Jeff at 2009-08-22 09:28:40:
QT was on with Charlie Rose last night. Probably the BEST interview I've ever seen with him. He dropped a lot of his usual self-aggrandizing bravado and talked very candidly about his processes.

Funny... all I could think of during the interview was "Boy, I sure hope Scott is watching this" and "boy, this clip would be GREAT on GITS!"

Almost the whole segment was about STORY. Wonderful stuff.

For the record, I feel he and Paul Thomas Anderson are the ONLY American directors working today (within the studio system) who have any sort of integrity and flair. Nobody else takes the chances these to men do.
alain dominic at 2009-08-22 09:41:53:
I caught Quentin on Charlie Rose last night (Friday), catch it if you can. It was a great venue for Q to talk some real shop regarding the mechanics of his screenwriting/directing style (and his future plans, which sound amazing).

He gave particular insight into how he designs/structures scenes with entertaining yet pertinent dialogue, but with an undercurrent of plot tension that builds throughout the scene, thereby creating edge-of-our-seat suspense by the scene's climax.

We aren't all as advanced as Q so I'd be careful about trying this, but he also said the way he goes about it is actually the antithesis of traditional scene construction in the sense that most scenes are constructed to get in/out as quickly as possible, but his game is to see how long he can draw a given scene out, building the suspense throughout, then paying off at the end with a climax - similar to the feeling of tension and suspense you experience when stretching a rubber band to its limit before it snaps.

I've always been fascinated by the way Q, as a writer, can consistently construct almost every scene he writes to be simultaneously funny, dramatic, tense, appalling, grotesque, outrageous and thrilling. Amazing!
DeafEars at 2009-08-22 11:25:40:
I love RESERVOIR DOGS, but one thing that bugs me is that QT consistently - and conspicuously - never mentions the three directors that obviously had a huge influence on him - Kubrick, Lynch, and Scorsese. He almost acts like they never existed, even though he boosted the structure of RS from THE KILLING, the street patter and energy from Scorsese, and the offbeat weirdness and freaky violence (and a severed ear) from Lynch. He made the mix his own, but I don't think he gives these fellows their due.
Scott at 2009-08-22 12:25:47:
Damn, I missed Tarantino last night. And it sounds like it was a great interview, focusing so much on story, scene construction, etc.

I checked on YouTube. Not there yet. If anybody happens to see it there, let me know. Definitely want to embed it here.

Thanks, Jeff and Alain for the heads-up.

And DeafEars, I've never once heard QT mention The Killing either, despite obvious parallels.
Jeff at 2009-08-22 13:31:20:
Scott, I believe the Rose show is always archived on it's own YouTube page but it has a slow turnaround. I'll keep my eyes peeled for a link.

Deaf, QT certainly wears his influences on his sleeve but it's what he does with them that makes him, in my eyes, so unique. He's a monster of film lore and his byproducts are such homages upon homages that they become a beast all their own.

KILL BILL is a perfect example. He mashed up Shaw Bros. chopsocky with Leone western with Giallo gore and sensabilities and what remains is a four hour novel on film.

Unprecidented.

He will always have his detractors but anyone who so brazenly invades theaters with such personal statements always will. Doesn't help that the guy has a hell of a mouth on him and ain't afraid to use it.

Oh and if you think Reservoir Dogs is steeped in THE KILLING, avoid Ringo Lam's CITY ON FIRE at all costs. It'll enrage you to discover that QT lifted the lion's share of Dogs from that even more blatantly.
DeafEars at 2009-08-22 13:55:22:
Jeff, I agree with everything you said. I wouldn't take anything away from what he's achieved. I wasn't even bothered by the way he raided CITY ON FIRE, cause he really only ripped off about a third of it, and it's only a pretty good movie while RD is a classic. I just think it's disingenuous for him to only cite Jean-Pierre Melville, who IMO was a pretty indirect influence on RD, rather than the directors I mentioned.