There is something to be said for legacy.
The belief that in order to maintain and increase the value of your art, you must create an awareness of its scarcity. This is exactly what Quentin Tarantino has intended in his repeated claims that he will hang up his directing hat upon the completion of his next, tenth and final film.
This favored topic of movie critics often arises upon the release of a new Tarantino film (ever since the announcement of a shelf-life of his work arose during the promotion of Inglourious Basterds).
This time, it coincides with the release of ‘Once Upon A Time… In Hollywood.’ The director’s 9th film (of proper, distributive release).
While I have yet to see the film, it’s no coincidence that it deals with a time in Hollywood of transition. A theme that he no doubt is coming to terms with, in his own life decisions.
The changing of the guard from big studio involvement to down and dirty street shot, independent feature films from directors like Dennis Hopper and Brian De Palma.
From clean-cut to hippie.
From 1969 to 1970.
From innocence to Charles Manson.
With one film remaining in the Tarantino canon, we can’t really blame the man for wanting to quit the industry with which he has devoted his waking soul.
Let’s break down the basic state of Hollywood’s production and distribution model as it currently stands and why it conflicts with Tarantino’s ethos;
- Film stock is becoming increasingly phased out to near extinction,
- Projectors in cinemas now screen from a digital file,
- Streaming is rife and (by all accounts) is the future of film releases (See Martin Scorsese’s upcoming ‘The Irishman’ for Netflix). Heck, film releases may become obsolete in favor of serialized TV if the palate of the audience continues to skew in that direction.
- Most importantly, it’s harder (even for a filmmaker as skilled and celebrated like Quentin Tarantino) to make anything of significance and merit in a world of oversaturation in entertainment.
The only reason the status quo maintains in favor of a film industry that is vaguely familiar to audiences who grew up with it is thanks to major studios like Disney and Warner Bros. seeing fit to create ‘epic’ cinema. I.e — Three-plus-hour films that guarantee action, adventure and thrills making your trip out of the home and away from streaming platforms somewhat worthwhile.
Indie film as a theatre release is no longer viable nor in existence, and this is the platform in which Tarantino’s career was born. He has adapted his style to suit the expectations of an audience (along with his own), but with increasingly changing and more accessible platforms for distribution — Tarantino, a devotee to a specific practice and belief feels that he can no longer continue to produce in a world that does not cater.
This experience of seeing a Tarantino film on the big-screen is akin to experiencing vinyl records made in a time when a digital recording would be decades away.
We live in a time where we face a unique situation.
A filmmaker, iconic in his work thanks to his photographic and academic knowledge of global cinema, uses that knowledge to craft a film so groundbreaking — it spawned an entire generation of wannabe indie filmmakers (Pulp Fiction) and devoted audiences.
He was lucky enough to exist in a time when the world was in dire need of independent cinema and mini-major studios (like Miramax) existed to actually fund them — now working on his final run of projects in order to maintain a sense of the significance of his work and the breaking of new ground that his actions were responsible for.
It was Tarantino himself who said, all great filmmakers have a shelf life.
While this point is arguable, let’s put that into perspective -
Francis Ford Coppola, responsible for making some of the most magnificent films put to celluloid.
Without Googling, you would no doubt be able to tell me those films were The Godfather, The Godfather Part 2 and Apocalypse Now.
Would you be able to tell me the names of his last three films?
