Master of the surface-level
-
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.