'BOTV is a mess, but a mess that only a good director makes' - Tarantino

QT seems to be suggesting that it can take a high level of skill "just" to make a Really Bad Studio Movie. Given the scope of the story, the cast, the big budget, a run-of-the-mill director wouldn't have taken nearly as much abuse as De Palma, because he would've settled for "safe" at every turn. De Palma really reached for the sky... took a lot of chances throughout... you can feel him giving each scene absolutely everything he's got. Manhattan has probably never looked better on film... the movie's phenomenal from a cinematographic POV.

Bear in mind, during the film's production and on through the early phases of the screening process, Warner Bros. was convinced that this was their big Oscar Bait for winter 1990. I talked about this on another thread on these boards:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099165/board/thread/48668279

QT's point is akin to noting that only a great actor is capable of giving a truly terrible performance. Most actors and actresses don't trend too far in either direction.

In the sense that genius and madness are closely related.

He means that De Palma was trying to stretch himself so much and push the film as far as he could that he made it bad. Some directors make bad films out of laziness or a lack of skill others do it by being TOO creative to the point that it becomes a mess - this takes skill and this is what he thinks De Palma done on Bonfire.

Most genius directors have their film that either critically or comercially bombs because they tend to take what people call them genius for and push it further than they should. Another example would be Heaven's Gate.

I hope you get what I'm trying to say - I'm not saying it well.

Some people are giving Tarrantino too much credit for 'insight,' and DePalma too much credit for 'taking chances.'

Here's the bottom line about Tarrantino's quote. He idolizes DePalma (and rightly so! DePalma has made some of the BEST American films of all time). But he idolizes him so much he can't just admit that DePalma made a stinker out of BOTV. He has to explain it in a way that still gives credit to DePalma for some percieved 'genius.' He can't judge THIS film objectively because he thinks DePalma incapable of making a truly bad film.

This film is truly a shambles. Whatever strength there was in the novel is lost in the film. It should hit hard at greed, corruption and hypocrisy. Yet there are so many BETTER films out there in these areas. I don't know what was up with DePalma at that time, but he definitely was gun-shy about making this film the way it should have been made. Everything is watered down. Despite using a few 'bad' words here and there, this film is actually very politically correct. Bad DePalma! Bad boy!

Just because you were in the same classroom as Scorsese, doesn't make you Scorsese. Which is what this hack has been driving on for years and brainwashing students in the process. As for the movie itself, it demands a remake and it can be done ESPECIALLY with today's talent and how things are now with the country. I demand a remake from this great source material.
Bang! Bang! that awful sound...........

That's interesting. Tarantino adapted a book, a sarcastic, edgy book and turned it into Jackie Brown. He did some tinkering, and a lot of chances. In the end, I think Jackie Brown is an elevated piece of work compared to the stuff he's done since. Jackie Brown, as a movie based on a fictional novel, required a lot of discipline with the performances while Tarantino did a lot of great things as he told and shot the story. He got some A-list talent for his movie, and was adamant about his casting choices while riding a huge wave of success: Robert Forester HAD to be Max Cherry. Tarantino even told Deniro he could not have that role, but gave him a bit part. Vision, discipline and balls.

There's no question Depalma is brilliant, he took a lot of chances with how he shot the movie, and in "the Devil's Candy", it's pretty clear he could not manage expectations in shooting such a controversial book. He never had a clear vision, he had no discipline in his personal life or on the set, and had a studio questioning every move. The principle leads were all miscast, and it was too high profile for a director who hates high profile. At the end of the day, BOTV should have never been made into a movie at the time. Same reason why they were wise to wait on American Psycho for as long as they did.

As for "well, who knows what people will say in 20 years", when it comes to adapting a book into a movie, that's where you judge a disaster and an opus. Jackie Brown and Fight Club will be highly regarded, and BOTV will always be the textbook example of how things can go terribly wrong.

[deleted]

That sounds like Roger Ebert's verdict on 'Death to Smoochy':

"Only enormously talented people could have made "Death to Smoochy." Those with lesser gifts would have lacked the nerve to make a film so bad, so miscalculated, so lacking any connection with any possible audience. To make a film this awful, you have to have enormous ambition and confidence, and dream big dreams."

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020329/REV IEWS/203290302/1023


___________________
'It's a mess, ain't it, sheriff?'
'If it ain't, it'll do till the mess gets here.'

That is a perfect description of this beautiful piece of shit.

Tarantino hits the nail on the head, as always.