Anyone feel like his films are missing something?
-
Christopher_Smilax — 9 years ago(June 27, 2016 06:49 PM)
It may seem long to you but not everyone finds that it is that long.
Good for them
and used the personal observations of a professional to support his comments
Not like they really mean much but good for him.
Could be argued that you are the condescending one
I condescend to those who condescend to others. No offense, but you really have no context to the blathering back and forths I've had with said user.
Howard Hughes was Italian? -
pretentiousanderson — 9 years ago(July 06, 2016 04:33 PM)
Somebody once said that you should never judge a work if you haven't bothered to finish it.
Now who would that be? Oh, that's rightIt was you.
http://www.imdb.com/board/11791528/board/thread/257048629?d=257067368#257067368
But I do appreciate it every time you respond since it places this thread at the top of the list, thereby making it easier for others to find it and read this discussion for themselves. I'm confident that they will be able to judge your own responses for what they are worth.
They will also discover the fact that you average close to a dozen posts a day in the Video Game forum of this site and (by your own admission) are too young to be married.
If they wish to take your word on film quality at all seriously, that is their prerogative. -
DeclanCochran — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 07:51 AM)
please refer to filthy frank's comments about people looking to "debate" on the internet. unless you're a paid professional, your opinion doesn't matter, and you sound full of yourself and in essence unlikeable, like you don't want to debate, just state your opinion over and over again until everyone quits. go outside. read a book, take a walk.
it's time to stop. -
flo_kahn — 10 years ago(March 21, 2016 09:12 AM)
So to that end, he conjures up surface themes and dramatic conflicts that he thinks will best help him cement this reputation, but without having anything of real substance to say about them based on life experiences.
So, your statement is that someone can't know the "real substance" if they haven't experienced it in the real life. Let's suppose this is true.
But this also implies that for saying with such a certitude as you do! - about someone that they have no "real substance", you should have experienced the exact real life situation that they try to describe. Otherwise, how could you know which is the
real
"real substance and that they are wrong?
Is this what you really try to claim here, that you lived ALL the situations from PTA movies, to generalize that he hasn't "anything of real substance to say" ?!
But, for God's sake, that means that you must be (by the definition that you benevolently share with us, further) a great writer!
So why bother with "mediocres" like PTA?
Imagine someone who has traveled the world and experienced wars and romantic relationships across an entire continents and then decides to impart the wisdom of the experience by harnessing artistic talent and writing a great novel from it (i.e., Hemingway or several other great authors whose experience informed their art).
Now contrast this with the average college sophomore who is in love with the idea of being a writer. Perhaps he or she is inspired by Hemingway or other greats, and thus falls in love with the idea of being a similarly great writer. But the problem is that this person has nothing substantive to write about, has no similar experiences to impart, and subconsciously knows that simply wanting to be a writer isn't a compelling enough motivation to produce substantive work. As a result, this college sophomore decides to backpack through Europe in the hopes of getting into adventures and gaining interesting insights to ultimately write about and produce a book. He or she will then borrow the surface tropes of falling in love or experiencing conflict for the sake of wanting to write about something "important" or "substantive".
GREAT! You just told us that Homer, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Dostoyevsky, Dante Alighieri, Kafka, Orwell and much others that wrote fiction instead of memoirs or real life tales were not true writers, but more of "average college sophomore in love with the idea of being a writer" "wanting to write about something "important" or "substantive"" " without having anything of real substance to say"!
Do you realize that you wiped out about 90% of all literature and also of other arts (because, in your theory, Picasso hasn't meet any real woman in his real life, that's why he painted that monstrous ones with crooked noses)?
With such a narrow view of the art, what makes you so confident about the truthfulness of your judgments on film, to engage yourself in such an inquisitorial execution of a director's work?
What makes you so sure that the two-three critics that you have quoted are (the only ones) right and honest, but the many others that praise Anderson are wrong?
In art there is not only one truth, that's why different people can have different points of view. And that's ok!
But please, next time try to simply tell that you don't like/understand somebody's art, don't more struggle to impose us - in such a categorical,
pretentious
and fallacious way - your own truth! At least for your reputation here, that would be much better. -
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 04:21 PM)
So, your statement is that someone can't know the "real substance" if they haven't experienced it in the real life.
That's not my statement at all. You deliberately mischaracterize my argument to set up a straw man. I'd say "Nice try" - except that it isn't.
Do you really think I believe that one must have been possessed by Satan in order to make The Exorcist? That one must have been an astronaut who came in contact with alien life on order to make 2001?
Please. If you are going to debate, then at least have the intellectual honesty of characterizing the point you dispute honestly.
I only used the Hemingway analogy as an example of what my actual statement is: That wanting to make films as an end in itself will always produce works that are far more hollow than making a film because you have a specific, compelling story to tell.
The great directors had compelling stories they wanted to tell, and thus decided to use the medium of film to tell it. Anderson's primary motivation seems focused on wanting be a great director as an end in itself, and thus he feels the need to conjure up stories in order to fulfill that goal. There is a big difference there.
When Coppola made Godfather and Apocalypse Now, do you think the reaction was "his love of film is obvious"?
When Cimino made Thunderbolt & Lightfoot and The Deer Hunter, did they say "What an auteur! His love of filmkaing comes through in every frame!" ?
When Lumet made 12 Angry Men, did his base of fanboys shout out "What an ode to filmmaking!" ?
Of course not. These people made great films because they had great stories to tell - not because their primary goal was to be thought of as a great filmmaker by the film-school/video store crowd.
That is not the case with Anderson, and that is why his films ring hollow. I'm not the OP of this thread, so obviously many others feel that his films are "missing something" that they can't quite put their finger on. I am merely giving a possible (but likely) explanation for their feelings.
Anderson fanboys are upset with me because deep down, they identify with Anderson in that they only want to create stories in order to fulfill their goals of being a director with total creative control. They do not want to direct because they have compelling stories to tell. Their goal of being a director is an end in itself. They figure if a fraud like Anderson can do it, then they can do it too. His career validates their own fraudulent aspirations, so they get upset with me when I point out the obvious.
That is what separates the video-store generation of filmmakers from the true greats of the past - trying to conjure up stories in order to be taken seriously as a director, rather than needing to make films because they have interesting stories to tell.
The fact that you Anderson fanboys can't even distinguish between the two concepts and how such works ultimately differ is a telling indictment of just how shallow your tastes are. -
Kompressor_Fan — 9 years ago(April 17, 2016 03:06 PM)
I think you summed it up so well. I thought this guy really had it going on when he made Boogie Nights.and I loved the film he made before BN (Hard Eight) when I saw it a few years later. Then came Magnolia which seemed to be compellinguntil the ridiculous "rain of frogs" ending ruined the whole thing and made the film pointless. Punch Drunk Love? Yuck. Then came The Will Be Blood.and I thought that maybe PTA had gotten his groove back. I was so looking forward to seeing The Master.saw it the weekend it was released.and was utterly disappointed. What a lot of hollow, pretentious dreck. Inherent Vice? Watched that at home for about 45 minutes and turned it off.unbearably bad.
Yes.having good actors, beautiful locales, and a flashy filming and editing style is great if you have a good story to tell. On the other hand, if those technical aspects are all you have, it tends to draw even more attention that your film is just a hollow exercise in self-indulgence. -
Struckworld7767 — 9 years ago(December 14, 2016 01:43 AM)
I get what you're saying about PTA. I enjoy his films though, I liked the way everything connected in Inherent Vice. Magnolia is alright, it is urgent and pretentious. The kind of movie that crosses its arms and demands your attention.
On the flipside though about Coppola making Apocalypse Now. I always thought Apocalypse Now was pretentious. I feel even Cimino fell under that category with Heaven's Gate. I mean what does Coppola know about being a solider in Vietnam? He was never in war. What statement does he have on it? Hell a good part of Apocalypse Now is inspired from Aguirre: The Wrath Of God. These guys grew up watching John Ford and Billy Wilder movies wanting to make the grand epics.
In my honest opinion I'd say Werner Herzog would be a man with stories to tell and something to say. Even when he did things that were seemingly symbolic but he was just coming up with it on the spot, he really knew film and had fun with it.
I agree with you though, if you have a a lotta experiences in life you'll have more to say.
I'm from Paris
TEXAS -
pretentiousanderson — 9 years ago(July 06, 2016 04:12 PM)
Thank you indeed.
Its quite unfortunate that this forum usually consists of complete strangers offering nothing but simple declaratory statements along the lines of "I loved it!" or "I hated it!" without any real substance or context behind it, which is admittedly not worth reading or engaging with.
But your reaction is very much appreciated and I hope others with open minds will consider reading what is offered above. -
Christopher_Smilax — 10 years ago(February 10, 2016 08:17 PM)
I feel the opposite to be quite honest.
But understandingly, I can see how the conclusions of The Master and Inherent Vice can be seen as unsatisfying and empty. Initially, I didn't know how to feel after watching those. Wasn't sure if I felt something was missing, but there were so many fragments in both movies that I hadn't connected yet so ultimately it didn't feel "whole" in a sense, but at the same time, I did have a feeling I was missing something so I saw 'em again and they eventually felt "whole" for me.
Given how "loose" he's become with narrative structure and approach to character exploration as of late, his films may seem a bit aimless and unsatisfying at first. Hell, I'd say most of his movies are growers so that may be why. Maybe it's a thing where you have to give them time and they'll sneak up on you?
I never thought that Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Punch Drunk Love were missing something though. I guess that argument can apply to There Will Be Blood as well but I don't think it really compares to The Master and Inherent Vice.
Howard Hughes was Italian? -
donn-44655 — 10 years ago(February 28, 2016 07:59 AM)
Damn. I agree with Brian_McInnis. It's probably the most pure, emotionally fed film I've experienced, and not "emotional" in a trite way but a way in which you pretty much experience what the main character does as it happens. It's really connected for a 19-year-old who had trouble getting a date like I was when I first saw it.
I think those who think it's terrible are smart enough people, but the DNA of life experience one adds to a film aids it's legitimacy.