Tarantino has spoken about other writers’ work in specific contexts. His comments make it possible to examine dialogue and narrative construction without inventing a definitive ranking of the greatest screenplays in history.
A conversation about writing offers identifiable examples
In November 2003, a conversation between Tarantino and Brian Helgeland, moderated by Lynn Hirschberg for The New York Times, included an exchange about favourite screenplays. Tarantino mentioned, among others, New Moon, Rio Bravo and Hero. It is a specific source on writing, distinct from a survey that simply asks about favourite films.
New Moon makes it possible to observe how dialogue can create action. The lines attempt to persuade, retain, deceive or regain an advantage. The verbal pace is significant because each character has a relationship with what the other wants. If the words were merely witty, the conversation could stop the story; here they take part in its movement.
The screenplay also needs to organise information that several people know unevenly. The audience may understand a manoeuvre before one of its recipients and wait for its effect. That difference feeds humour and tension. The writing distributes who knows what, when they say it and what they are trying to achieve by saying it.
Recognising that construction does not mean attributing everything in the finished film to the screenwriter. Performance, direction and editing realise the possibilities of the text through concrete decisions. Praise for the dialogue can coexist with admiration for the way it is delivered. Separating the functions helps us understand their collaboration without turning them into compartments that never influence one another.
Rio Bravo and Hero: living with characters and distinguishing results
Rio Bravo offers a relationship between a threatening situation and the time shared by a group. The story allows us to get to know abilities, wounds and ways of dealing with one another without ever entirely abandoning its conflict. The writing can sustain interest through coexistence, as well as by preparing events. The audience returns to a conversation because it already recognises what it means to the people involved.
Progression does not require every scene to introduce a spectacular twist. An exchange can alter trust or show a limit that will matter later. That accumulation turns the characters into presences with memory. When a decision arrives, the viewer has prior experiences to understand why a person might make it in that way.
Hero, known in Spain as Héroe por accidente, introduces a distinction Tarantino made in that exchange: his view of the screenplay was stronger than his view of the resulting film. The example shows that admiring writing and admiring execution do not always coincide. An idea, a structure or a set of characters can be interesting even if their cinematic development does not satisfy the reader of the script.
The comparison between page and screen needs an identified version. Published screenplays may correspond to different moments in the process and do not always include all the changes made during shooting. A divergence does not in itself prove that someone has spoiled the work. It makes it possible to ask what was preserved, what was transformed and what effect that decision had on the whole.
Aaron Sorkin and caution when talking about Paul Schrader
Premiere recalled in May 2020 Tarantino’s admiration for Aaron Sorkin as a writer of dialogue, alongside his choice of The Social Network as the film of the decade. These are related judgements, but they do not amount to a universal list of screenplays ranked by quality. Nor do they allow us to claim that every work by Sorkin received the same praise.
The Social Network offers a form of writing in which speaking quickly does not remove the need to listen. Replies can correct an interpretation, shift an accusation or reveal an ambition. The exchanges gain energy because people do not always want to answer the question they are asked. Verbal tension arises from the conflict between aims, as well as from the skill of crafting memorable lines.
The opinion of Tarantino on Paul Schrader requires another nuance. His interest in films such as Taxi Driver and Rolling Thunder should not be summarised as unconditional approval of any version of their screenplays. In Cinema Speculation he discusses films, decisions and alternative possibilities. Critical commentary can include admiration and disagreement within the same journey.
Screenwriting also includes action without dialogue. An entrance, a wait or a visual piece of information can reorganise the scene. Reducing the best screenplays to the most quotable lines would leave out the structure that makes those lines matter. The relationship between scenes, shifts in knowledge and the preparation of consequences are all part of the same work. Even a memorable line needs a suitable recipient and a suitable moment in order to stop being an isolated remark.
The documented examples make it possible to recognise fruitful questions: how conversation becomes conflict, how a group sustains interest and how a film transforms a text. They do not constitute a definitive ranking of the whole history of screenwriting. Tarantino appears as a reader and viewer who distinguishes aspects of works, and that distinction offers more tools for analysing them than a collection of praises presented as though they all meant exactly the same thing.
Back to the recommended Tarantino films.