Life in a Northern Virginia suburb of Washington, D.C. B.M.A.T.C., and Etruscan typewriter erasers. Blogged by David Gorsline.
Wednesday, 12 November 2003 
|
Larissa MacFarquhar profiles Quentin Tarantino in the 20 October 2003 issue of The New Yorker: It's not that Tarantino doesn't ever see a difference between bad movies and good movies, or between good movies and great movies. But whereas most critics are really interested only in the difference between good movies and great movies, Tarantino finds the other end of the scale equally fascinating. He is interested in the phenomenon of what might be called the good-enough movie: the movie that is basically terrible, but just good enough—its characters just lifelike enough, its plot just intelligible enough—to make you care. "One of the things I think is really kinda cool," he says, "is you can watch a badly done movie and maybe the two lead actresses are really crappy, or not really crappy, maybe they're just not that good, all right, but, God damn it, crazily enough you actually get caught up in the story and actually start caring about them and want it all to work out well. I love that."I might seem to be inconsistent for citing both Mike Needs and Quentin Tarantino. But the thing about Q.T. is that he still understands and appreciates the difference between good and not so good. It's as if he's trying to discover a cinema povera. Reminds me of a quote from Damien Hirst about a pack rat he once knew. posted: 10:23:40 PM |
 D. Gorsline, Proprietor
   
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
