Not sure what to think of Paul Thomas Anderson. What do you think?
-
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. -
maccsphilipcheek — 10 years ago(February 10, 2016 11:05 AM)
It's funny, I've actually spent more time on this board and see you keep cropping up.
While I agree with your criticisms of PTA to a large extent, and I agree that his most ardent of fans aren't actually critically evaluating his films, I must say you strike me as a sad individual. I recommend lightening up and leaving these boards for a bit, dude.
To criticize a director's glossed over faults is totally fine. I totally agree (hence why I thanked you for the first essay) with your points. But your presence on these boards is so obsessive, man. I mean, it's obviously not my place to judge someone based off of a recurring pattern on a message board, but I think you'd probably benefit from chilling out.
People hear your criticisms. And they may just come around when they're ready. No need to make it an agenda. -
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(February 10, 2016 12:03 PM)
I'll chill out when Anderson fanboys stop being so condescending - suggesting that his detractors are stupid individuals who "don't get" his supposed "depth" and only like Michael Bay and comic book movies.
The Anderson fandorks are the ones with the agenda. I am merely a natural reaction to it. -
srinath_r_htanirs — 10 years ago(February 16, 2016 01:46 PM)
I'll have to say, this is a brilliant post. Hopefully more and more people would start to look beyond the surface and reach the void/hollow that fills every Paul Thomas Anderson film's core.
He is nowhere comparable to even the best contemporary filmmakers from around the world, let alone the all-time greats. -
srinath_r_htanirs — 10 years ago(February 17, 2016 01:48 PM)
Have you any idea of what 'contemporary' means?
And Paul Thomas Anderson is often regarded as the next 'Kubrick', so there clearly is a comparison with all time greats, albeit, a nonsensical one. -
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(February 17, 2016 04:01 PM)
He isn't regarded as "the next Kubrick". He's regarded as being BETTER than Kubrick! Bwahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!
Proof here:
http://www.imdb.com/board/20000759/board/thread/179790350?d=179790350#179790350 -
Christopher_Smilax — 10 years ago(February 17, 2016 09:07 PM)
Yes, I do. Good lord, I just read my rush job of a comment. Fixed it
Anyway, I rarely hear that about him being the next Kubrick but if that does happen often, then I disagree. Paul Thomas Anderson is the next.Paul Thomas Anderson. Nobody else. He's one of the best contemporary directors in my opinion, but that's about it. Not the next best anything.
Howard Hughes was Italian? -
kmags84 — 10 years ago(October 30, 2015 09:53 PM)
He's a DIFFERENT kind of Filmmaker. I know some may feel otherwise but I feel he's the truest form of an Auteur. He doesn't have boundaries. He doesn't stick to genres. He doesn't stick to much of anything But again, in a good way. If I were to rank his films
-TWBB/The Master- Both are perfection, I experience every emotional aspect with those films. So different, hard to choose one over the other.
-Magnolia
-Inherent Vice
-Boogie Nights
-Hard Eight(Sydney)
-Punch Drunk Love
I can't really explain what it is about him. Yes, he has many influences and you can see it all over his work. Altman, Scorsese, Kubrick, Ford But he still remains original. Great writing, stage directing (Which is a lost art), beautiful cinematography and he's very much involved in every aspect of his work.