Master of the surface-level
-
PuddinTaine — 10 years ago(June 06, 2015 08:05 PM)
Quoted from the article:
"all Anderson can manage to suggest are vague slogans along the lines of "Capitalism Is Bad," "Religion Is Stupid" and, of course, "It's All About Oil" (no less simple-minded here than it was in Fahrenheit 9/11). "
He's clearly talking about the film, not the book on which it is based. Why are you accusing me of poor reading comprehension when you're the one who read it incorrectly?
Also, you believe just because some people respect the guy that he must be intelligent. It's obvious this is wrong, as well.
How do you like them apples? -
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(June 08, 2015 01:48 PM)
Now you are REALLY being disingenuous, since you deliberately left out the first part of the quoted sentence from Cheshire that you originally responded to.
Here it is again, in full (with emphasis added):
"In a screenplay loosely based on
Upton Sinclair's 1927 novel Oil!, in which there are communists, socialists, strikes and other hard-edged political realities
, all Anderson can manage to suggest are vague slogans along the lines of 'Capitalism Is Bad,' 'Religion Is Stupid' and, of course, 'It's All About Oil'."
Cheb68shire is clearly stating here that in the NOVEL, entitled "Oil!", there are "communists, socialists, strikes and other hard-edged political realities".
To which your exact response was as follows (from this post http://www.imdb.com/board/20000759/board/thread/243855994?d=243930869#243930869
"Funny thing is, that is not what There will Be Blood is about at all. This says more about the critic's superficial thinking process than PTA's. The fact that he saw oil and religion in a movie and automatically jumped to political conclusions tells me he did not even try to dive much deeper in the first place. It does not surprise me, though, because people who try to find political subtext in every movie they watch tend not to be that bright."
What's ironic is that Cheshire's whole point in that sentence is to criticize the fact that Anderson LEFT OUT all the rich political subtext from the source novel and simply focused on pedantic and simplistic themes that any naive college freshman can cook up in a dorm room on a late Saturday night. And yet, here you are, accusing HIM of being the one of imbuing the film with a "political subtext" that isn't there.
So you effectively called Cheshire stupid after YOU were the one who couldn't even muster some basic reading comprehension.
The level of stupidity and disingenuousness of PTA fanboys never ceases to amaze me. Many others would simply admit that they were wrong and move on from there, but you PTA fanboys just keep digging the holes deeper for yourselves like the adolescent boys that you are. -
PuddinTaine — 10 years ago(June 09, 2015 10:37 PM)
You're saying Cheshire hates PTA for not including the political subtext of the novel. I'm saying that Cheshire is limited in only focusing on the political dimensions of the story.
What's the issue here?
How do you like them apples? -
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(June 10, 2015 03:13 PM)
The issue here is that is not what Cheshire was criticizing - he was criticizing the fact that the writing in the film was shallow, trite and banal the way that TV writing was in the 80s & 90s. Your nonsensical response to that observation was "people who try to find political subtext in every movie they watch tend not to be that bright" and that "Cheshire is limited in only focusing on the political dimensions of the story."
These statements of yours clearly suggest that you take issue with someone who is falsely imbuing political content into a work where none exists. But that is not what Cheshire is doing at all. He isn't falsely projecting political messages into the script. Rather, he is saying that the script has no real message beyond surface tropes.
Maybe you are simply a poor writer yourself and are incapable of choosing words that convey your actual meaning in a clear and concise manner.
Cheshire was criticizing the overall lack of depth in the script, not the "political subtext". He merely threw out the examples of the source novel as one potential way that some sense of depth or nuance could have been added to the script, rather than surface tropes of "fanatics are bad", "family is good", "greed harms".
You deliberately mischaracterize Cheshire's point in order to justify your own shallow taste.
And yet you still insist on suggesting that Cheshire is the stupid individual here - not yourself. (?!?)
Your own petty shallowness is on display for the world to see here. -
LotsaMotsa — 10 years ago(July 14, 2015 01:00 AM)
These pseudo intellectuals are desperately trying to make the current directors seem hollow. It's really quite sad how they write these convoluted critiques as if they are so smart they are inside the minds of these filmmakers. It's funny because it's easy to see right through this guys "concern". Let's not mistake his concern for what's really his stubborness to embrace a filmmakers' angle on humanity.
-
pretentiousanderson — 9 years ago(August 11, 2016 03:51 PM)
None of the links I provided are of my own reviews.
They are reviews from other experienced and respected critics who express thoughts that I agree with. I quote them to help illustrate my points in a manner that is far more skillful and literate than I would want to put forth myself in a forum like this. -
heyanerd — 10 years ago(June 13, 2015 09:51 AM)
I COMPLETELY disagree!
Well, maybe some of his movies are like thatbut I've got to both agree AND disagree. "Sydney", "The Master", "Boogie Nights" and "Punch-Drunk Love" have stuff that you can't see going on. "Magnolia" is pretty up-front about what's going on in most of the characters' minds, Daniel Plainview may be crazy, and we may not go beyond his aggression, and Doc Sportello is unchanging, but proves to be a pretty good guy as we assumed from the start.5b4
So, while I can see what you're talking about, when I was first getting into film Wes Anderson is more the master of surface, or even Tarantino, then PTA. I see your point, and wish I could fully agree with you, but while I feel as if PTA's worlds can be lived in, most others' can only be visited. -
kepotaz — 10 years ago(June 18, 2015 05:03 PM)
Yes, Tarantino and Wes Anderson are "superficial" in that sense too, but what sets them apart from PTA is that they're happy with being "superficial", but I think PTA aspires for more, or at least it seems like it.
-
srinath_r_htanirs — 10 years ago(February 16, 2016 01:57 PM)
Tarantino steals from trash and presents them in a 'cool' way, which is no longer cool.
Paul Thomas Anderson steals from the likes of Altman, Scorsese, Kubrick for no greater purpose other than to present himself as a great filmmaker. I don't see any greater aspirations in him trying to make a proper film for once.