Anyone feel like his films are missing something?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Paul Thomas Anderson
tylerhendrix1 — 10 years ago(February 09, 2016 03:29 PM)
First off, I've seen all of PTA's films except Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love. I've liked them all, Boogie Nights is one of my favorite films, but something feels missing by the time the credits roll. Except with Boogie Nights, and maybe Inherent Vice, I never feel satisfaction having finished his films. They're all very well acted and shot, but left me wanting more from them. Maybe it's just me, and I just have to re-watch them.
What are your guy's thoughts? -
BrendanFrye — 10 years ago(February 09, 2016 09:41 PM)
i feel the same way about boogie nights and magnolia, but punch-drunk love and the master are very cathartic for me for some reason. the ending shot of the master is so beautiful to me. there will be blood just has a ridiculous finale that is also satisfactory. the thing is pta doesn't really go for themes; sure, they crop up, but he mainly just writes to examine and explore different characters. so that's why some of his movies seem to lack something sometimes to some people. i think
-
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(February 10, 2016 12:08 PM)
My thoughts on this have been addressed and are stated here:
http://www.imdb.com/board/20000759/board/thread/249770449?d=250954214#250954214
I shall repost them here below in this thread for convenience (though I suspect it will spark a new round of resentment for stating my views, even though you have explicitly asked for my thoughts on this matter):5b4
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
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 substance 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 2000who came before them.
Think of it this way: Imagine someone who has traveled the world and experienced wars and romantic relationships across entire continents and then decides to impart the wisdom of the experience by harnessing his or her 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 -
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(February 18, 2016 01:21 AM)
Doesn't surprise me, as these forums really don't seem to cultivate serious discussion or analysis.
People are content with reading the proclations of complete strangers who merely state "It's great! I loved it!" or "It sucks!" and liken such proclamations as a substantive discussion about film.
As you were. -
Christopher_Smilax — 10 years ago(February 18, 2016 08:51 PM)
Ehhh it's hard to cultivate serious discussions when your aim is to attack anyone opposite of you.
Heh, I'm all for reading one's thoughts as to why they feel as if Anderson's films are missing something, but time is valuable, and I'm not gonna read an essay's length post on why. Hell, even if someone made a post of your size and talked about how they felt Anderson's films are full of life, I still wouldn't read it
Plus, I might have given your post a chance if you had actually answered the OPs question. I will say that skimmed through it, and basically everything you wrote was irrelevant. He/she didn't ask for what critics think of Anderson's style, what his fanbase is like orPractically anything else you mentioned. He asked if you thought his movies were missing anything, instead you made an assumption (as dictated by the opening of your copy and paste) and just went on a long ass tangent.
Boring. I'll pass.
Howard Hughes was Italian? -
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(February 19, 2016 01:27 PM)
The OP's question was "What are your guy's thoughts?" - So of course my response "actually answered the OP's question".
You are just upset that you have no substantive response to the position put forth in my thoughts, plus the fact that taking the time to read more than one paragraph would cut into the time you need to play your video games Sportello. -
Christopher_Smilax — 10 years ago(February 20, 2016 09:07 AM)
The OP's question
Was this: "Anyone feel like his films are missing something?"
Right in the thread title. The 2nd question ("What are your thoughts?") reinforced the OPs' point of getting others to share their thoughts on the topic..Meaning "you." He/She's asking for a post based on "your" thoughts, not an essay based on the thoughts of critics andWhoever/whatever the hell else. Basics of reading comprehension.
You are just upset that you have no substantive response to the position put forth in my thoughts, plus the fact that taking the time to read more than one paragraph would cut into the time you need to play your video games Sportello.
I'm not upset Bigfoot. I just figured you didn't know how to read
ingles
was all, man.
Howard Hughes was Italian? -
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(March 04, 2016 03:11 PM)
Nailed it. Thanks.
I merely provided links and passages to other observers who obviously feel the same.
I'm sorry if the "long read" put off those who come to a discussion board but still don't like to read. -
dominicshaw-80761 — 9 years ago(June 26, 2016 03:12 PM)
The essay had points backing up what he was saying that the summary didn't have. If you read a blurb to a book you don't get the full essence of the story. I thought the essay explained his point very well. You were the one who decided to reply with ' Too long can't be bothered to read' I might be paraphrasing.
-
Christopher_Smilax — 9 years ago(June 26, 2016 05:59 PM)
And?
If you need to cite multiple blogs/reviews/critics (A long, rumbling post especially) just to explain your own opinion, why should I bother listening to you in the first place? I have no interest in any hearing anything from anyone who can't think for themselves.
Also, why should I bother listening to a jackass who condescends those who enjoy Paul's films? Or a very good troll?
Howard Hughes was Italian? -
dominicshaw-80761 — 9 years ago(June 27, 2016 01:30 PM)
It may seem long to you but not everyone finds that it is that long. He did put his personal opinion in the post and used the personal observations of a professional to support his comments. Could be argued that you are the condescending one. But lets not resort to name calling.
-
Christopher_Smilax — 9 years ago(June 27, 2016 06:49 PM)
It may seem long to you but not everyone finds that it is that long.
Good for them
and used the personal observations of a professional to support his comments
Not like they really mean much but good for him.
Could be argued that you are the condescending one
I condescend to those who condescend to others. No offense, but you really have no context to the blathering back and forths I've had with said user.
Howard Hughes was Italian? -
pretentiousanderson — 9 years ago(July 06, 2016 04:33 PM)
Somebody once said that you should never judge a work if you haven't bothered to finish it.
Now who would that be? Oh, that's rightIt was you.
http://www.imdb.com/board/11791528/board/thread/257048629?d=257067368#257067368
But I do appreciate it every time you respond since it places this thread at the top of the list, thereby making it easier for others to find it and read this discussion for themselves. I'm confident that they will be able to judge your own responses for what they are worth.
They will also discover the fact that you average close to a dozen posts a day in the Video Game forum of this site and (by your own admission) are too young to be married.
If they wish to take your word on film quality at all seriously, that is their prerogative. -
DeclanCochran — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 07:51 AM)
please refer to filthy frank's comments about people looking to "debate" on the internet. unless you're a paid professional, your opinion doesn't matter, and you sound full of yourself and in essence unlikeable, like you don't want to debate, just state your opinion over and over again until everyone quits. go outside. read a book, take a walk.
it's time to stop. -
flo_kahn — 10 years ago(March 21, 2016 09:12 AM)
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 substance to say about them based on life experiences.
So, your statement is that someone can't know the "real substance" if they haven't experienced it in the real life. Let's suppose this is true.
But this also implies that for saying with such a certitude as you do! - about someone that they have no "real substance", you should have experienced the exact real life situation that they try to describe. Otherwise, how could you know which is the
real
"real substance and that they are wrong?
Is this what you really try to claim here, that you lived ALL the situations from PTA movies, to generalize that he hasn't "anything of real substance to say" ?!
But, for God's sake, that means that you must be (by the definition that you benevolently share with us, further) a great writer!
So why bother with "mediocres" like PTA?
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".
GREAT! You just told us that Homer, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Dostoyevsky, Dante Alighieri, Kafka, Orwell and much others that wrote fiction instead of memoirs or real life tales were not true writers, but more of "average college sophomore in love with the idea of being a writer" "wanting to write about something "important" or "substantive"" " without having anything of real substance to say"!
Do you realize that you wiped out about 90% of all literature and also of other arts (because, in your theory, Picasso hasn't meet any real woman in his real life, that's why he painted that monstrous ones with crooked noses)?
With such a narrow view of the art, what makes you so confident about the truthfulness of your judgments on film, to engage yourself in such an inquisitorial execution of a director's work?
What makes you so sure that the two-three critics that you have quoted are (the only ones) right and honest, but the many others that praise Anderson are wrong?
In art there is not only one truth, that's why different people can have different points of view. And that's ok!
But please, next time try to simply tell that you don't like/understand somebody's art, don't more struggle to impose us - in such a categorical,
pretentious
and fallacious way - your own truth! At least for your reputation here, that would be much better.