As Quentin Tarantino gears up his eighth film, "The Hateful Eight," he’s got a lot to think about. There’s the sprawling cast, the plans to shoot and project the film in 70mm, and the fact that production is beginning next month. But he’s also got his eye on a longer term goal — retirement — and he’s got a plan.
“I don’t believe you should stay on stage until people are begging you to get off,” he told distributors at AFM (via Deadline). “I like the idea of leaving them wanting a bit more. I do think directing is a young man’s game and I like the idea of an umbilical cord connection from my first to my last movie. I’m not trying to ridicule anyone who thinks differently, but I want to go out while I’m still hard…I like that I will leave a ten-film filmography, and so I’ve got two more to go after this. It’s not etched in stone, but that is the plan. If I get to the tenth, do a good job and don’t screw it up, well that sounds like a good way to end the old career. If, later on, I come across a good movie, I won’t not do it just because I said I wouldn’t. But ten and done, leaving them wanting more, that sounds right.”
And while it seems like every other filmmaker talks retirement at some point, this isn’t the first time Tarantino has talked about this plan. During the run-up to “Django Unchained” he stated about the ten film quota: “OK, it would sound really cool because it’s a round number and it would make sense as I would have made three movies per decade, but it’s not fixed in time. I still have some more things to do before being done with movies.”
So what would he do when he’s not filmmaking? Well, a couple of years back he said he wanted write novels and film criticism, and he’s already got books in the works about Sergio Corbucci (director of the original "Django"), George Roy Hill ("Butch Cassidy & the Sundance Kid," "The Sting") and Don Siegel. And again, he stated at AFM that he’ll be “writing plays and books, going gracefully into my tender years.”
But it’s not just his own legacy Tarantino is thinking about. He wants to shake up the industry before he goes, and it starts with "The Hateful Eight," which he hopes will offer a compelling counter-argument to the digital tide. “If we do our jobs right by making this film a 70 mm event, we will remind people why this is something you can’t see on television, and how this is an experience you can’t have when you watch movies in your apartment, your man cave or your iPhone or iPad,” Tarantino stated. “You’ll see 24 frames per second play out, all these wonderfully painted pictures create the illusion of movement. I’m hoping it’s going to stop the momentum of the digital stuff, and that people will hopefully go, ‘Man, that is going to the movies, and that is worth saving and we need to see more of that.’ ”
“I know this business has gone digital, even more in foreign countries than in America where it’s 90%,” he added. “Digital presentation is just television in public, we’re all just getting together and watching TV without pointing the remote control at the screen. I have worked 20 years, too long to accept the diminishing results of having it come into theaters with the quality of a f*cking DVD, shot with the same sh*t they shoot soap operas with. It’s just not good enough for me."
Aiming to create the kind of road show production from big spectacles from the 1960s, where movies would screen in large theaters and opera houses like an event, Tarantino lays out the release plan for "The Hateful Eight." “We’re doing this 70 mm, and we are trying to create an event,” Tarantino explained. “I need to know from all of you if this can last a month in your territory in that format, or two weeks. Then we roll it out in 35 and eventually digital. We’re not doing the usual 70 mm, where you shoot 35 mm and blow it up. We’re shooting 65 mm which, when you turn it into a print, is 70mm. Panavision is not only behind this movie, they look at it as a legacy.”
Lofty aspirations, indeed. But let’s hope the movie is worth the format first, right? Let us know what you think below.
Writing film criticism? Nooooo! Tarantino is a greatdirector obviously, but his "film criticism" leaves a lot to be desired (like suggesting that psycho 2 was better than psycho)
You make a pretty big assumption if you think Kubrick would be anti-digital. He was fascinated by the precision of technology, and I don\’t think it\’s a stretch to see him go the route of someone like James Cameron (obviously not as a storyteller… ). Kubrick constantly said his goal as a filmmaker was to change the form. He failed at that. He nudged it a little bit with stuff like "2001," but I think he would have seen the upheaval in digital filmmaking as an opportunity for reinvention.
What a pretentious prick. Instead of squabbling about digital filmmaking he should be focusing on making good movies. It\’s been a long time since I\’ve seen a new one from him.
I\’m glad Tarantino has finally said what I\’ve been saying for years. The TV-afication of films. It\’s TV writers like JJ Abrams who have been denigrating film by basically taking TV shows into the theater. The younger generations don\’t know any better. They think films are supposed to be like Buffy The Vampire Slayer.
Doesn\’t matter what the hell he shoots it on. After a few weeks in the "theatre" is runs for the remainder of eternity on iPads. Deal with it, QT. All your movies look great on my ipad.
The Master in 70mm made me a believer in the transfixing beauty of film.
In response to Glass, please change the "we" to "I." Big themes, big drama, and big stories is not cinema, that is hollywood. The most poignant and lasting films are often times simple stories told with compelling camerawork like he stated "painted pictures". A return to the real auteur as someone who is the painter as well as the storyteller is something very commendable and hopefully will influence other filmmakers and educate the audience as to what cinema really is
35mm, 65mm, whatever. Shooting this on film isn\’t gonna make a hell of a lot of difference if the DI is as bad as Tarantino\’s usual.
It\’s code for "taking a break." You\’re an idiot if you believe he will permanently stop making movies. Ask him of he believes you should return to making movies after people have been begging him to come back.
This article made me wonder what it would be like to watch Playtime on an iPhone …
Be an artist. That is who you are and what you do.
@Glass, agree with everything you say. Those Abrams films are the worst. Well said.
Tarantino makes beautiful films. He\’s a purist, I can respect that.
I am an aspiring filmmaker, I currently attend a film school in Orlando Florida. The fact that digital is coming down the mountain at such a rate saddens me. People need to understand that folks like Tarantino might just have a point in this debate, I think it\’s time to realize that film is not digital and asking either to replace the other cheapens the overall effort of so many brilliant artists. I\’m on my own personal mission to remain an aspiring "film"maker and not just shoot big format daytime tv.
Tarantino sucks and the sooner he quits the better…as for film…it lasts ten runs and then starts looking like crap…remember all those splotches and pops on the screen…lol…I\’ll take vhs pixels over that shit anyday
You can\’t quit until you film "The Good Lord Bird"!
I am just so happy and proud (don\’t know why) to see Tarantino with such a commitment with film, I really hope everything works out the way he wants, and this may be a calling to other directors and film artists to save film.
Goddamn, Quentin Tarantino is so far up his own ass. Hilarious!
Hey @ANONYMOUS, wtf are you talking about? Are you talking about Interstellar or something? This is a Tarantino article…
GLASS is on point. The medium is secondary to the content in every art form. Some once thought that movies should not have sound because that would cheapen them, and make them less pure … this whole purity argument is and always will be a lot of bull. Make better movies and stop bitching about digital vs. film. This argument is tired, and better left in the past, much like Tarantino\’s pretentious ways. As much as I love his celluloid magic, it\’s best that he sticks to retiring.
(I am F*CKBOY)
Sorry Kevin for being so rash. I know this anonymous but my comment was just too unchill. I also have to let you know that I am actually your boss and this is my reaction to my frustrations with your current work. I hope you can forgive me.
I don\’t know…"Kevin Jagernauth"…maybe if Tarantino thinks it is worth the "format," maybe it is. Maybe that is exactly what he is saying and you are part of the resistant dummies who are skeptical of a living breathing master of cinema. Fvck you and Indiewire.
I have nothing against digital, and it seems foolish to fight this particular tide, but after having seen Interstellar on 70MM last weekend, I was reminded that celluloid is simply beautiful when it\’s done with craftsmanship and artistry. I don\’t think the multiplexes or Hollywood are going back to digital (frankly, most moviegoers don\’t care or can\’t tell the difference), but it\’s good to know there are artists out there with enough clout to keep the format alive.
Kubrick was interested in reinventing the form, and I believe he would have embraced the new possibilities of new digital technology. Tarantino is speaking here from a place of great privilege and helping to push back the door that has been opened for a new generation of filmmakers by the advancement of digital technology. F*uck this old perfectionist approach to filmmaking. For the rest of us trying our best to tell stories with the little means that we have, digital is a wonderful tool and allows us to shoot in ways that would otherwise have improved impossible. Coppola put it best – \’Suddenly, one day some little fat girl in Ohio is gonna be the new Mozart…and make a beautiful film with her father’s little camera-corder, and for once this whole professionalism about movies will be destroyed, forever, and it will really become an art form.” Lets reinvent the form!
Clearly Glass you have no idea what you\’re talking about, so keep your opinion out of it. It\’s all shot on 70mm. The size of the screen doesn\’t mean that\’s the size of the film. It\’s shot in 70mm 2.35 scope, but the difference in screen size comes with the actual specialized Imax camera and film. That\’s when you see the difference, not when it\’s switching between 35mm and 70mm. And it\’s not about the writing, it\’s about the visuals, hence we\’re talking about the visual aspects of film. You could go in and watch Interstellar back to back right now if you wanted, one of them be digital the other be on film. You will see a clear difference. The digital version will do its best to look crisp and clear, but what it can\’t do is show the true contrast of lights and darks. It\’s just not capable of showing the film the way it was meant to be shown. If you don\’t care about the way a movie looks then stay out of the conversation while the people who know what they\’re talking about keep the fight going.
Glass, he understands we want great stories and characters. He\’s been delivering on that with all of his films and I don\’t doubt he will continue to do so for his remaining films. But the format does change the experience. When Marshall McLuhan said "the medium is the message," it isn\’t just a catchphrase. He means that quite literally…the medium by which you receive the message changes how you perceive the message. Maybe it\’s subtle, maybe it\’s obvious, but it\’s there. Just like listening to music on different formats (iPod vs. CD vs. vinyl (12" vs 10" vs 7")). Or grilling a piece of steak with wood vs. coal vs. electric (same cut, same rubs, same chef even). Or listening to a stand-up comedian in a small intimate bar vs. a big theatre vs. on DVD (same comic, same jokes).
We have two screens in Australia and have kept one screen on film only (16mm & 35mm) and the other is dual equipped with 35mm & 4K digital. We would have loved to screen Interstellar on 35mm, but there are no prints in Australia so we can only screen it digital, and this is the case for all latest releases here. It would be great if the studios over here would get in prints and make the film screenings an exclusive event, but they don\’t seem to get that it would be a great marketing tool for cinemas and a way of reinvigorating "going out to the movies" instead of staying home and downloading. In Australia, it is usually illegal downloading I\’m afraid.
The audience cares less if its shot in film or digital. They\’re looking for stories that resonate. Yes, an experience — cinema or whatever you want to call it. Panasonic 70mm or Red 6k, they\’re just tools for the craft. When color first came out in film, all the classic directors opposed it. Hitchcock loved it, because he said "I\’ll know when to use it."
There is a whole new egalitarianism emerging in filmmaking. The capability to tell stories, big and small, is now in the hands of a new generation, and some of those stories are – and will be – truly cinematic. How many young (or older) writers and directors outside of Hollywood will ever have access to 70mm film stock? It seems to me only an elite few will ever get their hands on even 35mm film. Digital is not the same, I understand that, but in the end, it’s about “great stories and characters,” as commented in an earlier response. Digital will move forward. It will grow in quality and accessibility – I’m convinced of that. And while a certain amount of garbage will be produced, I am convinced some amazing movies will be made. I don’t think film stock will completely go away, but you can’t stop the future.
The Hateful Eight will be a glorious last sentences in the film vs digital debate. Like the big peplum with thousands of extras was before CGI. Sure its gonna look awesome but it ain\’t gonna throw the industry backwards. The next big american names will grow up on golden age TV and won\’t think twice about this and it\’s okay. They\’re gonna draw unforeseen benefits from Digital as it\’s getting more and more sophisticated and propel the art forward, like any art before it.
If you want to see a 1930s Gangster Movie,
watch a 1930s Gangster movie.
The Roaring Twenties is a great one.
Cause you know, Tarantino is no Raoul Walsh
The thing is, from what I remember of the script it might as well have been a stage play. isn\’t like 90% of the film in a log cabin? Bit of a waste of that 70mm I reckon….
Tarantino is a legend in his own mind. His films are cartoons full of silly violence. As for digital versus film, digital is superior to film in many ways. Which is why it has won. Tarantino\’s just a crotchety nostalgist, showing his reluctance to abandon the old ways…
Be a shame if he were to retire after ten. He can be hit and miss, but the hits are great. Hope he does the 1930s gangster film, would love to see it and think it would play to his strenghts.
"Directing is a young man\’s game"? Tell Scorsese that. Directing will always be a game for those who have something unique to say. You get frustrated by the game and retire when you run out of vision. HA! I just told off tarantino, ME, a regular guy.
I just hope one of the two last films is the 30s gangster film he used to talk about.
Tarantino stays true to the form. Anything less than the best from the man would be disappointment. He has every right to steer us in the right direction. How Kubrick weigh in on this topic? Film makers should never aim to pour out quick and easy manifestations. Let them be difficult, and let the audience reap the reward if they are capable.
Why can\’t this guy understand that we want great stories and characters and big, relevant themes with big drama. That\’s cinema. He talks about digital projection being TV in public – these JJ Abrams tentpoles are TV acting, TV writing and TV directing… and they\’re shot on film. It\’s movies like those that are helping blur the lines between TV and cinema, but because it had a few IMAX shots and the rest is 35mm celluloid, “THAT is cinema”… It\’s so frustrating seeing this film vs. digital debate make some of my favorite directors show their ass, interview after interview.
it\’s all storytelling to me, but i can sympathize with the digital vs film debate as the e-readers vs physical copy (magazines, books, etc) seems a close cousin, both losing to the newer technology.
Well, I live in a huge city outside of the U.S. and after being pressured to "upgrade" to digital projection a few years ago all of the movie theaters near me can\’t show film prints and 70mm movies so at least in my neck of the woods we\’ve lost the battle to digital.