Hacker News Reader

Comment by lsmeducation | Hacker News Reader

spent decades learning about cinema the hard way -- watching it, studying it, absorbing the logic/form of cinema. It is (and Pulp Fiction is) not a work of pure intuition; it's clearly a work of homage.

So you think he took an academic approach? Dude dropped out of high school and worked in a video rental store. You are only applying the pastel of studious (the puns are just flying today) because he didn't make absolute shit. If he did make absolute shit, we'd say "gee my god, that's what happens when you drop out of high school and think watching movies is enough to write a good movie".

Right? No seriously, right?

Me and you disagreeing is proof enough we have no idea where this stuff comes from.

View on HN

> So you think he took an academic approach?

After a fashion, yes. He took a research-heavy approach, in the same way that many unconventional, outsider thinkers do.

And no, I'm not post-rationalising it.

You can see that work in the films, in the way they reference and invert cinematic tropes, in the choice and timing of lines, and even in the way they rip up stereotypes.

He's an obsessive, but he has definitely studied. For example you can see a deep understanding of B-movies, exploitation movies, and of films like The Taking of Pelham 123.

There's huge evidence of studying, of thinking through the logic and the flow of cinema. He didn't just watch films and luck out. It's much more considered than that. There's clearly an element of an unwritten manifesto in it all (most clearly to me this appears early on in his influence over Four Rooms, which could almost have been the foundation of a Dogme 95 type movement, had they all chosen it)

> Me and you disagreeing is proof enough we have no idea where this stuff comes from.

I think you're assuming magic where in fact there is considerable evidence of effort. Is Tarantino a maverick brat who grew up within the landscape of cinema? Yeah. But it doesn't mean he doesn't work at it, or defend his opinions with study.

I think you're assuming magic where in fact there is considerable evidence of effort.

I'm going to get a little reductionist here. What you said is no different than arguing for creationism (not ironic, we are discussing creating ultimately). Just because Earth is a perfect planet, and we get to drive around in self driving cars, doesn't mean there is any evidence for a grand plan (or any effort of it).

Talent and intuition is kind of like discussing recursion. To first understand recursion ...

Tarantino is just a lucky talented shit, and there's no rhyme or reason for it. Any explanation he gives you after the fact, is just that, after the fact. And the rest of us trying to explain it is no different than trading derivatives.

Tell me the study and rigor that went into the Big Kahuna Burger.

Every screenwriter I've ever heard of says there are three things to do to learn to write screenplays: watch movies, read screenplays, write screenplays. That doesn't mean you'll succeed; it's just that without doing those three things, you won't succeed. I'd say Tarantino working at a video store made one leg of that tripod pretty easy. (He also says he learned a lot about screenwriting by taking acting lessons.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com