Quentin Tarantino's been spending a lot of time critiquing movies lately, but isn't it time he got back to making them? Has he forgotten what made him a cinematic force to be reckoned with? It feels like we're missing out on the brilliance only he can deliver.
Did Quentin Tarantino, with a single unexpected jab, inadvertently elevate Paul Dano into the pantheon of esteemed actors? His recent criticism of Dano sparked a wave of passionate defense, even drawing support from Daniel Day-Lewis, Dano's co-star in There Will Be Blood. Imagine that! Dano, previously perhaps not always top-of-mind in every cinephile's conversation, suddenly finds himself defended by one of the greatest actors of all time. But was this all just Tarantino being… Tarantino? A calculated move? A bit of playful provocation? Or, could it be something deeper, perhaps a sign of a creative restlessness simmering beneath the surface?
Perhaps, and this is just speculation, Tarantino's pronouncements were more than just hot air. Could we see a surprise casting of Dano in his next project? Think of it as a cinematic olive branch, a total 180 akin to Donald Trump's unexpected detente with Kim Jong-un after, shall we say, some strong words. Or, are we witnessing a midlife artistic crisis playing out in real-time for one of cinema's most influential voices? As a long-time admirer (with a few reservations), I'm genuinely curious.
In a recent podcast conversation with the always-provocative Bret Easton Ellis, Tarantino unveiled his personal list of the 20 best films of the 21st century. But here's where it gets controversial... When questioned about why Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood landed only at number five, Tarantino didn't mince words, declaring Dano as the film's weak link: "[Dano] is weak sauce, man. He is the weak sister… He’s just such a weak, weak, uninteresting guy." Ouch.
Now, let's be clear: that's a pretty harsh assessment, and many would (and did!) vehemently disagree. It's worth considering, however, that Tarantino's feelings about Anderson, and their respective places in modern cinema, might be more intricate than he lets on. After all, they are contemporaries, both giants in the field. And this is the part most people miss... Could there be an element of competitive spirit at play?
Tarantino's top ten choices read like a surprisingly mainstream selection. You might even call it a "normie" list, but don't let that fool you. In reverse order, we have: Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris, Edgar Wright’s Shaun of the Dead, George Miller’s Mad Max: Fury Road, Tony Scott’s Unstoppable, David Fincher’s Zodiac, PTA’s There Will Be Blood, Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation, Lee Unkrich’s Toy Story 3, and Ridley Scott’s Black Hawk Down taking the top spot. While it's tempting to dismiss this as populist, almost all are undeniably great films. The inclusion of Tony Scott’s Unstoppable, however, remains a head-scratcher.
Is Tarantino deliberately stirring the pot by including Woody Allen? Perhaps. Personally, I'd have opted for Allen's Blue Jasmine. While I appreciate the Mad Max revivals, I'm not quite as enthusiastic as some. Scott's Black Hawk Down is a masterclass in action filmmaking, but shouldn't Gladiator hold a higher position in his filmography? The others are undoubtedly excellent, and Shaun of the Dead deserves recognition for revitalizing British cinema in the early 2000s.
This selection contrasts sharply with the more esoteric tastes revealed in Tarantino's memoir, Cinema Speculation. Where are the obscure gems and foreign films we might expect? But here's where it gets interesting...
The lower half of the list, from 20 to 11, offers a glimpse of the QT we know and love: Steven Spielberg’s West Side Story, Eli Roth’s Cabin Fever, Bennett Miller’s Moneyball, Prachya Pinkaew’s Chocolate, Rob Zombie’s The Devil’s Rejects, Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, Richard Linklater’s School of Rock, Jeff Tremaine’s Jackass: The Movie, Aharon Keshales and Navot Papushado’s Big Bad Wolves, and Kinji Fukasaku’s Battle Royale.
This is more like it! Battle Royale, a brutal survival story that Tarantino rightly points out was a major influence on The Hunger Games; Chocolate, a Thai martial arts spectacle; and Big Bad Wolves, an Israeli horror-thriller. I agree with Tarantino's praise for Spielberg's West Side Story (although he surprisingly criticizes the lead actor, Ansel Elgort). He also highlights Brad Pitt's star power in Moneyball, though Pitt shines even brighter in Tarantino's own Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. However, I'm less enthusiastic about Roth's Cabin Fever and Zombie's The Devil's Rejects, and Gibson's The Passion feels more like fuel for the culture wars. School of Rock is undeniably fun, but placing it above Linklater's masterpiece, Boyhood, seems like a contrarian choice.
But let's return to Paul Thomas Anderson and There Will Be Blood. Tarantino, being human, must be aware of Anderson's status as a rival and a filmmaker who seems to be more prolific at the moment. Could his Dano critique have been a spur-of-the-moment jab intended to knock Anderson down a peg? It's a thought. And this is the part most people miss... The creative jealousy is real, folks.
Tarantino recently announced that his next (and possibly final) film, The Movie Critic (now reportedly shelved), was inspired by Kevin Thomas, an LA Times critic who Tarantino admired for his appreciation of popcorn flicks that other critics dismissed. This intriguing and eclectic list, blending commercial appeal with cinephile sensibilities, might be the "movie critic" performance that his abandoned film was meant to be.
So, how does Tarantino perceive himself now? Does he believe he has one last masterpiece in him? I suspect he thinks he has more than one. He's stated his intention to stop after ten films, having completed nine. He even suggested that a great director like Don Siegel should have retired after Escape from Alcatraz. But here's where it gets controversial... Is this self-imposed limit holding him back?
The time has come for QT to emerge from his self-imposed exile. He needs to stop making pronouncements on podcasts and start making movies again. He created this ten-film limit, and while he can't quit at nine, it's created immense pressure. This self-imposed constraint has paralyzed him, and his Dano outburst is a symptom of that. My prediction? Tarantino will adapt a novel, his first since Jackie Brown, infusing it with his signature shock and flair. And Paul Dano will be in it. What do you think? Will Tarantino ever make another film? And do you agree with his assessment of Paul Dano? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
