Dear Mike,
Thanks for the nice comments in your letter of April 3 last, and the copy of your newsletter.
You might be interested to know that I met Quentin Tarantino last year when I was invited to introduce a screening of "Coffy" at an AIP retrospective at a theater in West LA. Quentin came to the screening with some posters and record albums from some of my old movies and asked me to autograph them for him. He even quoted a certain line from "Coffy" as an example of what he thought was very good dialog—which greatly impressed me regarding his insightfulness into dramatic writing because he had singled out a particular line that was extremely important and to which I had given a lot of thought when I wrote the script. So don't underrate the guy—he's very smart indeed.
Best regards,
Jack Hill
Hey Mike --
Just got issue #2—fun reading. But...how come you didn't give us a credit for reprinting that "resources" snippet from Bright Lights? I don't care if you reprint it, but do be courteous & quote the source—we spent some time researching that stuff.
Gary Morris
Dear Mike,
I really enjoyed your fanzines and wish you the best of luck with them.
Regarding your film: you have done a wonderful thing and should be proud. Tarantino's true talent aside, by exposing this uncredited theft, you are exposing the nastier side of the filmmaking business and the fact that someone with as much spunk and wit as he would still feel the need to sweep this issue under the rug. Bravo!
I understand that your tape will be playing at the Underground Film Festival in NYC and I truly hope that this thing gets more press. Your film is not only illegal, but impossible (funky -Ed). I presume, however, that you did not have a theatrical release in mind and were motivated out of purer instincts. The people here who have seen it were very impressed, though; moreover, we were enlightened. Again, well done.
Sincerely,
Alicia Smithee
Dear Mike,
Thanks for the letter and copy of CdC—find enclosed Trash City. Read CdC, though you nearly blew it by putting Tarantino on the front cover as I've read MORE than enough of the man! An expert self-publicist and media manipulator, I've yet to see evidence that his talent extends much further that lifting from other movies. The whole "City on Fire" thing summed him up, his touchiness on the subject a damning indictment, hand caught in the cookie jar.
As for which is better, "Dogs" is the last 20 mins of CoF padded with the usual psychobabble, about "Like a Virgin" and the merits of tipping. Gee, thanks, Quentin, a great improvement, I don't think! Beyond tedious dialogue (like listening to a series of catchphrases), he produces one-note movies with shallow characters (everyone in EVERY movie he's done has been mad, bad or dangerous to know, the women being especially flat-mostly men with tits, albeit very NICE tits in the case of Uma Thurman). I CAN'T see his appeal at all, can you explain it?
Laughed out loud to hear "Pulp Fiction" had been nominated for the Best Original Screenplay Oscar-you want "original", got see Peter Jackson's "Heavenly Creatures" (which is also nominated), then you'll know TRULY original film-making, not just cool bits stolen from QT's favourite movies and rehashed.
Cheers,
Jim McClen