Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Matthew Lloyd on November 03, 2014, 08:59:57 PM
-
Reading the new edition of the Confidential Guide, a thought occurred to me:
Those who follow the movie/entertainment world closely may recognize some striking similarities in the roles that Tom Doak and Quentin Tarantino have played in their respective industries, and (thankfully) continue to play.
First, the most obvious comparison – both are hands-on craftsmen who have reached the pinnacle of their respective careers, but also managed to stay there by continuing to study their respective art forms, which has in turn enabled their style to evolve. Doak has played just about every golf course, Tarantino has seen just about every movie. Both have an encyclopedic knowledge of what they’ve seen and can apply the lessons learned to their own work.
Second, both owe a part of their success to “independent” creations in their early years to get on the map. Tarantino burst onto the scene with ultra low budget movies with an edge that few would have the guts to make, and he wasn’t shy to share his opinions on the state of the business he was entering into. Doak made a similar splash with the original Confidential Guide, a bold move that few people ever would have done. I wish the movie industry had a filmmaker who would come out and publish a similar book – people would love it.
Third, and perhaps most importantly, both have become the de facto “tastemakers” for their respective industries. The Confidential Guide speaks for itself, and on a similar note, Tarantino has become widely known within the movie industry for publishing an annual top 10 list, which creates an immediate stir and a great deal of debate – I’m not sure any other filmmaker would have a big enough following to generate any interest in their opinions like Tarantino does. I would argue that Doak’s views on golf courses would be more anticipated than any other architect at this point.
Fourth, both seem to encourage dissent, debate and discussion from their peers and fans. Tom Doak’s role on this discussion board and his willingness and interest in hearing from his “fans/critics” is probably a small part of how he keeps his edge and stays engaged. Tarantino, likewise, does the same thing in similar forums in his world.
-
Wait until Tarantino has another 10 Oscars, then he can be compared to Doak.
-
This thread must surely present Peter Pallotta with some room to offer interesting insight.
I don't know that Tarantino would be my pick to draw any comparisons or parallels. I don't know thw genre of producer-directors enough (probably don't know the archies enough either ::) ) But, to take a shot at it, I was thinking more like Ron Howard for the comparison. Tarantino in my view goes for the shocking, dark, and near pornographic in sensationalism to excite and provoke. Howard seems to understand the more humanistic qualities, along with the heroic aspects of everyday people placed in situations to do something great. Or, basic greatness revealing itself in a relatable everyday setting. Thus, with the tendancy to use the most natural of settings TD uses insightful skills and fundamental understanding of everyday golfers and exceptionally good golfers to allow them to reach for a higher interest or awareness in the game, the field of play on the land masterfully presented, like a good movie inspires the better of our nature, with beautiful cinematography. Not an exploration of the dark sides or the tortured aspects that a Tarantino movie often evokes with shocking visuals.
And if anyone thinks Howard as just Opie, you better take a deeper look at a lifetime of excellent and consistent work. TD is approaching a long term consistently excellent body of work now in his 50 somethings. ;D
-
There is no comparison whatsoever. Tom Doak, by all accounts, is turning out quality work. QT hasn't done a movie worth the time to watch since Pulp Fiction. With the latst absurdities of Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained he has become a caricature of himself.
In Inglorious Basterds we're expected to believe that a few American soldiers, with no prior knowledge of the terrain or the language, can evade and terrorize the Wehrmacht occupation forces in France for months. A 1940's hard-scrabble French farmer is fluent in English? Where did he go to learn it? You can't find a French farmer today who speaks English. Or the Jewish girl who hides in a Paris cinema, where she learns to speak English, which she'll need because when the theatre is later full of Nazis she'll naturally want to avoid using French or German. And how many stupid movie-goers left the cinema thinking Hitler died in a theatre fire in Paris?
Django has an ante-bellum, slave-owning, plantation owner inviting blacks to sit at his dinner table? Or how about death bouts between two large slaves held not in a ring, but in his parlor!?
Christopher Walz is a brilliant actor though, and almost redeems IB all on his own.
-
Have to respectfully disagree with your thoughts on django and especially inglorious basterds. They are satirical accounts and revenge fantasies...if you expected them to be realistic or historically accurate than you went in with the wrong expectations. Like expecting an ocean at Augusta.
I kind of think Nicklaus might be a better comparison as a designer because although doak has crazy greens I usually find his courses to be very fair. Nicklaus is just as deliciously sadistic as Tarantino as he basically punishes the viewer/golfer with non stop violence/trouble.
Fun topic.
-
I think it's quite a good comparison. Those who dismiss Tarantino's cinema as middle-brow pulp are missing his influence and intelligence.
The only thing that doesn't ring true is that Tarantino is ultra-stylized and whilst Tom's architecture is certainly stylized to a degree, he might fit better with a neorealist maverick like Roberto Rossellini or a naturalist director such as Robert Altman.
-
This thread must surely present Peter Pallotta with some room to offer interesting insight.
You mean he also taught Tarantino everything he knows? Why am I not surprised.... ;)
-
Quentin Tarantino (per Reservoir Dogs) = Tom Doak = Mr Brown (how apt!) :)
Additional architect nominations needed please for the following -
Mr White
Mr Orange
Mr Blonde
Mr Pink
Mr Blue
other casts members - shame no Mr Green (sic!)
:)
atb
-
We'll know gca is mainstream when we see a thread on IMBD comparing directors to golf course architects......
-
There is no comparison whatsoever. Tom Doak, by all accounts, is turning out quality work. QT hasn't done a movie worth the time to watch since Pulp Fiction. With the latst absurdities of Inglorious Basterds and Django Unchained he has become a caricature of himself.
In Inglorious Basterds we're expected to believe that a few American soldiers, with no prior knowledge of the terrain or the language, can evade and terrorize the Wehrmacht occupation forces in France for months. A 1940's hard-scrabble French farmer is fluent in English? Where did he go to learn it? You can't find a French farmer today who speaks English. Or the Jewish girl who hides in a Paris cinema, where she learns to speak English, which she'll need because when the theatre is later full of Nazis she'll naturally want to avoid using French or German. And how many stupid movie-goers left the cinema thinking Hitler died in a theatre fire in Paris?
Django has an ante-bellum, slave-owning, plantation owner inviting blacks to sit at his dinner table? Or how about death bouts between two large slaves held not in a ring, but in his parlor!?
Christopher Walz is a brilliant actor though, and almost redeems IB all on his own.
Inglorious Basterds is perhaps the best, most mature film Tarantino has made. Therefore, you Sir, are wrong. I am sorry but this decision is final. 8)
-
Boy, that sure looks a lot like what I wrote about Mike Strantz and Tobacco Road! ;D I felt the same way about Strantz - http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=printpage;topic=23225.0 (Guys I couldn't find the actual link to the thread, but that should get you close enough for jazz...)
Cary L gets the best "What course is what movie" analogy - Mission Impossible = Oakmont:):)
Fave Tarantinos:
1. Pulp Fiction
2. Kill Bill (entirety)
3. Reservoir Dogs
-
Matthew - there are some good points/points of comparison there, but I think there are also significant differences.
QT takes old genre pictures (think 'golden age courses') and consciously and obviously flips them on their heads, keeping true to the heart of those genres but adding a lot of flash (think 'hand of man') in manipulating the traditional narratives, challenging the older world views/ethics, and exaggerating the characters/their characteristics. And the flash that he adds is often for the sake of flash itself, i.e. his movies, whatever else they are, are overt celebrations of himself and of the art-craft of film-making. That he manages to make this meta-level smogarsburg work so well is a testament to his talent.
TD on the other hand seems to do the opposite, especally in terms of hiding his hand. He takes the model of the old great golden age courses and doesn't flip them on their heads nor does he manipulate the traditions or challenge the older golfing ethos -- at least not obviously. Instead, he creates new courses that are meant to look and play and be experienced precisely like their golden age counterparts, but not as those golden age courses played in the 1920s, but as they play (and look) today. It is a very subtle 'trick' (for lack of as better word), and essentially the opposite of QT's overtly metal-level approach. TD seems determined to not appear to be celebrating either himself or the art-craft of gca.
Peter
-
Matthew - there are some good points/points of comparison there, but I think there are also significant differences.
QT takes old genre pictures (think 'golden age courses') and consciously and obviously flips them on their heads, keeping true to the heart of those genres but adding a lot of flash (think 'hand of man') in manipulating the traditional narratives, challenging the older world views/ethics, and exaggerating the characters/their characteristics. And the flash that he adds is often for the sake of flash itself, i.e. his movies, whatever else they are, are overt celebrations of himself and of the art-craft of film-making. That he manages to make this meta-level smogarsburg work so well is a testament to his talent.
TD on the other hand seems to do the opposite, especally in terms of hiding his hand. He takes the model of the old great golden age courses and doesn't flip them on their heads nor does he manipulate the traditions or challenge the older golfing ethos -- at least not obviously. Instead, he creates new courses that are meant to look and play and be experienced precisely like their golden age counterparts, but not as those golden age courses played in the 1920s, but as they play (and look) today. It is a very subtle 'trick' (for lack of as better word), and essentially the opposite of QT's overtly metal-level approach. TD seems determined to not appear to be celebrating either himself or the art-craft of gca.
Peter
+1
I think the better analogy might lie with Stanley Kubrick or Wes Anderson ;D
-
Steve - yes, but I was thinking of other parallels (probably before Matthew's time, and mine too), i.e. the kind of directors that elevated/perfected the genre picture and that became the darlings of media and of the cognoscenti (at least in France!) -- e.g. Howard Hawks, John Ford.
Peter
-
I hate to state the obvious here but I actually think Spielberg is a decent comparison...
They both give the viewer tremendous eye candy and great entertainment, however, they are also very accessible for all audiences.
You know you are in for some great fun when you see a Spielberg movie as well as playing a Doak course.
-
PP, never disappoints. John Ford, in deed. "Stagecoach", "Grapes of Wrath", "How Green Was My Valley", "The Searchers".. Use of locations to frame the characters and tell the story with characters framed in perspective of the dramatic backdrop of the place. ;D
Mike T., I think you also have a good comparable for those reasons.
-
RJ one of my favorites of Ford is "The Quiet Man" such a great location and great story.
-
Steve - yes, but I was thinking of other parallels (probably before Matthew's time, and mine too), i.e. the kind of directors that elevated/perfected the genre picture and that became the darlings of media and of the cognoscenti (at least in France!) -- e.g. Howard Hawks, John Ford.
Peter
Peter,
I'd thought of Hanks or Ford as well, however Tom's greens most definitely have a Kubrick-twist with an Anderson sense of humor!
-
I would compare QT to Desmond Muirhead; no doubt brilliant, but one who squandered his considerable talent creating cartoons.
-
Can we get back to the thread topic please?....
I wish a lot of you got to play Beechtree before NLE.
I have been hoping for a long time some more GCA play at Riverfront. These courses are on less spectacular sites and take on a decidedly pastoral quality. They are anti-Tarantino.
-
Matthew - there are some good points/points of comparison there, but I think there are also significant differences.
QT takes old genre pictures (think 'golden age courses') and consciously and obviously flips them on their heads, keeping true to the heart of those genres but adding a lot of flash (think 'hand of man') in manipulating the traditional narratives, challenging the older world views/ethics, and exaggerating the characters/their characteristics. And the flash that he adds is often for the sake of flash itself, i.e. his movies, whatever else they are, are overt celebrations of himself and of the art-craft of film-making. That he manages to make this meta-level smogarsburg work so well is a testament to his talent.
TD on the other hand seems to do the opposite, especally in terms of hiding his hand. He takes the model of the old great golden age courses and doesn't flip them on their heads nor does he manipulate the traditions or challenge the older golfing ethos -- at least not obviously. Instead, he creates new courses that are meant to look and play and be experienced precisely like their golden age counterparts, but not as those golden age courses played in the 1920s, but as they play (and look) today. It is a very subtle 'trick' (for lack of as better word), and essentially the opposite of QT's overtly metal-level approach. TD seems determined to not appear to be celebrating either himself or the art-craft of gca.
Peter
+1
I think the better analogy might lie with Stanley Kubrick or Wes Anderson ;D
Why Kubrick? I don't see that at all.
-
Kubrick because quasi-intellectuals believe they see the brilliance in it.
-
Kubrick because quasi-intellectuals believe they see the brilliance in it.
Is it all Emperor's New Clothing then, John?
-
Kubrick because quasi-intellectuals believe they see the brilliance in it.
Or because the brilliant see quasi-intellectualism in his work.
I find "Fail Safe" (Sidney Lumet) a much more gripping and satisfying film than Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" -- both films based roughly on the same pre-exisiting text, but the former made by a man with heart and the latter by a bratty school-boy.
That's another possible analogy, Sidney Lumet. A true master craftsman.
-
Paul - JK changes his (emperor's) clothes so often than he's bound to want to call everyone else naked, even when they're obviously fully clothed. Indeed, the more good clothes someone has in his closet the more JK will want to steal the moth balls.
Peter
-
I find "Fail Safe" (Sidney Lumet) a much more gripping and satisfying film than Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" -- both films based roughly on the same pre-exisiting text, but the former made by a man with heart and the latter by a bratty school-boy.
Has someone stolen your username on GCA? I can't believe you really typed this.
-
The key to your architectural edification will not be found under Doak's nut sack. He's great, we get it.
-
JME - no, it's me alright. But let me say: I loved Dr Strangelove the first time I saw it, and I watched it and loved it for years afterwards. But then I saw "Fail Safe", and watched it again -- and with each passing year (I'm getting older and older) I find the 'intellectualism" of Strangelove less and less appealing and the "sad heart" of Fail Safe more and more appealing, and true.
Peter Sweater-Pants
-
I see Tom Daok as a Guy Ritchie..more off the cuff, willing to push the envelope and take a totally different approach whilst maintaining all that is good with the finished product.
Ballyneal is the Rocknrolla of the filmography whilast Pascific Dunes and Rennaisance are the two Sherlock Holmes movies, both similar in that they are on links terrain ,but insightfully different.
-
I see Tom Daok as a Guy Ritchie..more off the cuff, willing to push the envelope and take a totally different approach whilst maintaining all that is good with the finished product.
Ballyneal is the Rocknrolla of the filmography whilast Pascific Dunes and Rennaisance are the two Sherlock Holmes movies, both similar in that they are on links terrain ,but insightfully different.
Point proven.
-
I see Tom Daok as a Guy Ritchie..more off the cuff, willing to push the envelope and take a totally different approach whilst maintaining all that is good with the finished product.
Ballyneal is the Rocknrolla of the filmography whilast Pascific Dunes and Rennaisance are the two Sherlock Holmes movies, both similar in that they are on links terrain ,but insightfully different.
Point proven.
Poor John. Are your team coming second?
-
I saw this thread title in the airport in China yesterday and thought that my son, a film student and Tarantino fan, would probably have his head explode if he read it. The further analogies to other directors might piss him off even more.
In fact, he might go all Tarantino on everybody who posts a comparison between me and any director, so if I were you guys, I would watch my back.
-
Kubrick because quasi-intellectuals believe they see the brilliance in it.
Or because the brilliant see quasi-intellectualism in his work.
I find "Fail Safe" (Sidney Lumet) a much more gripping and satisfying film than Kubrick's "Dr. Strangelove" -- both films based roughly on the same pre-exisiting text, but the former made by a man with heart and the latter by a bratty school-boy.
That's another possible analogy, Sidney Lumet. A true master craftsman.
Sidney Lumet is my favorite director - Dog Day Afternoon, The Verdict, 12 Angry Men! - but Kubrick had Peter Sellers. Fail-Safe was great but Dr. Strangelove was interstellar. "You can't fight here, this is the War Room!"
-
Bill - good point. My favourite line (and I can't separate the line from George C Scott's terrific delivery): "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. What I do say is no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh... depending on the breaks." But on Lumet, besides the one's you've mentioned, just a few more: Network, Serpico., Long Day's Journey into Night, The Pawnbroker, The Hill...movies with heart and soul!
Peter
TD - tell your son (if he'll listen, sons being what they are) to carve out a career much like you did: study, apprentice, and then go out on his own, trying to make films exactly the way he believes they should be made. From years in and around the industry, I can safely say this: while you might have one client telling you what to do (and talking out of his ass), your son will have 20-30 people, all talking out of their asses, telling him what he needs to do to make a script better/make his first film/build a career. As the famous screenwriter William Goldman (All the President's Men, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid, the Princess Bride etc etc) famously noted about hollywood: No one knows anything.
-
8) for this travesty thread... perhaps.. "You're going to have to answer to The CocaCola Company" http://youtu.be/RZ9B7owHxMQ
classic Peters Sellers
http://youtu.be/5uCIxFizWb
QT dropped out of high school but seems to have done quite well by making and following his own path like TD...
-
Kubrick, Lumet, Ford, Polanski, Spiellberg, Lucas, Marshall, Howard, Altman, etc. all make Tarantino look like a clown with what he's been doing the past fifteen years.
You couldn't say the same about any list of prominent architects and Doak.
-
I saw this thread title in the airport in China yesterday and thought that my son, a film student and Tarantino fan, would probably have his head explode if he read it. The further analogies to other directors might piss him off even more.
In fact, he might go all Tarantino on everybody who posts a comparison between me and any director, so if I were you guys, I would watch my back.
"...go all Tarantino on everybody..."?
What's that? Will he put us in a stupid movie?
-
"...go all Tarantino on everybody..."?
What's that? Will he put us in a stupid movie?
I was thinking more of one of those stylized, bloody fight sequences.
-
"...go all Tarantino on everybody..."?
What's that? Will he put us in a stupid movie?
I was thinking more of one of those stylized, bloody fight sequences.
Brauer will be highly pissed if you cast him as The Gimp.
-
"That's right sir. You are the only person authorized to do so. And although I hate to judge before all the facts are in, it's beginning to look like General Ripper exceeded his authority."
Classic.
-
Jeff,
Not sure what that means, but I doubt I would be either cast, or pissed.
Regarding QT's Django, which starts with a German living in TX escorting slaves, right after seeing that movie, I was on a back roads drive near Kerrville and stumbled upon the remains of that settlement, now called Center Point TX on maps. So, while the movie got crazy violent, at least it had some historical merit to start.
-
Steve - yes, but I was thinking of other parallels (probably before Matthew's time, and mine too), i.e. the kind of directors that elevated/perfected the genre picture and that became the darlings of media and of the cognoscenti (at least in France!) -- e.g. Howard Hawks, John Ford.
Peter
Pietro
What are the 10 films you would most want to in the company of others...the kicker is you must think the others will enjoy the films.
Ciao
-
I thought we had already established that Tom Doak was Hank Morgan.
-
Sean - I think you meant to write what 10 films "you would most want to watch in the company of others"...with others liking them too. If so, I will have to pick the one's I think most vivid and engaging for a wider audience (so, for example, a real 'guy's picture' like Hawks' "Rio Bravo" doesn't make it.) And I assumed since you quoted the post you were thinking of Hawks and Ford.
Hawks: The Big Sleep, His Girl Friday, Red River, and (maybe not to everyone's tastes) Sergeant York, and Bringing Up Baby.
Ford: The Searchers, Stagecoach, The Quiet Man, The Grapes of Wrath, Young Mr Lincoln, My Darling Clementine, Mister Roberts, and (maybe not to everyone's tastes) The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.
Okay, if I had to limit them to 10:
The Searchers
The Big Sleep
Red River
His Girl Friday
Stagecoach
The Grapes of Wrath
Sergeant York
The Quiet Man
My Darling Clementine
Mister Roberts
Stars, like great golf holes, are important, eh? John Wayne, Montgomery Clift, Henry Fonda, Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, Gary Cooper.
Also, I don't think TD is like Frank Capra (though he might be) -- but if I said Frank Capra I could've picked 8 must-see-by-all films just from him. An outstanding career!
It Happened One Night
Mr. Deeds Goes to Town
Lost Horizon
You Can't Take It With You
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Meet John Doe
Arsenic and Old Lace
It's a Wonderful Life
Funny, it strikes me that when you said that others had to like the films too, I automatically cut out some of my favourites by some of the best directors, e.g.
Francis Coppola - The Conversation, Apocalypse Now, (of course) Godfather I and Godfather II
Martin Scorcese - Mean Streets, Ranging Bull, Taxi Driver
John Cassavetes - Killing of a Chinese Bookie, Husbands, Women Under the Influence
Sam Peckinpah - Ride the High Country, The Wild Bunch
-
When I met Tarantino I found him very full of himself and he wanted everyone to know he was the smartest person in the room.
-
Martin Scorcese - Ranging Bull
Oh, I loved that one too. Wasn't that the one with the scene where the little guy who drives the cart that collects the balls from the range, after years and years of being the target for countless golfers, finally stops the cart in the middle of the range and leaps out, screaming:
"You hookin' at me? YOU HOOKIN' AT ME!!!???"
Sorry,
Best,
F.