Not sure what to think of Paul Thomas Anderson. What do you think?
-
Tothedeath — 10 years ago(October 28, 2015 06:10 PM)
My favourite of his films is definitely Inherent Vice. When I first watched it I thought it was a mess with some interesting parts. But something made me go watch it again and now (after 3 viewings) it's in my top 10 of all time.
I also like Punch Drunk Love and There Will Be Blood a lot.
Magnolia and Boogie Nights are good too, but not really great in my opinion.
Hard Eight is an ok film, but you are not missing much.
I don't like The Master, despite the amazing acting and cinematography it really disappointed me. -
rallyinthestreets — 10 years ago(November 29, 2015 09:37 AM)
Almost all of PTA's films are growers. That's part of his brilliance. They're so packed with subtlety and masterful subtext that they simply demand to be seen multiple times rewarding the viewer greatly with beautiful and deep ideas about society/humanity.
The people who lob criticism at his work tend to have the lowest common denominator analysis of his films, totally missing the mark and revealing what little intellectual work they actually put in. Case in point: user pretentiousanderson, whose name serves as a concise indicator both of his lack of intellect and his lack of self-awareness. -
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(November 30, 2015 03:21 PM)
So in other words, anyone who criticizes Anderson is stupid. Your words, right?
Typical PTA fanboy MO: Anyone who criticizes Anderson b68is stupid, doesn't "get" the "deep meaning" behind Anderson's amateurish writing, and is only interested in Michael Bay action films and comic book movies. In fact, the demographics that make up most of Anderson's fan base are young, adolescent males who like to spend time playing video games and think of Anderson's films as "high, adult art" to make themselves feel smarter, when in fact they can't recognize the real thing when you see it.
You PTA fandorks keep insisting that his films are "subtle" with "masterful subtext" but fail to cite any concrete instance of it through descriptions of scenes or dialogue. You seem to think that simply asserting it makes it so.
These films only present "deep" ideas if your understanding of "deep" is the level of an adolescent college freshman who gloms onto pretentious trite nonsense to make up for their lack on real intellect.
There is a reason why you tried to take a cheap swipe at me here, rather than respond to my substantive challenge below where I cite well-respected and experienced critics who back up my claims. I guess they are all stupid too. -
srinath_r_htanirs — 10 years ago(February 16, 2016 01:39 PM)
They're both huge in fanboy culture. And they're both over-rated and associated with absurd superlatives, when there have been many hundreds of greater filmmakers from around the world. They're not even elite among contemporary filmmakers from around the world.
-
vkumar-17764 — 9 years ago(April 14, 2016 01:27 AM)
Roger Eber considers Magnolia one of the 'Greats' and Clauida Puig - an extremely hard to please critic - of USA today calls it her second favourite film of all time, right after To Kill a Mockingbird
Adolescent? No, not really. -
pfr_77 — 10 years ago(October 30, 2015 02:39 PM)
i've seen everything except for inherent vice two or more times. i love it all except for hard eight, which i don't think will ever grow on me. i only saw inherent vice once and it seems more down my alley anyway so i could see that changing with time
i definitely wouldn't call myself an in-betweener though. i have some immense love for that run between boogie nights and the master; more than i do for a lot of other things. -
-
keatonparsons — 10 years ago(November 12, 2015 06:45 PM)
I think I do share some of your views on this. The main reason I watched his films was because I heard he was good and his films were good. I also agree that it is good to support high quality film-making, and Hoffman is a very talented actor. But personally I really enjoy Joaquin Phoenix in films. His presence and Daniel Day Lewis's are one of the reasons I watch Anderson films.
I guess understanding that Anderson puts effort into his movies and makes them well, I don't feel like his movies are actually great. They feel hollow and without purpose other than to be well-crafted to me. -
A_Prosthetic_Prophet — 10 years ago(November 23, 2015 02:35 PM)
"They feel hollow and without purpose"
What do you define as purpose? Do you mean they don't seem to have a point or message behind the plot? Or is it that you feel they lack a clearly defined plot? Because it seems clear to me that each of his films has a clear plot, and a strong underlying message or theme running through it (and is far from a simple exercise in style and mood). His plots and themes may not have the bluntly spelled out A-B obviousness of some of the more traditional Hollywood films many have been condition by, being portrayed with more subtlety and nuance, but I feel they're pretty clear to see if you pay real attention to them. -
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(November 29, 2015 03:12 AM)
Though I obviously can't read the mind of the OP, let me hazard a guess as to what I suspect he/she is getting at when he/she states that Anderson's films "feel hollow and without purpose". I make this assumption because there are many of us who feel the same way.
It has nothing to do with the films not having a surface message behind their plots which are clearly defined (and, contrary to your assertion, quite obvious and devoid of nuance). It's just that the surface points and messages of the plots are simply that - SURFACE. And it is these surface plot points that are conjured in furtherance of the real reason behind these films: For Anderson to fulfill his dream of becoming an auteur like the cinema's heroes that came before him.
Ultimately, he has nothing substantive to say other than the fact that he wants to be thought of as a great director who is in complete control of his work. 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 substance2000 to say about them based on life experiences. That is ultimately the problem of the entire video-store/film student generation - the fact that they have spent so much time watching movies that they have nothing to say about life outside of the framework of past films they have seen that were made by other true pioneers who came before them.
Think of it this way: 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".
But we all know this type of "writer", and how their artificially induced experiences never make for great literature because their motivations still come back to wanting to be a great writer as an end in itself. Thus the surface-level "substance" ultimately comes across as hollow and pointless, and the author may even crib the same styling as the previous literary greats in order to make up for the lack of substance.
This scenario pretty much sums up Anderson's career - and he has cultivated a rabid following because there are countless of film school students who have the same dream and think that if he can succeed, then maybe there is hope for them too. They too value the dream of being a filmmaker with full creative control as an end in and of itself - even if they have nothing interesting or substantive to say. But to make up for this hollowness, they will borrow important surface themes such as the pain that abusive families can cause, or how love can conquer all, or how greed can prevent meaningful human relationships. It's all surface-level fortune cookie philosophizing used in the service of wanting to make "important" films without having anything of real import to say about it.
The sustainability of a "filmmaking auteur" among the post-video store generation of film-lovers has become more important than the creation of new, great works that have something truly substantive to say about the times we live in. If a truly great work comes about through a collaborative effort, it is less valuable in their eyes than a regurgitated mess of a film created by a fellow film-lover with complete creative control.
That is what the OP is referring to. At least I suspect so. I would naturally invite him/her to clarify the comment if I am somehow way off base here, but I don't think that I am. More and more critics are coming to the same conclusion - and some of them are very experienced and credentialed reviewers. That is why you'd be foolish to dismiss my views (and the OP's view here to the extent that I have accurately described it).
Here are some examples as proof:
Godfrey Cheshire (whom RogerEbert.com has described as one of the most important critics writing today) in his review of 'There Will Be Blood' -
http://www.indyweek.com/indyweek/there-will-be-blood/Content?oid=1206064
There are two salient hallmarks of screenwriting that's overly influenced by the -
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(November 30, 2015 04:29 PM)
With all of the substance that I gave in my reply above, it doesn't surprise me that you can't come up with a better response than that. It only proves the hollowness of Anderson's fanbase since they can't comment on the actual substance of his work. I hope that the OP takes note here and draws his or her conclusions accordingly.
And yes - this account is dedicated towards debating PTA fans. I make no apologies for that. When you fans get better taste, I'll move on to something else. But the fact that I seem to be such an obsession for you and the rest of the PTA fandorks speaks volumes. -
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(December 02, 2015 11:11 PM)
All of the "substance" in your post is meaningless because nobody read it anyway.
If true, then that is very telling of the intelligence and integrity of PTA fandorks.
There are far more fulfilling things that you could spend your time on than responding to critics like me by saying that you won't bother to read the substantive counter-arguments. When you come to realize this, you will then also realize your own hypocrisy and shallowness when it comes to substantive dda0ebates.