...have something in common, in my opinion.
I just saw that Tarantino has a new movie coming out next month called "Inglourious Basterds." It's about World War II and I'm looking forward to the reviews. I like movies about that period, and I think Tarantino is a gifted movie-maker. In fact, "Pulp Fiction" may be the best movie I've ever seen. The acting, dialogue, music, and humor were all brilliant. Almost every scene was well-crafted and I liked the non-linear plot-line. I had never seen that before; it was very creative. The movie was an emotional roller-coaster and I was on the edge of my seat several times. I even found myself gripping the arm rests at one point and had to remind myself that what I was watching wasn't really happening--it was just points of light on a screen (I think you can guess which scene that was). And yet, having said all that, I don't think I ever need to see it again. It was just too disturbing.
What's also disturbing, although quite a bit less so, is that I'm afraid Tarantino is shaping up to be a one-movie movie-maker. (This is where I should duck and cover my head, because I know how unpopular that statement is.) Sorry, but I just think all the rest of his movies are forgettable, including "Reservoir Dogs." To me, it was just a bloody, sadistic mess and not at all interesting. But it set the table for "Pulp Fiction," which is turning out to be his magnum opus, so I'll cut him some slack. But ever since then, his movies just leave me scratching my head. What happened? "Grind House?" Is that a good use of his gifts? Is that how he wants to be remembered? I'm afraid that at this rate, Tarantino could end up as an example of incredibly wasted talent.
So what does all this have to do with Jack Kerouac? (I won't have to just duck and cover for this one, I'll have to run down to the basement.) Well here goes: Kerouac was a one-book writer (I can practically hear people closing this page now; if there were subscriptions to this blog they would be getting cancelled). Granted, On the Road was a great book. And I use that word carefully. It's a classic and every young person should read it. In some ways it changed my life, or at least the way I look at life. But all the rest of Kerouac's work is...crap. Sorry, but I went through a bohemian phase, too, and read several of his books and they were just mediocre, at best. So was all the rest of the Beat literature, for that matter, from John Clellon Holmes's Go to William Burroughs's Junkie. (I have to take a pass on Allen Ginsberg's "Howl," because I never finished it, I don't understand poetry, and critics give it high marks.)
But it's okay, though, to make one great movie or write one great book. We can't all be like the Beatles or Woody Allen and turn out a number of great works. But let's stop kidding ourselves that Tarantino and Kerouac have some great body of work to show for their efforts. They don't. Now Tarantino can still do something about it; Kerouac can't. So I'll be looking forward to this new movie to see if it's the beginning of a second act for his career.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I thought the first Kill Bill was pretty exciting, if not as mind bending as Pulp Fiction.
Post a Comment