Quentin Tarantino

i didn't expect tarantino to be such a good essayist. after mel brooks' "memoir" (which i loved despite its obvious flaws) earlier this year, i thought tarantino's essays on films that influenced him growing up were much more inspired bits of writing. other director memoirs fall into the trap of just wading through their own films and telling everyone what they already knew, but this was a director (love him or hate him) flexing his cinephile knowledge and thusly adding a great depth to his existing body of work without going into detail about any of them. i don't think i'm entirely convinced by tarantino as a character still (he obviously likes to have his cake and eat it too to this day), but i do understand him better.… (lisätietoja)

For more reviews and bookish posts visit: https://www.ManOfLaBook.com

Cinema Speculation by Quentin Tarantino is a memoir about some of the influential people in his life and a work of criticism about some of the influential movies he watched. The majority of it takes place in the early 1970s, in downtown Los Angeles.

I don’t know how Quentin Tarantino enjoys movies. I love movies, like the author, but I can’t imagine dissecting movies to such a degree. To be fair, he seems to enjoy himself regardless.

On the other hand, the book made me realize how much I miss seeing movies with an excited audience. Despite the current attitudes within the cinephile community, it’s something that superhero movies brought back.

The memoir part of Cinema Speculation is a celebration of masculinity codes, the delight of being a young white boy in a theater full of adult African Americans. The search for a father figure in any form that might present itself is a theme that often repeats itself, with openness and introspection.

The author certainly appreciates movies and has much passion for the art form. He’s not a casual movie buff, he writes well and doesn’t hold back from showing his wit, immense knowledge, and insight.

Tarantino talks about some of his favorite movies, mostly from the 1970s. He has no issue with trashing classics like Taxi Driver or imagining how a movie would have looked like with a different actor, director, or ending. His love of slasher/revenge films is not a surprise and I gained a whole new appreciation of the genre – even though I’m still not a fan.

Nevertheless, he loves movies and is a great writer. The book feels more like conversations with Quentin Tarantino than actual essays. It was an amusing read to get inside a prodigy’s head and view art from his perspective.… (lisätietoja)

First, let me say I want to read more of his books of reviews, as this one shows promise. He obviously has an encyclopedic understanding of cinema. And he has a passion for championing certain movies--which is the hallmark for a great film critic. But there are a few glaring points that cause things to get lost. First of all, his personal stories don't go nearly deep enough--and those are the best parts. The ending story on Floyd could've been the introduction, as well as the type of approach that all the chapters have: an introduction to how he was introduced to these films and the emotional impact they had. Additionally, he doesn't provide much context to the sociopolitical climate of the times. The Taxi Driver chapter goes into some detail on the war in Vietnam and changing the race of the pimp. But it's odd that he wrote an entire book on films and doesn't touch on history (like who was President of the United States at the time) at all. Lastly, some of the tangents could go (the Paul Williams joke is tiring). Still, it is worth it if you love his ideas--his Invasion of the Body Snatchers riff will stick with me forever.… (lisätietoja)