One of my absolute favourite directors in the world; the ever-eccentric, creatively insane and ingenious man Quentin Tarantino. After Broadcast Media resparked my interest in radio doco’s and broadcasts, I found this gem floating around on my Facebook news feed.

http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/tt/tt130109quentin_tarantino_dj

What I found the most interesting about this radio interview was that he discussed both the conscious and subconscious decisions that were vital in creating his movies. He really opened up to the interviewer and let him delve inside his mind – something that every interviewer should strive to achieve. One tactic that Elvis Mitchell (the host) used was telling Quentin something unique and signature that he noticed in his films and invited him to discuss whether or not this was intentional. I found that interesting because in Cinema Studies (or literature for that matter), it’s so easy to pick out deep, profound, unique or interesting meanings/motifs/themes/devices and make assumptions that it was intentional by the writer/director for a specific purpose.

For example, a blue curtain in a book may to a Literature major reflect the melancholy isolation a character feels, trapped inside their own unstable and depressing emotional state. But to the author, it may mean that they really like the colour blue. This is one major reservation I have about ultimately and definitively analysing any author’s work (poems, books, movies, songs etc.), but I think it’s a matter of evoking a plethora of interpretations from all different audiences.

In this interview, Elvis talked about how he noticed food being a symbol for power in Tarantino’s films. He responded by discussing how he feels the best conversations in real life happen in between mouthfuls of delicious food, so why shouldn’t that be the case in films? He found Elvis’s observation interesting and essentially said that heavily using food as an evocative, emotional, realistic, seductive and tempting device in his films was intentional, however the use of it for power reasons was subconscious and entirely plausible.

He also talked about his experience casting Inglorious Basterds; his scripts are ostentatious and crazy; he needed his actors to reflect this, thus he dedicated a lot of time in this process which directors usually do not do.

Anyway, it was a great listen and it really opening my eyes (or ears ha ha ha) to how radio interviews can be a lot more informative and intimate than TV ones.