Wright Vs. Tarantino: Approaching Film as Pop Culture Cornucopia

I work for a company whose name is derived from the Latin definition of “woven basket.” The idea is you can have access to all of this varied media from one source or “basket,” if you will.

Often times, this approach has been utilized in filmic story telling as well. The “basket” being the medium of celluloid or digital video. The “varied media” being an excessive, sometimes over use of pop cultural references. This conceit can be either informed by the story being told or work against it depending on the script and/or talent involved. Or by the director’s choice of visual style. The result is usually a sort of meta-movie: the film winds up commenting on itself by referencing other films, TV shows, popular music, even video games. While the granddaddy of all this might have been Jean Luc Goddard (check out ALPHAVILLE and BREATHLESS), it might have been Quentin Tarantino who popularized this with the advent of PULP FICTION. And, yes, I should give Wes Craven’s SCREAM props here as well. While in the TV realm this gave way to Joss Whedon and JJ Abrams with their Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Alias series (respectively) which also commented on pop/pulp culture while paying homage to it. Tarantino revisited this approach with last year’s INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS. And Edgar Wright brought his two cents to the table with the recently released SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD. I think both flicks were completed to varying degrees of success. Varied in what seemed to me an intent on the filmmakers part and whether they succeeded in that intent. So, as a source of personal amusement I’d like to examine the similarities, the differences, what worked and what didn’t. And feel free to disagree.

Tarantino: It seems the progenitor of popularizing this idea – the idea of pushing pop culture references in film – has kind of trapped himself within the tropes he initially popularized. Kinda’ like how M. Night Shyamalan had to out “twist” his previous films with each successive film. BASTERDS feels like the  kind of rough draft that’s left on the screen because no one is around with the authority or has enough of Tarantino’s respect  to say to him “you need to tighten this up. And this part needs work.” I understand the idea of subverting clichés. To play with audience’s expectations as to what kind of film you think this is going to be. With BASTERDS, you think it’s going to be a men-on-a-mission flick. But the actual mission or rather the  men involved become the least interesting part of it. While that may have been Tarantino’s intent, he’s not disciplined enough to display that intent with conviction. It’s too loose. And it doesn’t help that Tarantino is too in love, gets too lost in digressions and clever pop cultural references. There’s a lot to like in BASTERDS but the sum is not the whole of its parts.

I encountered two individual observations from two different film critics recently that best exemplify what I think about Tarantino today. And don’t get me wrong: I still think that flawed Tarantino is still very interesting and well worth witnessing as opposed to other filmmakers. In my view PULP FICTION is one of the greatest movies of the 1990s. If not of the 20^th century. I’m serious. This ain’t hyperbole. But UK critic Mark Kermode summed it up best when he said he was harsh on Tarantino not because he thinks he’s a bad filmmaker but because he can do so much better. That Tarantino has rested too heavily (or too lazily) on the device of having all his characters act and speak like him. They are not “human beings” in the sense that each character is an “individual” with his or her own voice. His films have become his own, er, masturbatory fantasy on how he wants life to be. That everyone likes the same films as him. That everyone is that character from the films he loves. And that everyone is on his page/wavelength when it comes to this pov. That everyone is him.

The second critic I’m going to quote may incite some controversy as it is a person I have been extremely vocal against on our show. And yet it surprised me that not only did I agree with what he said, but it seemed to hit the bull’s eye in terms of what I think of Tarantino today vs. the director Edgar Wright. Ladies and gentlemen, behold this statement by Armond White, “Midway through grinning at Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, I realized: this elation must be what Tarantino fans want to feel when watching one of his pop culture marathons. The difference is that QT’s pop-referencing movies extract all social and political contexts, while Edgar Wright, who directed Scott Pilgrim and co-wrote its screenplay (based on graphic novels by Bryan Lee O’Malley), is also a social satirist.” Bingo. That’s why I think Wright’s SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD succeeds where Tarantino has been failing lately. He, too, lines up the pop cultural references but they are there not just as a source of amusement but help to inform various layers and themes of the human condition. Whereas Tarantino seems to just want to talk about film. Tirelessly. Predictably. To the point of narcissism.

(As a side note, I was extremely surprised by White’s positive assessment of SCOTT PILGRIM. It was as if, without having been informed by the positive buzz proceeding its release, White felt that most critics were going to trash this film. And, to be honest, it had some negative reviews. But not a lot. But White turns out to be up to his old tricks again, betraying his frustrating, illogical sensibility by stating, “In Scott Pilgrim, Wright brings a big-budget spotlight to the themes of pop culture’s identification/alienation—just as in Todd Graff’s little-seen Bandslam. Scott Pilgrim doesn’t quite have Bandslam’s depth to carry its audience to a new appreciation of human experience and pop paradox.” BANDSLAM?! Haha, A.W.! You never fail to disappoint!)

I loved the hell out of SCOTT PILGRIM. But I think I need to see it again. There is so much to this flick, so much thrown at you that there are a lot of “blink and you’ll miss it” moments. On the surface, it’s visual ingenuity is very reminiscent of early film comedy like Buster Keaton or the Marx Brothers. Very similar to the anarchic feel of HELLZAPOPPIN or Loony Tunes. It’s almost a modern day Frank Tashlin film. Or kind of like if Frank Tashlin directed a John Hughes film. Does anyone know who Frank Tashlin is, by the way? He made THE GIRL CAN’T HELP IT, WILL SUCCESS SPOIL ROCK HUNTER?, some of Jerry Lewis’ best comedies in the 50s (Tashlin was Lewis’ filmmaking mentor). And he got his start as an animator for MGM cartoons and his work wears this influence on its sleeves.

But I digress.

SCOTT PILGRIM exists in a live action, cartoon universe where the laws of reality do not apply. And yet that universe is emotionally rooted in our own. So on the surface you are hit – actually overrun – by creative visual overload, sight gags, clever special effects and pop cultural references galore. And with this, you have a very precise satire on the hipster lifestyle (living in Brooklyn I know from where I speak). But beneath all that you have at its core relatable story telling. People who are emotionally driven like real people. For example, I remember when I was a lazy slacker and had not two pennies to rub. And yet would still try to date. And my fiscal solution was to invite said date to dinner to my place (having to bargain with a roommate to get the hell out of dodge in the process) and offer up something basic and cheap to dine on. In the case of SCOTT PILGRIM, the meal consists of garlic bread. And, yes, his justification for serving said meal is pretty funny yet relatable to me. Both the selfishness of the act (I will not exert myself because I am too cheap and self centered to fully give this date the meal she deserves) and how it’s so human. To want to do something that, logically, you’re in no position to do properly but hope you’ll get away with.

The way the film exudes its graphic aesthetic is not unlike 2008’s SPEED RACER. But its fully dimensional approach to situations and characterization far out trumps the Wachowski Brothers’ headache inducing mess. In SCOTT PILGRIM, while the characters are introduced as “types,” you find out that their baggage is no worse than yours. Like that of a close friend. Or a loved one. That such baggage informs all behavior. And how we try to come to terms with this.  It’s something that’s presented in very truthful ways. 

Oh, and the movie is fun as hell. Fun in the way a Tarantino movie should be but leaves you cold because it never hits that emotional button. Never achieves that relatable character quotient. Unlike BASTERDS, SCOTT PILGRIM is not a succession of movie quotes and opinions. It’s an attempt to present some pretty entertaining devices as analogs for some specific life experiences. And for the most part it works very well. Do I have issues with SCOTT PILGRIM? I do but not a lot (I think some things don’t hit as well as others. But, again, this may have to do with how Wright throws so much at you so quickly. Like I said, a second viewing might be required. I also think the film goes on maybe 10 minutes too long). 

Two years ago Tarantino and his buddy Robert Rodriguez released GRINDHOUSE. You’ve already heard my thought on this via our show. But it struck me that, of all the films featured in that omnibus-style flick, I liked Edgar Wright’s fake film trailer the best. I’ve decided I’m a big fan of his sensibility. His approach to film. Both SHAUN OF THE DEAD and HOT FUZZ worked on various levels as well as SCOTT PILGRIM. On the surface, they were homages to specific genres. But at their core they were exceptional social satires and astute commentaries on relationship dynamics. SCOTT PILGRIM is no exception.