DePalma gets trashed by the film geek chorus for wanting to make Hitchcock-inspired movies, yet when Quentin Tarantino makes a blaxploitation(JACKIE BROWN) or outright B-action fare (KILL BILL), what does the same chorus do? They applaud QT. What's the difference?
Agreed.
I suspect critics that give QT a pass do so because they do not have an attachment to blaxploitation, B-movie, grindhouse, Shaw Brothers, Argento, and other stuff that QT homages or lifts. With DePalma however, he's touching a giant of cinema.
The fact that Pauline Kael championed DePalma might have something to do with the polarization.
Sadly, reevaluation of DePalma's artistry might come much later via revisionists - some detractors will become supporters. Hitchcock wasn't taken seriously for a bit there.
I agree.
I also think its because trashing QT is so "not" cool. He's groovy. Nobody wants to look like a dick in trashing or attacking any part of his movies.
DePalma? Shit, I've seen Slavic whores treated better than DePalma. Save for SCARFACE and its rapper fanboy legion(that miss the point of the 3rd act), beating up DePalma for his "Hitchcock-fetish" is fair game. Its accepted.
Remember, most people have the mentality of following the pack. Right Irish?
