Submit your FEATURE Film Screenplay: www.outstandingscreenplays.com/competitions-feature Have an idea for a TV series? Have you written a TV pilot for it? Submit it to our screenplay competition: www.outstandingscreenplays.com/competitions-tv Have a short screenplay you wish to turn into a film or get feedback on from Oscar winning screenwriters? Submit it to our shorts competition: www.outstandingscreenplays.com/competitions-shorts Visit our website to read screenplays of your favorite films: www.outstandingscreenplays.com/
I mean hell, everything goes wrong because Mr. White is too attached to Orange to accept the fact that they were set up . . I think Tarantino does Subtext work as a director more than he'd like to admit, I've heard him talk about the subtext of his scenes alot, I think he just doesn't want the subtext to turn into the text itself.
@@lithantushelo7932 that’s a great way to put it. So many artists focus on the “hidden meaning” of their work that it no longer becomes hidden. The Baz Luhrmann Great Gatsby movie is a great example of this. I don’t hate the movie but one of its most annoying aspects is how it explains every theme and metaphor from the book that F. Scott Fitzgerald originally had as fantastic subtext.
@@lithantushelo7932the real kicker is QT is actually full of it . He doesn't like being questioned about the subtext in his earlier work because he didn't WRITE any of it.. Avary did.. so whenever ppl ask him about it it reminds him of that &brings attention to the fact that his films without Avary have very little if ANY subtext &are just soulless spectacle &clever set pieces
I wasn’t into any of his movies when I was younger.I only liked pulp fiction and kill bill.But I rewatched them older and I can seriously say he is now my favorite director and I appreciate his movies.
Not at all. He doesn’t engage with it because that’s not his process. His work is nuanced and doesn’t necessarily require subtextual criticism cuz it’s already there
I hate when outsiders try to tell you how you need to be formulaic with every film. My writing teacher in college told me I can’t write a feature about an antagonist unless he realizes his mistakes in the end. Where I feel so many movies don’t have that and don’t need that. It was really annoying.
I’ve felt that whenever I get concerned about consciously trying to make my story something (or at least more than what I already intended to say) my creative process grinds to a halt and it gets really boring
Great stuff from Quentin, once again. Not the first time his hurried thoughts and the editing made me need several rewinds to make sure I kept up with the right pronouns, etc… but great info that isn’t often shared. He’s great and I’m not even a diehard fan, I just like parts of his films (and I think a couple truly are masterpieces) very much. Meanwhile, I didn’t know directors need to think “how do I make this my own?” Well, obviously some think everything is “theirs” and needs their stamp on it, but films are collaborative art, and if ANYBODY should get the benefit of the doubt of who the film “belongs to” or should get respect for it being “their own”, it should be the writer.. hands down. They get it started. Especially if the story came from one writer and it’s not several writers we’re talking about, cobbling changes to somebody’s original idea.
I think that, if somebody wrote something for Quentin, gave him some guidelines and nobody tried to make it a Quentin Tarantino film, everyone would say, "That was a Tarantino film." I don't think he could help but have his style rub off on the project.
Didn’t see the full title and thought it said “subtlety”, but then I realised that’s impossible, since we’re talking about Tarantino. (This is a joke. I like Tarantino. But he is not a very subtle filmmaker.)
I was watching a youtube essay about how once upon a time in Hollywood is seemingly influenced by Tarantino and his relationship with Harvey Weinstein. I doubt tarantino thought twice about it but like he says here the subtext is doing the work. I'm not saying he did write once upon a time about that but its very interesting that theres subtext going on that he doesnt realise
i don't see how you can say this when the monster in nope is a direct representation of the subtext of the film. you can't look away from a spectacle, no matter how harmful it is.
My most fav film maker ever! WHAT a guy! i really can't make out if he's a misogynist, but if he is one, at least he shows the women taking full and satisfying revenge on the raper, more than I could even imagine, which I cannot say about ANYBODY else, so he deserves full credit for that!
This makes sense, because the issue with trying to create intentional subtext is that subtext is found via interpretation, meaning even if you try to add intentional subtext some people wont see it. Just make something thats well made and people will find subtext in it themselves
i wanna tell a gangster story... this man... this man carves deep ... truth is sometimes icky and gross and also glorious in a way that is hard to describe. It is shaking at your core. It is wonder when you didn't see that slamming into you. I Love QT because he doesn't give a dam but he does.
Sounds a bit weird specially that it's about reservoir dogs because of how the movie was copied from that I think south Korean movie. I'm not attacking him, just thinking about the sub text and (roots) how can that be something you find out about if it wasn't entirely your from the beginning.. a bit confusing to be honest
I'd say django unchained, the hateful eight (to a degree) and definitely Kill Bill, have great emotional depth. From the apprentice/mentor bond that forms between django and the dentist on the one hand and between kiddo and pai mei/bill on the other, to the loss of beatrix's child (in her mind) there are a lot of bonds that are "deeper" than just superficial stuff. Tarantino knows he wants to make fun movies, but he also knows that if you don't have an emotional foundation for your work, the audience won't be invested. You can call that subtext if you want, but buzzwords aside, it just means you need to give your stories something more gripping than just blood, guts, bullets and blades. You need heart. And I'd say there's plenty of heart in his best films.
@@RedFloyd469 I agree he can reach it to an extent. But for me what separates tarentino from the true S-Tier greats like Scorsese the coens PTA is that focus on aesthetics. No one makes "cinema" like Tarantino (except maybe James Cameron) but you watch Goodfellas or there will be blood and there's just so much meat there. Inglorious basterds got close but there's that next level he could still dig to
The thing is they aren't supposed to. It's never really been his intention to actually try and reach a certain emotional depth like Coppola, Scorsese, PTA, Hal Ashby, Tarkovsky, Wim Wenders, Fassbinder, David Lynch or even Satoshi Kon if you love anime films beyond Studio Ghibli. He just lets it happen naturally like his idols (Sergio Leone, Sergio Corbucci, Brian De Palma, Howard Hawks, Samuel Fueller) and how it was always done in Old Hollywood unless it was melodrama. It can work both ways.
Submit your FEATURE Film Screenplay: www.outstandingscreenplays.com/competitions-feature
Have an idea for a TV series? Have you written a TV pilot for it? Submit it to our screenplay competition:
www.outstandingscreenplays.com/competitions-tv
Have a short screenplay you wish to turn into a film or get feedback on from Oscar winning screenwriters? Submit it to our shorts competition: www.outstandingscreenplays.com/competitions-shorts
Visit our website to read screenplays of your favorite films: www.outstandingscreenplays.com/
"I wanna deal with the robbery"
*makes a movie about everything but the robbery*
But they are only ever talking about the robbery.
That unseen, open loop is juicy & compelling in how it piques & sustains curiosity
I mean hell, everything goes wrong because Mr. White is too attached to Orange to accept the fact that they were set up
.
.
I think Tarantino does Subtext work as a director more than he'd like to admit, I've heard him talk about the subtext of his scenes alot, I think he just doesn't want the subtext to turn into the text itself.
@@lithantushelo7932 that’s a great way to put it. So many artists focus on the “hidden meaning” of their work that it no longer becomes hidden. The Baz Luhrmann Great Gatsby movie is a great example of this. I don’t hate the movie but one of its most annoying aspects is how it explains every theme and metaphor from the book that F. Scott Fitzgerald originally had as fantastic subtext.
@@lithantushelo7932the real kicker is QT is actually full of it . He doesn't like being questioned about the subtext in his earlier work because he didn't WRITE any of it.. Avary did.. so whenever ppl ask him about it it reminds him of that &brings attention to the fact that his films without Avary have very little if ANY subtext &are just soulless spectacle &clever set pieces
This is why his movies are more honest...and rewatchable
I wasn’t into any of his movies when I was younger.I only liked pulp fiction and kill bill.But I rewatched them older and I can seriously say he is now my favorite director and I appreciate his movies.
@@panagiotisjevan8975 I never liked kill bill until I recently watched them again.
Hell yah
My left ear really enjoyed that
Thought my air pods malfunction 😅
Reservoir Dogs simulator
cause your right ear was missing
This version of his explanation/answer to this question is a little more clear on when that back and forth happened, appreciate this upload love it
"I'm my own boss and you want to give me homework? Get the fuck outta here!" Is what he said.
Not at all. He doesn’t engage with it because that’s not his process. His work is nuanced and doesn’t necessarily require subtextual criticism cuz it’s already there
@@connorbrennan2920 it was a joke my guy.
Love Tarantino 👍 ❤️
This is great. I always wonder if they wrote it so deeply.
I hate when outsiders try to tell you how you need to be formulaic with every film. My writing teacher in college told me I can’t write a feature about an antagonist unless he realizes his mistakes in the end. Where I feel so many movies don’t have that and don’t need that. It was really annoying.
there are no rules. formats and absolutes are just limitations, not the good kind. don’t cookie cut your writing.
Yea, that teacher should watch something like No County For Old Men.
Learn the rules then learn how to break them
That's why he's teaching and not doing it.
No wonder he's a teacher
I’ve felt that whenever I get concerned about consciously trying to make my story something (or at least more than what I already intended to say) my creative process grinds to a halt and it gets really boring
This explains why so many movies are irritatingly repetitive.
"I've seen this movie before"
"It just came out"
"I know"
That’s pretty great movie advice
The owl curtains and Crane glove are great ambiguous elements to exist. The Batmans can play with them if it makes sense in the story they’re telling
Great stuff from Quentin, once again. Not the first time his hurried thoughts and the editing made me need several rewinds to make sure I kept up with the right pronouns, etc… but great info that isn’t often shared. He’s great and I’m not even a diehard fan, I just like parts of his films (and I think a couple truly are masterpieces) very much.
Meanwhile, I didn’t know directors need to think “how do I make this my own?”
Well, obviously some think everything is “theirs” and needs their stamp on it, but films are collaborative art, and if ANYBODY should get the benefit of the doubt of who the film “belongs to” or should get respect for it being “their own”, it should be the writer.. hands down. They get it started. Especially if the story came
from one writer and it’s not several writers we’re talking about, cobbling changes to somebody’s original idea.
I think that, if somebody wrote something for Quentin, gave him some guidelines and nobody tried to make it a Quentin Tarantino film, everyone would say, "That was a Tarantino film." I don't think he could help but have his style rub off on the project.
Everything is designed to take you off course, unless you are wise enough to select what you need and ignore what you don't.
My left ear loved this
Thats awesome
Tim Roth was the "son" and Harvey Keitel was the "father"?
Yep
Kinggggggg🤣🤣😂😂🤣😂👑👑👑👑👑👑👑
"Fuck Subtext!!" (The soul of QT)
Didn’t see the full title and thought it said “subtlety”, but then I realised that’s impossible, since we’re talking about Tarantino.
(This is a joke. I like Tarantino. But he is not a very subtle filmmaker.)
Well done, Q.
QT really is one of the gr8est filmmakers ever. Possibly the best ever.
Wouldn't it be more work to type gr8est instead of greatest?
@@Opeon1 3 characters or 1? Pretty easy decision
where is this clip from?
Damn is he red
I was watching a youtube essay about how once upon a time in Hollywood is seemingly influenced by Tarantino and his relationship with Harvey Weinstein. I doubt tarantino thought twice about it but like he says here the subtext is doing the work. I'm not saying he did write once upon a time about that but its very interesting that theres subtext going on that he doesnt realise
On the other hand you have Jordan Peele, who works entirely on subtext while the surface level content is busted and neglected.
i don't see how you can say this when the monster in nope is a direct representation of the subtext of the film. you can't look away from a spectacle, no matter how harmful it is.
What about my right ear? Where is it's audio?
My most fav film maker ever! WHAT a guy! i really can't make out if he's a misogynist, but if he is one, at least he shows the women taking full and satisfying revenge on the raper, more than I could even imagine, which I cannot say about ANYBODY else, so he deserves full credit for that!
My left ear liked this.
I felt deaf there for a second when I only had my right headphone it…
This makes sense, because the issue with trying to create intentional subtext is that subtext is found via interpretation, meaning even if you try to add intentional subtext some people wont see it. Just make something thats well made and people will find subtext in it themselves
i wanna tell a gangster story... this man... this man carves deep ... truth is sometimes icky and gross and also glorious in a way that is hard to describe. It is shaking at your core. It is wonder when you didn't see that slamming into you. I Love QT because he doesn't give a dam but he does.
LOL GANGSTAH SHIT I want all the smoke 🤘🏼🤘🏼😜
💪
was this supposed to emulate what it's like to be the cop from reservoir dogs? with only the left ear?
Some artists are just more analytical in their approach and some operate more on intuition. Neither is wrong.
Compartmentalization is better than complete ignorance.
Tarantino is talk-ZZZZZZZZ
Subtext: fk subtext
And then I realized. I don't need to hear him. Blab blab
Sounds a bit weird specially that it's about reservoir dogs because of how the movie was copied from that I think south Korean movie.
I'm not attacking him, just thinking about the sub text and (roots) how can that be something you find out about if it wasn't entirely your from the beginning.. a bit confusing to be honest
not a copy
@@markmauk8231 yea I forgot it was just the only last 10 minutes of city on fire 😅
I know writer's who use subtext and they're all cowards
Love him but maybe that's why his movies fail to reach a certain emotional depth
Maybe it wasn’t meant to be. Sometimes, less fluff more buff 💪. Not every movie has to be pretty.
I'd say django unchained, the hateful eight (to a degree) and definitely Kill Bill, have great emotional depth. From the apprentice/mentor bond that forms between django and the dentist on the one hand and between kiddo and pai mei/bill on the other, to the loss of beatrix's child (in her mind) there are a lot of bonds that are "deeper" than just superficial stuff.
Tarantino knows he wants to make fun movies, but he also knows that if you don't have an emotional foundation for your work, the audience won't be invested.
You can call that subtext if you want, but buzzwords aside, it just means you need to give your stories something more gripping than just blood, guts, bullets and blades. You need heart. And I'd say there's plenty of heart in his best films.
@@RedFloyd469 I agree he can reach it to an extent. But for me what separates tarentino from the true S-Tier greats like Scorsese the coens PTA is that focus on aesthetics. No one makes "cinema" like Tarantino (except maybe James Cameron) but you watch Goodfellas or there will be blood and there's just so much meat there. Inglorious basterds got close but there's that next level he could still dig to
I don’t see why people expect emotional depth when the director is open that what he’s interested in is “Pulp Fiction”.
The thing is they aren't supposed to. It's never really been his intention to actually try and reach a certain emotional depth like Coppola, Scorsese, PTA, Hal Ashby, Tarkovsky, Wim Wenders, Fassbinder, David Lynch or even Satoshi Kon if you love anime films beyond Studio Ghibli. He just lets it happen naturally like his idols (Sergio Leone, Sergio Corbucci, Brian De Palma, Howard Hawks, Samuel Fueller) and how it was always done in Old Hollywood unless it was melodrama. It can work both ways.
Bloodbaths and violence..that's his MO..
Why only left channel audio
Give me the text, never the subtext-Penn Jillette
It’s not deeper at all, not even slightly 😂