Should Directors Retire Early or Keep Making Movies? 

As a writer myself, I can understand the mentality. If anyone has ever written more than one book or made more than one movie, they will know that artists are in constant competition with themselves. We are constantly comparing our current work to our previous work. It often feels safer to go out with a bang than to continue and risk making something subpar. Of course, for me at least, the creative drive will always resume after a few months of hiatus. It’s impossible to live any other way. Even if Quentin never makes another film, he will never stop being creative.

I think Paul Thomas Anderson is a great example of a filmmaker whose films have matured throughout his career with his age. Most directors at the beginning of their careers go from smaller, more tight-nit stories to bigger, ensemble type films towards the later parts of their careers. PTA seemingly had an opposite trajectory with his early films being huge and ensemble filled dramatic epics, and now creates much more intimate and restrained work.

One important thing to keep in mind regarding Tarantino’s decision is that he didn’t come to this conclusion after his 10th movie. He placed this limitation upon himself way back, which means he started out knowing that he only gets to make so many movies. Each time he made another one he had to ask himself is this the story he wants to tell, is this good enough? In a way Tarantino and Scorsese are not so different - they both acknowledge they have limited time to tell their stories. They just approach it differently.

I agree with you. If a great director ends up making a "bad" movie accidentally, I won't forgot all the good work that they did (in fact, I'd hold all of that even more dearly).

Yeah, totally agree with this, The Wolf of Wall Street is one of my favourite Scorsese films and I really liked The Irishman too, if the Coen Bros stopped at 10 we wouldn't have got No Country For Old Men! Hopefully Tarantino has a change of heart and keeps making films anyway.🙂

A point on Hitchock - even if his last few films weren't great, his best films came out 30+ years and 40+ movies after he started. Rear Window was his 44th film.

I think it's an ego thing, not wanting to taint your own lifestory by letting yourself go on forever. Still, the concept of you have a specific, limited time to do this might also add to the motivation of crafting out the best work possible with what's on hands.

The mona lisa comparison doesn't quite work though, because the Mona Lisa is famously an unfinished work of art. Leonardo never intended to leave it in this state

This topic has been my mind forever because of Quentin Tarantino. I believe Quentin Tarantino just doesn’t want the same fate that his heroes who did not end their career well, to happen to him as well. Obviously, Quentin is very aware that Martin Scorsese is alive and well still making movies. Maybe he believes he’s just not one of those directors that can just keep on going no matter what. And because of that self conscience behavior, he doesn’t believe he’s worth much after he gets to a certain age. Not everybody wants to keep working at the same age as Martin Scorsese, but Martin Scorsese believes he was born to make movies until the day he dies. Quentin Tarantino has been very open how he doesn’t want to be known for just directing. He wants to write books and plays and other things as well. I believe he just doesn’t think he can just keep going like everyone else that’s really it. 🎥

As much as I love Tarantino and don’t want him to quit. All directors should do what they want to do. It’s their prerogative

It’s quite funny, Tarantino loves cinema like a holistic entity. He cares about cinema as an artform even more than loves creating stories. I bet he figured that he could get to make and see more masterpieces if he ran a studio or stuck to writing, giving the director’s chair to younger artists. Imagine if we could get 1-3 movies a year produced with Tarantino’s love and dedication to the craft, but in the hands of new voices and perspectives? That could be very exciting.

Whenever I think about this issue Tarantino has raised, I think of Manuel Olveira, whose career begins in earnest at about 50, and whose films get more interesting and more appealing as Olveira ages past 100. There are other wonderful filmmakers like Theo Angelopoulos and Raul Ruiz who simply grew their passions and innovations in cinema as they grew older.

Three points: 1: no director (or any person really) owes nothing to anyone, so if they don’t wanna direct anymore - it’s their choice; 2: if you wanna tell stories - you will try to tell as many of them as you can, like Scorsese says (can be different mediums though); 3: if Ridley Scott actually thinks he’s doing his best work now, he is delusional😅(just take Prometheus and Alien:Covenant alone, oof).

I think this retiring story is a strategy by Tarantino so that the academy can finally give him the Oscar for his "last film". In addition to the fact that he is going to make a lot of money.

I’m on Tarantino’s side. Often times, I feel artists lose their touch in their later years. Sometimes it can even ruin their legacies by retroactively ruining the earlier works of art. There are exceptions, but it’s a risk each person must decide whether to take or not

Tarantino’s view is self-fulfilling. By worrying about his legacy, he has stopped taking risks- the very thing that diminishes a director who plays it safe to maintain a career. Instead, he could just accept that there are seasons to everything. He thinks he is being smart, but he has always lacked wisdom.

To be honest, whenever Tarantino brings up aging directors who aren’t as good any more, I think of Dario Argento. He hasn’t really managed to make gold or truly interesting movies since Stockholm Syndrome and his last one was pretty lackluster. I’m glad he’s still going out there to work and offering more opportunities to his production teams, but the movies are nowhere up to the same quality as his older films

Fans want content just for the sake of Content. But some people want good writing content, and think about the story first before the film needs to exist. Do you have a direction? you need great writing, great characters, great dialogue, everything etc.. Look at Marvel for example, they keep going after endgame giving us content for the sake of content and everyone is complaining because there’s no direction and nobody knows what is going on anymore.

Ridley Scott is fooling himself if he truly thinks he's doing his best work now.

In the case of directing in my opinion as stated in the video the peak should be considered by the director himself if he doesn't think he has the ability, drive, or want to keep making films then they probably shouldn't, but I definitely don't believe the peak is determined by age.

Beethoven was near the end of his life/career and had completely lost his hearing when he composed his Magnum Opus the 9th Symphony.

Definitely on Scorsese's boat here. Your perspective when you're 20, 50, 80 is very different and age and life experience influences your creativity in many ways. So you can always create something new from a different perspective. Whether your work is generally loved, hated or ignored should not be a key factor as a creator.

I completely respect Tarantino on this. I'm self-protecting and neurotic so I'd rather perfect things than ebb and flow between greatness and failure. That's not going to work for everyone, but if he'd rather go out with 10 great (or at least good) films I say more power to him. It's a powerful statement and very self aware. We might miss out on some greats from him but what a wonderful oeuvre he'll leave behind.

I think it's fine to value finitude in this case, no matter the reason. As much as I cherish the idea of dying doing what you love, I think Tarantinos position is interesting to put into perspective regarding what's happening right now with AI, holograms and post mortem exploitation of artists' work. When I imagine myself at 80 years old drawing, I imagine doing it for myself, because there's so much in art to discover and learn. I think that's why old artists tend to be self indulgent. But when it's to please an audience, as part of an industry, I find this idea more bleak. Yes, ppl should keep doing their thing until they die because they love the art and want us to see what weird thing they got into lately. They shouldn't keep doing it to feed an insatiable demand or for the hope of birthing another masterpiece. That's my contribution to this discussion but this was a really great video 😊

Well if you are Martin Scorsese then there's no problem if you want to make more movies since he hasn't lost his touch. I think it also applies for Tarantino since he is one of the best filmmakers in the world. With Tarantino it is his call to end after 10 movies which is a pity for the world but since its his decision, you'll have to accept it.

American football coach John Madden said 10 years was the maximum for coaching in the NFL. And for him, he was right. I hope both directors live happy lives making however # of movies they care to.

We should bear in mind that Tarantino isn't going to stop being creative, just stop directing specifically He said he's going to continue to write scripts, novels and non-fiction. Maybe still produce films for other directors, who knows? He may feel he won't have the energy to turn up on set in his 60s and 70s and have the same impact he did when he was a younger man I'm disappointed to hear his next movie will be his last but I respect his decision if that's what he truly wants to do

Find what you love and let it kill you (Bukowski).

Very interesting video ; 2 things: first Kaleidoscope was an Hitchcock project, it never materialized into a film, he did make Marnie after The Birds which is very good or at least as Truffaut put it « a great ill movie ». Secondly De Palma could have been mentioned as he is one of the best example to defend Tarantino’s point of view , as his latest film « Domino » is painful and heartbroken to watch considering how bad it is. Let’s not forget Tarantino was a great fan of De Palma, especially « Blow out » and talked about De Palma’s Bonfire of the Vanities. But definitely both point of views have their pros and cons.

Same could be said for actors as well. I think they put their all into it when they're trying to get established and then over time they get type cast - Robert de Niro or just phone it in - Anthony Hopkins.

Total luxury problem, but it's a personal choice. I'm a fan of both Tarantino and Scorsese and wouldn't mind seeing more from each. As you stated, though, most directors need to work for a living.

Obviously any individual director should make whatever decision feels best for them, but in general I would agree with Scorsese's side of the argument. I mean even from an audience perspective, I would much rather that a director makes 5 mediocre movies and 1 masterpiece, than never making any of those movies and the masterpiece never having existed. That's my personal opinion but I'm sure most people would agree that they don't care too much about the consistency of the filmography as long as it has those good movies in it. I mean almost every director has some bad movies, and that doesn't diminish their great movies in the same way that a bad section of a movie can diminish another section of that same movie because they're meant to work together in a way that doesn't apply to distinct films within a filmography.

Tarantino told Tom Segua he’s already written a limited TV series

Really interesting video! I hope you keep making content like this!

What an excellent and thorough commentary!

Scorsese is an exception to me in that he’s still making some good movies. Not this best work to be sure but not bad like Coppolla or Woody Allen’s (presumably) final films.

I loved this video. Only contention I have is what you said about the bad movies not being remembered with the good. I don't think Coppola could separate the two. He made one of the greatest 2 films of all time with Godfather one and two, only to make Jack a couple decades later....I don't see how that much of a drop off will not be remembered.

We're finally going to see Jay Sherman live action adaptation

It has to depend on the director. Perhaps, Tarantino has said all he had to say, or felt he might become repetitive. Many artists do, with time, only improve in the quality of their work; some do (or, should) know when to fold.

wonderful video

Quite insightful. Thanks!

Look at Akira Kurosawa some of his best films were after 60: "Dersu Uzala", "Ran" or "Dreams" could never have happened if he had retired... or Stanley Kubrick´s "Eyes Wide Shut".

This is a weird question to ask of an artist, unless art is looked at as a "job". Just like it's always been strange to me when an artist announces their retirement. If an artist stops making art, people should get the hint that they've stopped creating art. Whether I dislike a film, or not has nothing to do with the desire of that artist to make the art they want to make.

I believe it's because of Sally Manke. His movies dipped in quality after her passing

I respect both the views. Both are amazing filmmakers that have given us so much through their works of art.

I personally wish Quentin Tarantino was willing to help put his name towards helping out Samuel L Jackson's Afro Samurai Live action Film adaptation,especially considering how much Sam Jackson has helped out Tarantino's career over the years and i stand by the opinion that Travolta getting am Oscar nomination over Jackson for Pulp Fiction is bullshit.

Whatever Tarantino chooses is his decision. Ultimately, if he is an artist, a true artist, he will continue working, Daniel Day-Lewis comes out of retirement every time a good script comes around. Tarantino doesn't have to direct, per se, but he'll find a way to channel his creativity. If it turns out he is just a cinephile, I guess we won't hear from him again.

I'd really prefer Quentin to go the Scorsese route. However, I guess he's free to do what he feels he needs to. I bet with a break, he'll eventually get the urge to make more films later on in life. Plus, imagine all the buzz about him "coming out of retirement" 15 years from now. Heh. It works out either way, right?

It just seems contrived, to have a self limit. If you love movies and the work, you’ll keep doing it

Nice piece of work

Family Plot was awful because it was clear that Hitchcock just couldn’t adapt with what kind of films were being made when that came out. In the decade of The Godfather, Network, and Taxi Driver, Hitchcock was making a movie straight from the 50s.

Khruangbin playing in the intro. Liked

Tarantino has spoken in the past about directors like Brian De Palma, who seemingly make one movie that they pour their heart and soul into, and it doesn't work, and everything they make after that is subpar, as though all their passion for movies is gone. It seems like he's trying to avoid that path for himself.

That's a question that haunts me. Thanks for the video!

Well done video, and I come down on the Scorsese side. One of Hitchcock's best films, IMO, is Frenzy, his second-to-last movie. Besides, he had made 10 films in just the silent era. (I do also have to point out that Kaleidoscope is not a Hitchcock film). If Hitch had stopped at even 40 films we never would have got Rear Window, Vertigo, North by Northwest, Psycho or The Birds.

I think people should keep their creative spirit for as long as they feel it can live. I don't think you can plan when it will die. It's all about in the moment. And if your creative spirit dies when you do, hey, there's nothing wrong with that.

Spot on

I absolutely agree with tarantino about directors becoming exaggerated versions of themselves. It’s already happened with him, his films are nowhere near as good as when Sally Menke was editing his films. It’s happening to Nolan becoming self indulgent. The only one I can think of who didn’t is Kurosawa, he was on another level

Solid video

I think he wants to do it to focus on other type of creative endeavors (albuet similar ones) such as writing novels and TV scripts, etc.

I hope QT see's this video. The only thing I'd add to what you've said is that there's no other writer or director with his point of view, so it's not a gap that can be closed by someone else. I don't think he's giving himself enough credit for just how far ahead of the rest of the pack he is with his vision and film knowledge. He won't ever make bad movies. The world needs more Tarantino films, and he's got at least 20 more years to make another 5 masterpieces. He has too much to say, and he's the only person who can say it, so I hope he doesn't leave any stories on the table.

As a lifelong movie lover I would beg Hollywood to do as many movies with Harvey Keitel as possible. One of the finest actors alive.

I get where Tarantino's coming from, but I feel like where he has the potential to undermine his own plan is by insisting on a particular number of films. I feel like it'd be more poductive is he'd simply get increasingly selective about what he chooses to direct next, whether that means he stopped at 8 or doesn't stop until 12. Leave them wanting more sure, but announcing the finality of it and why just calls more attention to whether the filmography lives up to the legacy you claim to be preserving. If - IF - his 10th turns out to be mediocre then all eyes are going to be how he fizzled out.

Didn’t he call his movie Death Proof a “left handed movie” in a Hollywood Reporter roundtable? He knows he doesn’t have a perfect filmography, so why is he worried about tarnishing a perfect filmography?

Quentin is just more self aware than other directors who are still in it for the wrong reasons, plus I think he’s run out of new quippy dialogue or doesn’t have enough of it to call it a film

I might be in the minority here, but I would really appreciate to see the work of a 60- or 70-something newcomer on the big screen. Somehow at that age we're always talking about veterans like Scorsese or Ridley Scott. And as much as I admire their body of work, diminishing returns seem inevitable - not so much because of their age, but because they got stuck in their own bubble - essentially the cottage industry they've created around themselves. I'm in no way saying that they should stop making films. Ridley is bang on the money when he says that his skill level far surpasses any newbie filmmaker and I do watch almost every film he directs. But these guys do lack a certain freshness. In the agist media business, it would be great to hear a couple of older "new voices" as well - but I guess we're lightyears away from that.

Nolan and Scorcesse are exceptions. Spielberg and other directors are getting affected by that effect of aging. PTA and Wes Anderson seem to be closing in on that effect with their last ones.

I think it clearly delineates two distinct frames of mind when creating anything: do you do it in order to get approval and validation from others, or do you do it for the inherent value and enjoyment YOU get out of it? That's the question everyone in a highly competitive, low success rate industry must ask themselves or they'll never survive.

The types of movie Tarantino makes have a limit because they tend to be fun mash-ups of other genre movies and have a distinctive Tarantino style. I agree if he makes another 10 they won't have the same originality and will quickly go down hill. Scorsese on the other hand makes social commentary and character study movies, of which there is an unlimited potential of stories and movies to be made.

I don’t see this as the biggest problem If Tarantino continues to write, make plays, or even television shows

Directors at the end are people and some of them may feel like after a certain their done and want to do something else. While others like Ridley and Scorsese want to spend their time making nothing but films as they have nothing to do and love their craft. If Tarantino does only make one film I can't blame him in the end its his life and only he can decide how to live it.

I completely with your take on his plan. I also think that rather than looking at it from a quality of over quantity point of view he could try to see it the way you described it which is trying to just see how it turns along the way instead of limiting yourself. Who knows maybe if he does decide way later in his life when he's like 74 he all of sudden does want to make a 11th movie and that then becomes his most amazing and celebrated one. You know know how these things will turn out beforehand. But I also do respect his opinion that he wants to play it safe. Funny thing about that is that I never would have guessed that Tarantino is the one who would play it safe. Out of all directors out there lol

They are artists. It is not up to us to decide when they stop creating. I say this as someone who had close contact with many artists (sculptors) young and old and dead before their time - for a decade. We can have opinions, to be sure. I understand why some creatives hang it up before they go, and retire.

On a podcast with Tom Segura Quentin talked about having already partially written season one of a TV series so maybe moving to another medium might be more intriguing to him. I know I would definitely be down to watch a QT series!! WIN WIN 👍

"1 bad movie devalues 3 good ones" QT. I agree with him. He is representing the perfection.

keep pushin on

Thanks for the video! To me It's basically a cinephile (fan) vs artist perspective, and it reminds me of Polyphonic's argument about the 27 club and "be burn out than fade away". As a director, do you make the movies for yourself, because you need to, without caring about money or the audience, or do you make movies for others as a validation? Even though Hollywood favors boomers and household names, there's room for everyone. I think Scorsese, Spielberg and Coppola are right to enjoy the creative freedom they worked to get as household names, so that now they can choose to direct only personal projects like Silence or The Fabelmans. As for their latest movies having less of a cultural impact, well It's mostly because of a massive shift in the zeitgeist. Besides, they showcase a sort of humility in surrounding themselves with younger teams and learning about technological evolutions in their art.

As a huge fan of Family Plot, it always saddens me when it's used as an example of a director going out on a sour note rather than an example of a director rallying one last time. And in Hitchcock's case, there are less-than-great films scattered throughout his filmography (and reasonable movie fans can disagree about which those are anyway) so it's not like had he retired after, say, Psycho or The Birds, he would have a spotless record of nothing but classics.

I love your channel… I’m following for some years. This is my first comment. It’s because of Mona Lisa. Using it to make a point about when someone should end a work for art is ironic: Da Vinci NEVER finished Mona Lisa :) He actually was famous for never finishing his jobs

I think Tarantino's "reason" is a bit of good tag line that partially encompasses his reason but also is self-contained enough to not go into the messy debate of his actual reason. I think his reason literally comes down to the fact that he doesn't like where cinema is heading but at the same time, he recognizes that the medium and the audience's appetite is constantly changing so he's no more "right" about the current climate then the legends that came before him that may have scoffed at his style when he and Paul Thomas Anderson were starting. I think it's knowing he doesn't like the change but at the same time knowing he has no right to shut it down that frustrates him. He's a very vocal person, particularly when it comes to film and he's unapologetic with his opinions. Knowing he would struggle to remain silent while the industry changes doesn't work for him. Giving in (which isn't always a bad thing) is something he feels that would make him a hypocrite as opposed to seeing it as growth also doesn't work. And allowing him to continue to be as vocal as he would like regarding the changing industry while public interest eventually dwindles would probably tarnish his image and reputation further than it would have otherwise. "You either die the hero or live long enough to become the villain". I think it's that fear that has motivated his decision making and I think he knows himself well enough to know that either of the 3 options I laid out wouldn't favor him in the long run even when stacked against the joy of him continuing to do what he loves. If anything, those frustrations have probably also contributed to a growing discontent doing what he once loved. His love has transitioned into writing which is really where he shines. He's also looking into making TV which is his way of conceding without conceding. He gets to embrace streaming and TV without conflating it to the benefits doing the same with filmmaking. That also plays into other parts of his influences as he's just as much a TV lover of the 70s as he is a film lover. So, his answer just puts a nice neat bow on what I believe are his real reasons. He knows he won't survive this new era unscathed if he holds steady and remain vocal regarding his discontent at the changes. He knows he wouldn't be able to stomach what would be perceive to be hypocritic behavior and knows he would be miserable continuing to work in opposition to the changes and remaining silent. It's just not him and he DOES like to control the narrative. With that being said, I thoroughly enjoyed your video and analysis.

A great artist never stops.

If Alexander the Great kept trying to conquer lands into his 50s or 70s, what do you think that would do to his "unstoppable" legacy? Presumably, he wouldn't be as impressive or have quick reaction times in his old age. Presumably, he'd lose many battles. That would tarnish his reputation and perhaps that would inspire less future conquers to look at him as a role model General? Instead, Alexander "retired" at the height of his career and youth (thanks to a disease killing him). As a result, his legacy took on a "mythical" aspect. People now wonder "could he have conquered China if he lived longer"?. This is an amazing sense of wonder.... that would be denied to humanity if he had lived long enough to be defeated. Napoleon is a great example of a young unbeatable Conquer losing his talent and wise judgement in his older years. Tarantino leaving a more impeccable legacy is a sacrifice to ensure future generations of movie directors will aspire to reach and surpass the same heights. Therby propelling the medium to greater peaks.

Hey - have you watched any of Silo (on Apple)? Would love to hear your thoughts on it

I get the idea of not wanting to put out any real clunkers but tbh, I think with a lot of directors mentioned that was due to them sort of just churning out films at a high rate into their later years. Considering how much time and thought Tarantino puts into each film he makes and is clearly not under pressure to make them faster, I don't think he's really at risk of just becoming a hack or losing relevance.

Hal > Trumbo

I'm on Team Tarantino here. He knows film history - I've seen the later works of great directors like Kurasawa and Hitchcock and he's right, they suck. It's not entirely about tarnishing the legacy, it's that he also likes to write and he will continue to work, just not by movies. If other directors only like to make movies, well i guess they continue to make movies. Only one life, but that doesn't mean because you're a director, you have to direct forever. Some people have multiple interests.

Liked and SUBBED!

Every artist is their own. One will work until his last day while another quit with just one masterpiece and this latter instead make them mysterious and enlighten.

Well all I can say is the disrespect once great directors like Martin Scorsese, Ridley Scott and Steven Speilberg are now receiving by current critics and crowds I can understand his feelings. Drop you’re 10 and leave then wanting, you have more respect, cred and money than you ever need

they should keep directing as long as they have the passion to do it. one of my favorite directors, jesus franco, made movies from the 1960's until 2013 when he died. over 200 movies.

3:52 I'd disagree on Hitchcock. Most of his late work is pretty bad but I think Frenzy really stands out and its a top 10 film from him IMO

I love Tarantino and his films. I believe many factors. Well a few, and they're in a typical order. He cares about the audience and their reactions to his films. He then cares about his legacy. He then definitely cares what ppl think of his films and going out on top and not making a complete flop which he's never made. His movies have gone in many different genres. And I feel that his most recent was definitely a bit longer than it should have been. Don't get me wrong it was very good. But it had instead of suspended building up to a scene,which he does a couple scenes in each movie to keep it very interesting. His last film had the star power. Great actors doing great acting and a cameo of a who's who of actors including the two top actors of our era in the two lead roles. He had probably two maybe three suspenseful build ups. Two were built up very intense. The scene with Cliff at the ranch and the ending of course. Now this was a nearly three hour film. Which had many scenes of driving cars through the very impressive set pieces, as Q perfectly turned the clock back and made the areas filmed in Hollywood look exactly like they did in 1969. Then there were the commercials,the TV shows where he dubbed in Leonardo, the real Lancer title card, FBI, and ect. All which were very impressive. But this felt (aide from the ending) much more less than a Tarantino film than even his last film. Which again was nearly three hours, but it was full suspense as we didn't know who was who. Hey we're all bad and violent ppl, and little by little things unraveled and in between this very violent Tarantino film were sudden bursts of violence, a very insanely violent flashback story told and then the suspense of the coffee being poisoned. Along with that signature Tarantino dialogue. This may have been his longest film but it kept us glued to he seat. Also again the dialogue from the usual Tarantino movies were featured in his latest film, but it definitely wasn't to the point of his previous films whereas you could tell it was a Tarantino film immediately by the dialogue. His latest film was great. But it had much less Tarantino dialogue, Ultra violence (accept for the very end which was about ten minutes or so. It was definitely a style over substance film. And it seemed as it was a passion project that Tarantino had wanted to do mostly for himself. Adding all that insane violence we love his movies for and even the dialogue we love his movies for were hardly as pronounced as his previous films. His most recent film seemed like the most non Tarantino film we've seen. In a way it felt as if he's down out of a lot of the signature Tarantino films and made a more mature and older feeling type of film. I get it's meaning. And he did an excellent job paying homage to the end of an era in Hollywood history. Also the fictional ending which he also used in Inglorious Bastards. Like I said the movie was excellent imo. But it definitely didn't feel like the usual Tarantino film. It felt like if you had no idea what you were watching that you might not know it was a Tarantino film until you got to the very end because as I said the dialogue wasn't Tarantinoesque. However the music my definitely give it away that it's a Tarantino film as he has and always had great choice in music in his films. So that draws me to my final conclusion about Tarantino, and that's that he doesn't want to suffer a movie that fails and only wants to make ten for himself. It's all for himself at the end of the day. Which is why this last film he's working on, may be even more less of the the Tarantino movies we've seen. Even more than his latest film. Or he could give us everything we've loved in his movies rom the start and go out in a violent,smart, dialogue strong, and a great plot of a movie. And maybe possibly go back to the chapters once more and not even tell the movie in the order it happened. We'll see. But I believe in his case he may be correct. If he says ten movies,than that's his limit than I'll take his ten movies. I know so far he's it seen failure in one film. So nine of his ten movies so far have been great. I was just stating the obvious change in his latest film from his previous ones. But all are great, and all are classics.

I think Tarantino is doing what Soderbergh did. Steven Soderbergh was supposed to retire from film (working only in television). But he really meant he was taking a break from film. Tarantino has said he'd be interested in making a miniseries. He'll probably work a decade or so in television before making his "comeback" film. I imagine it'll be treated like "a big event."

First of all, I love your video essays. But dude - I don't agree with the way you're dismissing Tarantino's choice to call it a day as "ageist", or "micromanaging his own image". Comparing him to other directors' choices is disingenous too. When you ask "who is he trying to impress / not let down?" - have you considered that maybe he doesn't want to let himself down? He's unique, not attached to fanfare, so let him be. I respect him for this, rather than milking the cow dry like the rest of Hollywood.

Scorsese made Wolf of Wall Street, The Departed and Shutter Island all after the age of 60. Those alone should be enough to reason why filmmakers shouldn't have an age cap.

The match cut at 9:20 is pure genius (I hope it was accidental because that makes it even better 😂)

Does the world need Tenet or Prometheus? Ridley's is now doing his best work? Is he nuts? Woody's last, I don't know, 15 films, does the world need them? And no, we didn't need another (worst) West Side Story. And yes, the least we can say for Scorcese is that he tries, he puts in the effort, he always tries to make cinema, not movies. And I'm glad Coppola has the hunger again. As for Mr T.... He'll be remembered for his first 2 films. He could have stopped after Pulp Fiction, really. So what is he saying? He made great films after that? Or just great entertainment?

Sidney Lumet produced one of his absolute best films as his final film at age 82. Fair enough if Tarantino want to retire at 10 films but his reasonings are just flawed imo.

That decision comes from Tarantino's fear of imperfection, I think it's more valid to keep going because you like it rather than quitting out of fear of messing things up. It's way more admirable and smart to keep going but that takes time, vulnerability and guts imo

It kind of just comes down to doing what you want vs doing what you love