Master of the surface-level
-
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.