 year old can write in a month will take 12 months for an 80 year old.
Quite insightful. Thanks!
Very interesting video ; 2 things: first Kaleidoscope was an Hitchcock project, it never materialized into a film, he did make Marnie after The Birds which is very good or at least as Truffaut put it « a great ill movie ». Secondly De Palma could have been mentioned as he is one of the best example to defend Tarantino’s point of view , as his latest film « Domino » is painful and heartbroken to watch considering how bad it is. Let’s not forget Tarantino was a great fan of De Palma, especially « Blow out » and talked about De Palma’s Bonfire of the Vanities. But definitely both point of views have their pros and cons.
My fav De palma has to be Mission impossible 1. Its amazing and has styles similiar to Blowout and Scarface
It has to depend on the director. Perhaps, Tarantino has said all he had to say, or felt he might become repetitive. Many artists do, with time, only improve in the quality of their work; some do (or, should) know when to fold.
Obviously any individual director should make whatever decision feels best for them, but in general I would agree with Scorsese's side of the argument. I mean even from an audience perspective, I would much rather that a director makes 5 mediocre movies and 1 masterpiece, than never making any of those movies and the masterpiece never having existed. That's my personal opinion but I'm sure most people would agree that they don't care too much about the consistency of the filmography as long as it has those good movies in it. I mean almost every director has some bad movies, and that doesn't diminish their great movies in the same way that a bad section of a movie can diminish another section of that same movie because they're meant to work together in a way that doesn't apply to distinct films within a filmography.
What an excellent and thorough commentary!
Ridley Scott is fooling himself if he truly thinks he's doing his best work now.
The last duel was magnificent imo
And he only made like Two amazing films
Comparison is rough, but looking at Scorsese and Scott, I know who I'm choosing.
Really interesting video! I hope you keep making content like this!
Total luxury problem, but it's a personal choice. I'm a fan of both Tarantino and Scorsese and wouldn't mind seeing more from each. As you stated, though, most directors need to work for a living.
I loved this video. Only contention I have is what you said about the bad movies not being remembered with the good. I don't think Coppola could separate the two. He made one of the greatest 2 films of all time with Godfather one and two, only to make Jack a couple decades later....I don't see how that much of a drop off will not be remembered.
Coppola did a handful of later movies such as Jack and Rainmen to pay off massive debt he had from his own company failing most of his other movies were personal art house projects. Note he is still alive and working on his dream project as we speak.
Beethoven was near the end of his life/career and had completely lost his hearing when he composed his Magnum Opus the 9th Symphony.
We're finally going to see Jay Sherman live action adaptation
Look at Akira Kurosawa some of his best films were after 60: "Dersu Uzala", "Ran" or "Dreams" could never have happened if he had retired... or Stanley Kubrick´s "Eyes Wide Shut".
American football coach John Madden said 10 years was the maximum for coaching in the NFL.
And for him, he was right.
I hope both directors live happy lives making however # of movies they care to.
wonderful video
That's a question that haunts me. Thanks for the video!
Tarantino told Tom Segua he’s already written a limited TV series
I respect both the views. Both are amazing filmmakers that have given us so much through their works of art.
Nice piece of work
Scorsese is an exception to me in that he’s still making some good movies. Not this best work to be sure but not bad like Coppolla or Woody Allen’s (presumably) final films.
Both Coppola and Woody Allen are making movies. Francis is working on his dream project now and has been doing experimental films for the last couple years and Woody is still pumping them out.
@@stephennootens916
It's fair to say that Woody Allen's best days are behind him. With Coppolla however, at least he has the opportunity to end his career on a high.
@@MrSmith1984 Woody Allen has had more than one slump in his long film career I can't say he will ever make another movie that the critics love and be another hit but I can't say it he will never will either. Hell I am not sure the man will make another film but for better or ill his legacy as a filmmaker is going to stand.
I think he wants to do it to focus on other type of creative endeavors (albuet similar ones) such as writing novels and TV scripts, etc.
This is a weird question to ask of an artist, unless art is looked at as a "job". Just like it's always been strange to me when an artist announces their retirement. If an artist stops making art, people should get the hint that they've stopped creating art. Whether I dislike a film, or not has nothing to do with the desire of that artist to make the art they want to make.
Khruangbin playing in the intro. Liked
Find what you love and let it kill you (Bukowski).
Solid video
Well done video, and I come down on the Scorsese side. One of Hitchcock's best films, IMO, is Frenzy, his second-to-last movie. Besides, he had made 10 films in just the silent era. (I do also have to point out that Kaleidoscope is not a Hitchcock film). If Hitch had stopped at even 40 films we never would have got Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Psycho or The Birds.
I think people should keep their creative spirit for as long as they feel it can live. I don't think you can plan when it will die. It's all about in the moment. And if your creative spirit dies when you do, hey, there's nothing wrong with that.
Exactly. I make music on my laptop. Some days, I feel creative, other days... nothing. The stuff that inspires me happens in my everyday life.
If my career was making music, I don't think I'd be as inspired because music is my escape from reality.
I believe it's the same with directors. They have a dream of getting big... and then they get there. Where do you go from there? Is it only downhill from there? What more could you achieve
Tarantino has spoken in the past about directors like Brian De Palma, who seemingly make one movie that they pour their heart and soul into, and it doesn't work, and everything they make after that is subpar, as though all their passion for movies is gone. It seems like he's trying to avoid that path for himself.
I personally wish Quentin Tarantino was willing to help put his name towards helping out Samuel L Jackson's Afro Samurai Live action Film adaptation,especially considering how much Sam Jackson has helped out Tarantino's career over the years and i stand by the opinion that Travolta getting am Oscar nomination over Jackson for Pulp Fiction is bullshit.
I think it clearly delineates two distinct frames of mind when creating anything: do you do it in order to get approval and validation from others, or do you do it for the inherent value and enjoyment YOU get out of it?
That's the question everyone in a highly competitive, low success rate industry must ask themselves or they'll never survive.
Spot on
I get where Tarantino's coming from, but I feel like where he has the potential to undermine his own plan is by insisting on a particular number of films. I feel like it'd be more poductive is he'd simply get increasingly selective about what he chooses to direct next, whether that means he stopped at 8 or doesn't stop until 12.
Leave them wanting more sure, but announcing the finality of it and why just calls more attention to whether the filmography lives up to the legacy you claim to be preserving. If - IF - his 10th turns out to be mediocre then all eyes are going to be how he fizzled out.
It kind of just comes down to doing what you want vs doing what you love
On a podcast with Tom Segura Quentin talked about having already partially written season one of a TV series so maybe moving to another medium might be more intriguing to him. I know I would definitely be down to watch a QT series!! WIN WIN 👍
I think Tarantino's "reason" is a bit of good tag line that partially encompasses his reason but also is self-contained enough to not go into the messy debate of his actual reason. I think his reason literally comes down to the fact that he doesn't like where cinema is heading but at the same time, he recognizes that the medium and the audience's appetite is constantly changing so he's no more "right" about the current climate then the legends that came before him that may have scoffed at his style when he and Paul Thomas Anderson were starting. I think it's knowing he doesn't like the change but at the same time knowing he has no right to shut it down that frustrates him. He's a very vocal person, particularly when it comes to film and he's unapologetic with his opinions. Knowing he would struggle to remain silent while the industry changes doesn't work for him. Giving in (which isn't always a bad thing) is something he feels that would make him a hypocrite as opposed to seeing it as growth also doesn't work. And allowing him to continue to be as vocal as he would like regarding the changing industry while public interest eventually dwindles would probably tarnish his image and reputation further than it would have otherwise. "You either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain". I think it's that fear that has motivated his decision making and I think he knows himself well enough to know that either of the 3 options I laid out wouldn't favor him in the long run even when stacked against the joy of him continuing to do what he loves. If anything, those frustrations have probably also contributed to a growing discontent doing what he once loved. His love has transitioned into writing which is really where he shines. He's also looking into making TV which is his way of conceding without conceding. He gets to embrace streaming and TV without conflating it to the benefits doing the same with filmmaking. That also plays into other parts of his influences as he's just as much a TV lover of the 70s as he is a film lover. So, his answer just puts a nice neat bow on what I believe are his real reasons. He knows he won't survive this new era unscathed if he holds steady and remain vocal regarding his discontent at the changes. He knows he wouldn't be able to stomach what would be perceive to be hypocritic behavior and knows he would be miserable continuing to work in opposition to the changes and remaining silent. It's just not him and he DOES like to control the narrative. With that being said, I thoroughly enjoyed your video and analysis.
I enjoyed YOUR analysis. Really delves into the psychology of the man.
It's not just one reason. Tarantino wants to:
- Protect his ego
- Protect the audience from terrible films
- Do something that not many directors do
We all have a time limit. We have a certain amount of time to do the things we love. I think he feels more in control of his life by setting that time limit himself.
He doesn't know when he's gonna die, so he just wants to be a movie director until he's 60. What better way to take control of your life?
Everything must come to an end. We can choose to end things ourselves, or we can wait in complete uncertainty...
It just seems contrived, to have a self limit. If you love movies and the work, you’ll keep doing it
I believe it's because of Sally Manke. His movies dipped in quality after her passing
I disagree. Django Unchained came out two years after she passed, and that film is Awesome!
I love your channel… I’m following for some years. This is my first comment.
It’s because of Mona Lisa. Using it to make a point about when someone should end a work for art is ironic: Da Vinci NEVER finished Mona Lisa :)
He actually was famous for never finishing his jobs
keep pushin on
The match cut at 9:20 is pure genius (I hope it was accidental because that makes it even better 😂)
Thanks for the video! To me It's basically a cinephile (fan) vs artist perspective, and it reminds me of Polyphonic's argument about the 27 club and "be burn out than fade away". As a director, do you make the movies for yourself, because you need to, without caring about money or the audience, or do you make movies for others as a validation? Even though Hollywood favors boomers and household names, there's room for everyone. I think Scorsese, Spielberg and Coppola are right to enjoy the creative freedom they worked to get as household names, so that now they can choose to direct only personal projects like Silence or The Fabelmans. As for their latest movies having less of a cultural impact, well It's mostly because of a massive shift in the zeitgeist. Besides, they showcase a sort of humility in surrounding themselves with younger teams and learning about technological evolutions in their art.
Directors at the end are people and some of them may feel like after a certain their done and want to do something else. While others like Ridley and Scorsese want to spend their time making nothing but films as they have nothing to do and love their craft. If Tarantino does only make one film I can't blame him in the end its his life and only he can decide how to live it.
They are artists. It is not up to us to decide when they stop creating.
I say this as someone who had close contact with many artists (sculptors) young and old and dead before their time - for a decade.
We can have opinions, to be sure. I understand why some creatives hang it up before they go, and retire.
Liked and SUBBED!
I completely with your take on his plan. I also think that rather than looking at it from a quality of over quantity point of view he could try to see it the way you described it which is trying to just see how it turns along the way instead of limiting yourself. Who knows maybe if he does decide way later in his life when he's like 74 he all of sudden does want to make a 11th movie and that then becomes his most amazing and celebrated one. You know know how these things will turn out beforehand. But I also do respect his opinion that he wants to play it safe. Funny thing about that is that I never would have guessed that Tarantino is the one who would play it safe. Out of all directors out there lol
Both are right.
It all depends on will, desire and fervor
As a huge fan of Family Plot, it always saddens me when it's used as an example of a director going out on a sour note rather than an example of a director rallying one last time. And in Hitchcock's case, there are less-than-great films scattered throughout his filmography (and reasonable movie fans can disagree about which those are anyway) so it's not like had he retired after, say, Psycho or The Birds, he would have a spotless record of nothing but classics.
Quentin is just more self aware than other directors who are still in it for the wrong reasons, plus I think he’s run out of new quippy dialogue or doesn’t have enough of it to call it a film
I might be in the minority here, but I would really appreciate to see the work of a 60- or 70-something newcomer on the big screen.
Somehow at that age we're always talking about veterans like Scorsese or Ridley Scott. And as much as I admire their body of work, diminishing returns seem inevitable - not so much because of their age, but because they got stuck in their own bubble - essentially the cottage industry they've created around themselves.
I'm in no way saying that they should stop making films. Ridley is bang on the money when he says that his skill level far surpasses any newbie filmmaker and I do watch almost every film he directs. But these guys do lack a certain freshness.
In the agist media business, it would be great to hear a couple of older "new voices" as well - but I guess we're lightyears away from that.
Whatever Tarantino chooses is his decision. Ultimately, if he is an artist, a true artist, he will continue working, Daniel Day-Lewis comes out of retirement every time a good script comes around. Tarantino doesn't have to direct, per se, but he'll find a way to channel his creativity. If it turns out he is just a cinephile, I guess we won't hear from him again.
I absolutely agree with tarantino about directors becoming exaggerated versions of themselves. It’s already happened with him, his films are nowhere near as good as when Sally Menke was editing his films. It’s happening to Nolan becoming self indulgent. The only one I can think of who didn’t is Kurosawa, he was on another level
Agree with Nolan. I believe Oppenheimer will be seriously self indulgent with heavy narrative focus on his own (Nolan's) greatness. Its stylised in such a way that it feels Nolan is at an age where he thinks his name alone will sell films. And on top of that, it makes me feel like chris nolan doesnt have anything original to put out anyway, which is why he's making a literal biopic-the worst kinda films imo
I think the best way to avoid becoming an "exaggerated version of yourself" is to do what Scorsese has done. He's always coming up with original projects that are so different from what he usually does. The Irishman was his last gangster film and different from the rest. Silence. Wolf of Wall Street. Gangs of New York. The Departed. He's always spicing things up even as he enters his last days.
A great artist never stops.
He knows when to stop
I love Tarantino and his films. I believe many factors. Well a few, and they're in a typical order. He cares about the audience and their reactions to his films. He then cares about his legacy. He then definitely cares what ppl think of his films and going out on top and not making a complete flop which he's never made. His movies have gone in many different genres. And I feel that his most recent was definitely a bit longer than it should have been. Don't get me wrong it was very good. But it had instead of suspended building up to a scene,which he does a couple scenes in each movie to keep it very interesting. His last film had the star power. Great actors doing great acting and a cameo of a who's who of actors including the two top actors of our era in the two lead roles. He had probably two maybe three suspenseful build ups. Two were built up very intense. The scene with Cliff at the ranch and the ending of course. Now this was a nearly three hour film. Which had many scenes of driving cars through the very impressive set pieces, as Q perfectly turned the clock back and made the areas filmed in Hollywood look exactly like they did in 1969. Then there were the commercials,the TV shows where he dubbed in Leonardo, the real Lancer title card, FBI, and ect. All which were very impressive. But this felt (aide from the ending) much more less than a Tarantino film than even his last film. Which again was nearly three hours, but it was full suspense as we didn't know who was who. Hey we're all bad and violent ppl, and little by little things unraveled and in between this very violent Tarantino film were sudden bursts of violence, a very insanely violent flashback story told and then the suspense of the coffee being poisoned. Along with that signature Tarantino dialogue. This may have been his longest film but it kept us glued to he seat. Also again the dialogue from the usual Tarantino movies were featured in his latest film, but it definitely wasn't to the point of his previous films whereas you could tell it was a Tarantino film immediately by the dialogue. His latest film was great. But it had much less Tarantino dialogue, Ultra violence (accept for the very end which was about ten minutes or so. It was definitely a style over substance film. And it seemed as it was a passion project that Tarantino had wanted to do mostly for himself. Adding all that insane violence we love his movies for and even the dialogue we love his movies for were hardly as pronounced as his previous films. His most recent film seemed like the most non Tarantino film we've seen. In a way it felt as if he's down out of a lot of the signature Tarantino films and made a more mature and older feeling type of film. I get it's meaning. And he did an excellent job paying homage to the end of an era in Hollywood history. Also the fictional ending which he also used in Inglorious Bastards. Like I said the movie was excellent imo. But it definitely didn't feel like the usual Tarantino film. It felt like if you had no idea what you were watching that you might not know it was a Tarantino film until you got to the very end because as I said the dialogue wasn't Tarantinoesque. However the music my definitely give it away that it's a Tarantino film as he has and always had great choice in music in his films. So that draws me to my final conclusion about Tarantino, and that's that he doesn't want to suffer a movie that fails and only wants to make ten for himself. It's all for himself at the end of the day. Which is why this last film he's working on, may be even more less of the the Tarantino movies we've seen. Even more than his latest film. Or he could give us everything we've loved in his movies rom the start and go out in a violent,smart, dialogue strong, and a great plot of a movie. And maybe possibly go back to the chapters once more and not even tell the movie in the order it happened. We'll see. But I believe in his case he may be correct. If he says ten movies,than that's his limit than I'll take his ten movies. I know so far he's it seen failure in one film. So nine of his ten movies so far have been great. I was just stating the obvious change in his latest film from his previous ones. But all are great, and all are classics.
Didn’t he call his movie Death Proof a “left handed movie” in a Hollywood Reporter roundtable? He knows he doesn’t have a perfect filmography, so why is he worried about tarnishing a perfect filmography?
I think he likes to pretend it didn't happen
The types of movie Tarantino makes have a limit because they tend to be fun mash-ups of other genre movies and have a distinctive Tarantino style. I agree if he makes another 10 they won't have the same originality and will quickly go down hill. Scorsese on the other hand makes social commentary and character study movies, of which there is an unlimited potential of stories and movies to be made.
Hey - have you watched any of Silo (on Apple)? Would love to hear your thoughts on it
Family Plot was awful because it was clear that Hitchcock just couldn’t adapt with what kind of films were being made when that came out. In the decade of The Godfather, Network, and Taxi Driver, Hitchcock was making a movie straight from the 50s.
"1 bad movie devalues 3 good ones" QT.
I agree with him. He is representing the perfection.
Depends on the individual
Every artist is their own. One will work until his last day while another quit with just one masterpiece and this latter instead make them mysterious and enlighten.
they should keep directing as long as they have the passion to do it. one of my favorite directors, jesus franco, made movies from the 1960's until 2013 when he died. over 200 movies.
I get the idea of not wanting to put out any real clunkers but tbh, I think with a lot of directors mentioned that was due to them sort of just churning out films at a high rate into their later years. Considering how much time and thought Tarantino puts into each film he makes and is clearly not under pressure to make them faster, I don't think he's really at risk of just becoming a hack or losing relevance.
Don't underestimate the physical and mental demands of film making. Guys are under enormous mental pressure, and they don't get much opportunity to sleep when doing a major production. Do you really want to waste the few healthy years you have left, just to have a box office bomb?
I hope QT see's this video. The only thing I'd add to what you've said is that there's no other writer or director with his point of view, so it's not a gap that can be closed by someone else. I don't think he's giving himself enough credit for just how far ahead of the rest of the pack he is with his vision and film knowledge. He won't ever make bad movies.
The world needs more Tarantino films, and he's got at least 20 more years to make another 5 masterpieces. He has too much to say, and he's the only person who can say it, so I hope he doesn't leave any stories on the table.
Nah, I think he just wants to end the slide show and tuck it away in a box. He is done, he feels done, he probably had all that he needed to say even. It is what it is, when an artist is done, they're done.
he will be writing books and plays so he's not done writing stories, he's just done directing
It's up to them.Some directors make their best movies at a young age ( between 25 and 55) Even Hawks,Billy Wilder and Ford didn't make great movies at 65 or older.
If they want to, they can
End of discussion
Can you do a video on The Bear?
I don’t see this as the biggest problem If Tarantino continues to write, make plays, or even television shows
Let him do whatever he wants, he doesnt owe us anything, he has created some cinema masterpieces that many can watch over and over again and his legacy in cinema will last forever, no matter what else he directs. From my part, if he wants his 10th film to be its last so be it and there won't be many movies I'll have been looking forward so much as that one.
I'm 62 and still hoping to make it as a director.
They both love film, one wants to maintain the respect of the art, the other wants to live in a movie making world forever. Not sure what the debate is.
Nolan and Scorcesse are exceptions. Spielberg and other directors are getting affected by that effect of aging. PTA and Wes Anderson seem to be closing in on that effect with their last ones.
I think I'm more on Tarantinos side in this one, although it can depend on the circumstance. Ultimately though, its the choice of the artist.
If the passion can continue to rage, and if the stories directors tackle continue to be compelling, directors can continue to do brilliant work well into their 80s. Of course, that's frequently not the case. Passion runs out and there seem to be no more worlds to conquer cinematically, no more subjects to visually illustrate.
Difference between Tarantino and all the other filmmakers is that all of his films with the exception of Jackie Brown are originals. There is nothing wrong with adaptation my point is telling a new story takes time. If he’s willing to take Spielberg’s approach he can make 20+ movies in his career
3:52 I'd disagree on Hitchcock. Most of his late work is pretty bad but I think Frenzy really stands out and its a top 10 film from him IMO
It's their choice. I respect it either way. I don't believe its destiny for a director to go out of touch. Woody made 50 films in 50 years, and while not all are excellent, many of the films in his final set of 10 are very good and include young characters written quite well.