Not sure what to think of Paul Thomas Anderson. What do you think?
-
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. -
steeldrumman — 10 years ago(November 12, 2015 03:50 PM)
What makes it so hard to pinpoint why Anderson deserves the love and respect is exactly what makes him so loved in the first place. He inarguably innovative in HOW he approaches a movie, both in writing, and in the technical aspects. Borrowing Roland Barthes' terminoloy, his "signs" are different than what we're used to, so we have a hard time saying why we like them so much, but they tap an almost inert mode of visual communication, with which we identify. For example, in many of his films, there's one or two particular scenes (most prominent in There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love) where Anderson combines scattered, arrhythmic music with quick movind cameras, unexpected editing shifts, and lots of movement by the actors. This creates a fascinating, almost physical tension, any time I watch it. I literally feel my muscles tensing up while watching it, even if the action on the screen is mostly harmless. I've never had such a physically provoking reaction to a film before (although the Coens come close).
The Master is my favorite. Aside from the virtuoso performances from both Phoenix and Hoffman, the film crossed new bounds in how all elements of filmmaking can work imultaneously in sumbol/metaphor for the theme it is trying to communicate. We barely see any depictions of wartime, and no actual violent situations that Phoenix's character may have been in. And yet, the PTSD gnaws at the edges of the film the entire time. Not to mention, halfway through, the woman I was seeing the film with grasped my arm (bonecrushingly hard), and told me she had an overwhelming urge to kill the Hoffman character. She didn't let go the rest of the movie. It's this sort of viscerality that makes him one of my favorite directors. -
keatonparsons — 10 years ago(November 13, 2015 06:04 PM)
That's kind of sad, but I may agree. It is the only film of his where I felt something deeper was present. All the others felt like a waste of time to me when the credits started rolling, which sucks because there was this certain build up I felt watching each of them, expecting something great at the end, but I get nothing at the end. A movie is only as good as its ending because its ending is a climactic summation and revelation of what the movie contained.
-
rallyinthestreets — 10 years ago(November 19, 2015 12:24 PM)
There Will Be Blood is a classic cautionary tale with a tremendous ending that has real world implications in regards to capitalism in the 20th century.
A movie is only as good as its ending because its ending is a climactic summation and revelation of what the movie contained.
I disagree. A movie is an 2-3 hour experience. If it keeps you engaged and interested for most or all of its runtime, then that is worth a great deal.
PTA's films are the definition of growers. They are so dense, subtle, and full of brilliant subtext that they require multiple viewings.
Josh Brolin had this to say on the subject:
Ive loved all of his movies, and sometimes not right away, sometimes on the third or fourth viewing. Its like a Tom Waits album: the more I listen to it, the more I go, God, this is so much deeper than I initially got. Which is obviously my problem and not the films. -
sami-18 — 10 years ago(January 01, 2016 01:02 AM)
Anderson is a very "hit-and-miss" filmmaker, in my opinion. In the late 90s I had trouble buying into his style but was impressed with and thoroughly enjoyed "Punch Drunk Love". T16d0hat film was utterly charming and quirky and told the story it intended to in the trickiest of ways. Something I really felt exhilarated by. I couldn't sit through "Magnolia" and always felt "Boogie Nights" - perhaps his most accessible and linear film - was very flawed and often compromised due to acting issues and overall directing indulgences. Somewhere soon after those I came across "Hard Eight" and really enjoyed it. A simple film with enough gentle complexities to keep things interesting. Jump years ahead and "There Will Be Blood" had me transfixed from the very first few minutes. I adored that film and watched it five times. It never hurts to have Daniel Day Lewis single-handedly carrying a film from the first to last scene.
Anderson is an actor's director and he lets his minions roam through the territory as they choose. I think that's why he sometimes hits and other times misses - it's the performances and liberty he gives his actors that determines the final outcome. This is where "Magnolia" and "Boogie Nights" fell short: the actors were given too much space to improvise (you can actually see it in many scenes) and they tended to play to the camera rather than inhabit the roles and consider the effect of subtlety on their performances. Their roles turned into caricatures or campy plot drivers rather than real people.
So is Anderson an art house director? Is he avant garde or an auteur? I don't know. I'd have trouble giving him that kind of cred but after seeing "There WIll Be Blood" I did feel like Anderson was capable of something much greater than he ever previously showed. "There Will Be Blood" isn't a perfect film and it does have some problems but the scope of filmmaking was impressive and, again, having D.D. Lewis carrying that burden for the full duration of the film was its greatest asset. I doubt any other actor could do that for Anderson's vision.