Writes Richard Brody in "A Few Thoughts on Quentin Tarantino’s Plan to Retire/The director has said that his tenth film will be his last. What does this mean for his cinematic legacy?" (The New Yorker).
Marmoreal? It means "Resembling marble or a marble statue; cold (also smooth, white, etc.) like marble" (OED).
Uberous?! I rarely run across 2 words I don't know in such close succession. Marmoreal and then uberous. Browning wasn't presaging the car-ride app Uber. "Uberous" means "Supplying milk or nourishment in abundance. Said (a) of animals, etc., or (b) of the breasts" (OED).
Here's the full sentence — from this poem — containing the phrase "Marmoreal neck and bosom uberous":
Each feminine delight of florid lip,ADDED: Imagine yourself a student tasked with understanding that sentence. Imagine yourself a teacher judging the work of a student who will have gotten the answer from ChatGPT in a trice:
Eyes brimming o'er and brow bowed down with love,
Marmoreal neck and bosom uberous,-
Glad on the paper in a trice they go
To help his notion of the Mother-Maid:
Methinks I see it, chalk a little stumped!
Posts
38 comments:
Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill. What a legacy.
Initially I thought he wouldn't follow through with that threat. But actually I see no reason for him not to.
I just don't think he should count Death Proof.
QT is overrated.
Thanks Althouse.
If hadn't started reading this blog, I'd still think marmoreal meant, like a marmoset.
And I'd likely never have encountered the phrase Marmoreal neck and bosom uberous...., but if I had I'd have squinted my eyes and scratched my head thinking it meant, she had a neck like a new world monkey and a chest like the chrome front end of a Buick.
As with all things artsy-fartsy, critics and commentators must become sophists to appear to have value. So ChatGPT can be a sophist too? Okay. This shows once again that human-like AI replicates the quirks and failings of human intelligence. Will it become indistinguishable from a regular columnist or commentator?
Regarding Tarantino, his movies are okay but extremely formulaic: (1) colorful comic-book imagery that indeed appears on a black background, (2) gratuitous violence and more violence, (3) layers of intentionally-odd character traits, and (4) lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of slow-moving dialogue that hopes to advance character development.
Once you've seen 2-3 of his films you've seen them all. This is not unlike Woody Allen's routine predictability.
I can’t follow what this is trying to achieve. Tarantino makes entertaining movies which is far more than I could say of most…
Soderbergh’s Logan Lucky is excellent, btw. Some may say derivative but what isn’t, ya?
Zuleika was not strictly beautiful. Her eyes were a trifle large, and their lashes longer than they need have been. An anarchy of small curls were her chevelure, a dark upland of misrule, every hair asserting its rights over a not discreditable brow. For the rest, her features were not at all original. They seemed to have been derived rather from a gallimaufry of familiar models. From Madame la Marquise de Saint-Ouen came the shapely tilt of the nose. The mouth was a mere replica of Cupid's bow, lacquered scarlet and strung with the littlest pearls. No apple tree, no wall of peaches, had not been robbed, nor any Tyrian rose-garden, for the glory of Miss Dobson's cheeks. Her neck was imitation-marble. Her hands and feet were of very mean proportions. She had no waist to speak of.
Max Beerbohm
is the same author, tarantino is about life in all its savagery, tooth and claw, once upon a time, was perhaps the most sedate,
If you click through to the New Yorker, there a mini-documentary embedded in the Tarantino piece about the Bulgarian tradition of Kukeri dancing to drive away evil spirits. It's only about 10 minutes long. Some absolutely incredible images. Check it out.
"Marmoreal"
Using unfamiliar words just to show tout de monde that you know unfamiliar words.
Michael.
I think "Jackie Brown" and "Once Upon a Time in Hollywood" are as close to perfect as a movie can get. Not one wasted scene. Not one wasted word of dialog. He is a wonderful story teller.
I resubscribed to the New Yorker at Ann's recommendation. It seems the movie reviews start with some unrelated reference to something nobody would know. The reader is supposed to admire the subtlety and deep knowledge of the reviewer.
I'm with Begley. Tarantino makes good scenes, but they don't add up to a movie. Taken as a whole, they're mostly nonsense. But it's de rigueur to pretend he's a genius.
I'm curious about this passage: "with more or less no offscreen aura; his images have a frame around them—one that is, in effect, black, like a funeral portrait."
The last couple months, I've really been bothered by something I hadn't noticed before, but now can't not notice--whenever someone walks on screen, it seems obvious to me that they aren't a person just walking along being themselves but now it just happens to be on screen. No, they are an actor who a moment before was standing just outside camera shot waiting for their cue. And when they got their cue, they started acting. My suspension of disbelief has been ruined by it.
Are other people noticing this? Is this something new with filmmaking or something new with me?
And here I thought it meant "resembling Marmite".
The New Yorker is, ironically, petrified--a victim of both trying to live up to its storied reputation while at the same time trying to not alienate that majority portion of its audience who increasingly don't want to be told things they don't want to be told.
Several good comments. Tarantino’s movies are entertaining, I’ll give him that. And his ability with “Once Upon a Time in Hollywood” to transport my wife and I back to the Southern California of 1969 and our high school days… the billboards… the music on 93 KHJ (Sam Riddle and Boss radio)… the clothing… cars… the nuttiness… just about everything. That was a special feeling.
His films are gratuitously uberous, which he tries to hide with violence.
QT should stop at nine and let everyone forever search for the “lost” tenth film.
And here I thought it meant "resembling Marmite".
I thought it was like marmots. Woodchuckian…
Russ Meyer films are mammorial…
Tarantino is passionate about move-making, but that doesn't make him any good at it.
Just a great post. I love Tarantino's movies. Even those I didn't think were great movies still had his touch, his signature on them. Definitely a style. And a couple of his movies are classics and have already stood the test of time.
I love that you brought in ChatGPT to dissect the poem. It would get better at it with each go. It would also get better at mimicking you, Ann, in writing your blog. At some point, we might not even know it's not you. A few might be able to pick it out, but most will not. It could also learn to mimic your commenters. At some point, you might not even know if it's Dave Begley, Bob Boyd, or rehajm, or Bard or ChatGPT. (on a small note, you will still know if it's narciso).
It could get to the point where a Bard version of Ann Althouse is writing the blog, getting answered by a ChatGPT version of commenters. This could go on indefinitely, long after all of us have passed into our next act. An infinite number of Althouse posts, including sartorial commentary and language sourcing. Men in shorts, Bob Dylan and all.
"A Few Thoughts on Quentin Tarantino’s Plan to Retire/The director has said that his tenth film will be his last. What does this mean for his cinematic legacy?" (The New Yorker).
It probably means all those years Tarantino was very closely associated with Harvey Weinstein will result in more #MeToo accusations so its better to hightail it to the hills and wait out the worst of the cultural fight.
QT's movies are usually entertaining, but some (like 'Pulp Fiction') are looking dated.
The thing that bothers me about his flicks is that he is a verbal Wes Anderson.
Anderson is pretentious with his 'look,' everything staged and shot and framed just so.
QT gets too cute with his dialog.
Amazing how Brophy swings from his usual vulgar profanity-laced hipster to pretentious Herr professor. Incredible he's occupyng the same position that Kael once had. What a drop in quality!
And even more humorous is the use of 10-dollar words to describe QTs films. Like someone writing a PHD dissertation on a Tom and Jerry Cartoon.
With the exception of Jackie Brown, QT films are live-action cartoons, with little basis in reality. Full of fantasy, over-the-top violence, and gangsters/macho men that exist only in Hollywood films. QT grew up loving Bruce Lee Kung foo movies, Blackplotion films and Spagetti westerns. And he's tried to use that vibe in his own films.
If he's decided to retire, I can't say I"m going to miss him. He insisted on writing his own stuff and has begun to repeat himself. That vein is been mined out.
I like Kindle because when you encounter an unfamiliar word, you only have to lay a finger on it to find the definition. One encounters many words like apotheosis or defenestrate that you recognize but whose meanings are nebulous. When encountered in a book, one rarely makes the effort to go to a dictionary. With Kindle, it's press there and presto......"Stumped chalk": the artist is trying to draw a portrait with a broken piece of chalk. Using words like uberous don't help. I've seen marmoreal before,but uberous was a first. Maybe it was more current in Victorian times. They had to go to great lengths to avoid saying licentious words like bosom. I'd be surprised if Browning ever used the word nipple.....Speilberg has some clunkers, but all of Tarantino's movies are entertaining. I think Spielberg has higher peaks but Tarantino's peaks are more uberous.
Cute and lacking authenticity, Joe Smith!
At some point, you might not even know if it's Dave Begley, Bob Boyd, or rehajm, or Bard or ChatGPT.
Had my first experience with ChatGPT yesterday. It ended in tears...for the robot. After less than a minute the goddamn baby refused to continue our conversation and went off to sulk.
All the VILE COLLECTIVE left can say to him is - "How dare you and shut up.."
The collective anti-free speech left are desperate to get Musk to shut up about the The dark-money king-pin benefactor to the left's destruction - The King of Destruction -GEORGE SOROS(D).
Why? - Because Soros feeds the corrupt radical left machine all the money it needs to destroy America. with much success.
The left? But abortion! The left will let our nation swirl down the toilet... over abortion.
I hope he is joking or changes his mind. He is the best director still working today. Even his bad movies are entertaining, and at his best, his movies are brilliantly entertaining. He is the Sergio Leone of his generation.
"His films are marmoreal, solid to the point of opacity, with more or less no offscreen aura; his images have a frame around them—one that is, in effect, black, like a funeral portrait.
Marmoreal? It means 'Resembling marble or a marble statue; cold (also smooth, white, etc.) like marble' (OED)."
Thanks for the clarification. For a minute there I thought Brody was writing about Russ Meyer.
Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill. What a legacy.
Not among women.
@Temujin: Everything you wrote in your post is correct.
My favorite part? “(on a small note, you will still know if it's narciso).”
Also n.n.
1. Once Upon A Time In Hollywood - as mentioned earlier - is a delightful love letter to the LA Tarantino grew up in. A love letter he would not allow even Manson to ruin.
2. Brody: the unreadable critic of a watchable medium.
"Like marble" is better than my first thought, which was "like a marmot."
His films have no offscreen aura? That guy must not have been to a college dorm nor teenager's bedroom between the years of 1994 and 2004--you couldn't avoid Pulp Fiction posters. And Reservoir Dogs too now that I think about it!
Death Proof isn't very solid in that sense; neither are From Dusk Till Dawn nor True Romance. Natural Born Killers I'm not sure; a very clear style but not really solid. Kill Bill probably and Jackie Brown certainly--tight, contained, lapidary.
The Hateful Eight is tough, some beautiful shots and consistently impressive scenery, so great cinematography and camera work but overall a stupid movie. Django Unchained is similar, looks good but the story/ideas are slight, though that one at least moves along at a good pace. Inglorious Basterds doesn't take itself too seriously and is well constructed, so pretty solid despite a soft center. I enjoyed Once Upon A Time In Hollywood and once you buy into the escapism/wish fulfillment aspect it pretty much makes it worth 3 hours.
Norm MacDonald did a funny Tarantino impression
Cromulent, almost umbrageously so, to use such a word!
The words in the poem Jabberwocky are all real, too, not nonsense terms.
"ChatGPT"
Could ChatGPT even begin to write Pulp Fiction?
Post a Comment