JL21 wrote:The bigger question is- which Morricone pieces has Tarantino used? I know he's used plenty. But the only truly iconic one is the whistler guy from "The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly". As long as he stays away from that, I'm o.k. with it.
Tarantino's a different animal altogether. He rips things off, but usually it's really, really, crazily obscure stuff that most people don't even know exists- blaxploitation characters, crazy car chase movies, the original Inglorious Bastards (which is very different, but there's plenty of stuff QT borrows). And then he squishes like 10 obscure rip-offs into one film and it comes out as something oddly unique. I guess I'd say I'm a fan in the same way I'm a fan of Adam Dunn or something. The homers and walks are neat but there's not a lot of substance beyond that. And that's cool. I'd never put QT up there with the Bergmans and Bunuels of the world but he's entertaining and fun and makes movies that I enjoy a lot.
Going back a step, I realize it's a fine line, and it's a very subjective one at that, when it comes to determining what constitutes "borrowing" and what constitutes ripping them off. The first 15 minutes of There Will Be Blood- that's a great example of what I'd consider borrowing. Thematically, it's the same as 2001- a silent 15 minute block surrounded by classical music. But it's far from thievery of 2001. Scorsese loves to compose ridiculously long tracking shots like you see in the French New Wave, and he loves to pay homage to the grit of the Italian Neo-realist films. But he's not stealing scenes.
Doesn't look like he's grabbed anything that recognizable, you're right. Nothing I know by name, anyway, which is only a handful of tracks from his westerns and one of the pieces from Days of Heaven. I suppose it's a fair distinction in terms of emotional manipulation/recognition, but again, different strokes.
As for substance, on some level I agree, but I actually think QT's films are fairly cerebral, and not just relatively speaking. On their surfaces I enjoy them most as entertainments (which I don't mean as a denigration) but there's a lot going on beneath the surface in most of his stuff. I think Kill Bill has a lot of emotional depth, and that Inglourious Basterds is a very clever critique of violence in movies as well as of American attitudes towards WW2. And Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown are clever deconstructions of neo-noir and blaxploitation, sort of like if Unforgiven was given a humorous bent to it. I don't hesitate to rank him with my favorite directors - probably not in my top 5, but if so, just shy.
Back to the "borrowing vs. thievery" thing, I see what you're getting at it. I suppose it's just a question of A) where you draw the line and B) how much you care. It's not something that bothers me often, I suppose my bar is set higher.
