On the 18th June 2008, Quentin Tarantino appeared on stage at The Provincetown Film Festival to answer questions about his films. He held up a copy of the Inglorious Basterds script, which he had been correcting on the flight to Boston Logan, and announced to a stunned audience that he would have the film completed in time for Cannes, the following May. I would suggest that this time-frame would make it impossible for a composer to score the final print, but that is probably not the point.

Tarantino's films are a result of his obsession with cinema, he is a self confessed movie geek. He is also obsessed with the relationship between music and image, and invests a lot of time exploring that relationship, continously listening to music during filming, and often editing the film to emphasize the track.

Let's not forget that the soundtracks of Tarantino's films sell incredibly well, look at Kill Bill for example, and the Inglorious Basterds soundtrack will introduce a whole new audience to the work of Tiomkin, Morricone and Schifrin - not a bad thing. Maybe we could look upon it as 'Audio Recycling'!

So few soundtracks are plagiarized, with glee or otherwise, from classical music these days, that a generation is missing out. It always amazes me how well those 'Classical Music from TV Ad's' sell. They were always top of the rack in Woolworths. I've enjoyed the use of Beethoven's 7th in 'Zardoz' over the years, but try that in a contempory film today and the critics would be rolling about in the isles. Hi ho.

PGlander, July 27, 2009; 4:28 AM

I agree with you TheSaint.786
The previous time he was on the Jonathan Ross show, he came across as arrogant and full of himself. So much, that he gave the impression he couldn't laugh at any jokes regarding him as a person or director. He took himself way too serious.

I happened to catch the interview you mention, and I too was questioning the reason he gave for not using a composer.
To me, that's a load of crap. If he doesn't want to give up control over 'his' film to a composer, then why does he give loads of creative freedom to his cinematographer, his actors, editor, and so on? Surely, he can't do and know everything himself.
ALL films are collaborations, group efforts - this is an artform that simply can't be fully controlled by one person (I know first-hand, I went to film school myself).

He used to do for soundtracks what Scorsese did: give new 'meaning' to long forgotten, sometimes underrated songs. Today, you can not listen to "Stuck In The Middle With You" without thinking about the scene in Reservoir Dogs. That's genious.
But when you use music that was composed for another film, you put off people who know this music, because for them it brings to mind the original film images.
So, what he does here, with Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds, is arrogant again, thinking only HE knows about these older films/scores. It's like making a temp track and keeping it all the way up to the film's release.

I have to agree that the whole Inglorious Basterds deal sounds shaky. He bought the rights to get the title, but then 'misspelled' it (never stating just why)... And his script has nothing to do with the original, it's not a remake by far... Then why use that same title??

Honestly, I really appreciate RevDogs, Pulp Fiction and on some level Jackie Brown (based on a novel), but he kinda lost me with Kill Bill and I can't tell you how much I hated Death Proof.
So I'm starting to think he's a one trick pony - he said what he wanted to say, and now he doesn't have any more material. When you shamelessly start referring to your own films in a movie that is only your 5th real directorial effort (Death Proof), I think you're over and done with.

I hope I'm wrong.

rinse_dream, July 27, 2009; 10:53 AM

According to what QT said in other interviews, his dream ever since is to work with Ennio
Morricone. He planned to have the Maestro score his Basterd movie, but schedule difficulties
prevented Mr. Morricone from accepting the job.

As for QT's film work, I always disliked it, because he never had a genuine idea and just apes
whatever comes his way. His loudmouth attitude is not very helpful either.

coma, July 27, 2009; 12:37 PM

I do think he is indulgent and arrogant and that he is always right and never wrong. In the first instance, he stated on the show that he had started penning the script for IB back in 1997 during his 'epic mode' (there he goes again thinking he is Cecil B. deMille!) but got that out of his system doing the crappy Kill Bill and even having the audacity to use the yellow jump suit a la Bruce Lee in Game of Death.
If he did want to use Ennio why not give the man a mention instead of talking utter trash. In my honest opinion, his style of directing would not suit a Morricone score and it may be that reason he is pissed because the Meastro probably said no to his final cut. Maybe WWII has some resonance with the Meastro and QT's vile language and the likelihood of gratuitous violence maybe have been abhorent to him and possibly denegrating to the soldiers who lost their lives. Just a thought.

TheSaint.786, July 27, 2009; 4:22 PM

Years elapsed since I last paid to see a Tarantino movie: 11.

handstand, July 28, 2009; 2:33 AM

Quentin Tarantino is a man who does what he wants. I say more power to him. To each their own.

The only thing Inglourious Basterds has to do with Quel maledetto treno blindato is that it's a 'men on a mission' movie (and perhaps the general tone of film, that remains to be seen).

I don't understand why you think he's plagiarizing a composer's work when he's clearly licensing music for his soundtrack. Sure, he's never used a composer to score any of his films. I think that makes him very unique.

I had typed more but deleted it. I won't say your opinion is wrong, because it's not. I just don't agree with you.

I read that Tarantino wanted to use the title having finally seeing the film after searching for days in the video store he worked at. A fellow employee, I think, had mislabled the film, misspellings and all. He vowed to use the mispelled title if he were to ever make a film of the same name.

nickfolsom, July 28, 2009; 8:14 AM

Agreed that you are entitled to your opinion, I don't deny that and I too disagree with you. Taking other people's music demonstrates a clear lack of creativity. The whole debate about the title thing says it all. He seems to be telling different stories to different people about the whol title thing.

TheSaint.786, July 28, 2009; 10:15 AM

TheSaint.786 wrote:

Agreed that you are entitled to your opinion, I don't deny that and I too disagree with you.

Taking other people's music demonstrates a clear lack of creativity.


The whole debate about the title thing says it all. He seems to be telling different stories to different people about the whol title thing.





Would QT be absolved if he hired Hans Zimmer or any of his disciples to "compose" music for IB :)

delerue, July 28, 2009; 5:32 PM

It could be lack of funds but that's besides the point.

Was Kubrick not creative in 2001 because he used classical music masterpieces instead of Alex North's score???

I think it is the composer's job for creative thinking on a film's score and not the director's but if the director decides not to hire a composer to write music to their film for whatever reason and uses other music... that does not make their own music choices less creative! In Q.T.'s Pulp Fiction, the old classic Misirlou rearrangement was perfect. A great soundtrack album throughout by the way!

serifiot, July 29, 2009; 6:35 PM