Paul Thomas Anderson

A subforum to discuss film culture and criticism.
Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
dekadetia
was Born Innocent
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:57 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

#1 Post by dekadetia » Thu Jul 21, 2005 1:11 pm

This thread seems like as good a place as any -- but maybe with a "+" instead of a "vs." from Cinematical by way of MNSpeak (and getting picked up elsewhere, too):
Paul Thomas Anderson ghost-directing Prairie Home Companion?

Rex, from Fimoculous and MNSpeak, forwarded us this bit of gossip from the latter blog: apparently, director Paul Thomas Anderson is not only hanging about the set of Robert Altman's Prairie Home Companion, but sources say he's essentially directing the picture whilst the 80-year-old Altman barks orders from his wheelchair and drifts in and out of an old man stupor. Okay, well, actually, MNSpeak says, "the producers of the film probably insisted that Altman commit to a "backup" director because of his age ... and some say [Anderson is] basically running daily production of the film. [...] Between cuts, Robert belts directions over a mic while PT runs up to stage and speaks with the actors directly."

Now, as we know from the Robert Rodriguez/Frank Miller/Sin City/"Screw you, DGA" debacle, current union rules won't allow two directors to be credited on the same film. That's why, according to Rex and his sources, an announcement will be made later this week as to Anderson having been added as an "executive producer" on the picture.

We can't yet vouch for the accuracy of these rumors from the Midwest, but they make for some pretty delicious midday morsels. Even if there's something sad about Altman being a little too, uh, advanced to go it alone, Rex is dead on when he says that Altman and Anderson are "natural aesthetic fits" for one another, and the idea of them genuinely collaborating with one another is pretty exciting. Of course, the other theory is that Anderson's only hanging around because Maya Rudolph, his pregnant girlfriend of three years, is in the film. But we'll choose to believe the slightly jucier version until we're proven wrong about it ...
And there's a related piece here from St. Paul Pioneer Press:
Anderson, who wrote and directed "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia," also is working on "Prairie Home." He has no official title, but he works mostly with Altman and the actors, and his director's chair is labeled "Pinch Hitter."
Take it for what it's worth, which, granted, is not much yet -- I mean, come on, Maya Rudolph, pregnant for three years? Somebody call a doctor! Genghis Khan Capone! :shock:

User avatar
skuhn8
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Chico, CA

#2 Post by skuhn8 » Thu Jul 21, 2005 2:47 pm

analoguezombie wrote:I watched Punch Drunk Love again last night, and I have absolutely no idea how you could watch that film and not fall in love with it. I understand some of the points many of you have made in your arguments against the merit of PTA's work, and some make some sense intellcutually, but when I go back and watch his movies all that goes out the window. They're great, period. If they are heavily influenced by so and so, and steal shots from blah blah blah, I do not care. many directors attempt to immulate the style of the masters in composition, tone, writing etc... and they fail miserably. PTA's films are just simply magnificent. Surely I'm just streesing an opinion, but damm if I don't like them.

I don't want to get into a discussion about his techniques, or what makes his writing effective or too much technical jibber jabber b/c I've done all before in essays and on xixax.com, but if you call PTA a hack b/c of the way he interprets his influences you have to call Tarantino a hack, and for that matter any artist who has ever been influenced enough by another to learn from, and incorporate those lessons into their work in an overt way.

If you call him a hack b/c you find no merit in his techniques and style, that's valid and we can argue about that.

If you call him a hack b/c you just don't like his work then I'd say you should just say "I don't enjoy his work".

Sure he steals shots and what not, and that affects how I feel about the 'uniqueness' of his work but I still enjoy it.

I just don't know how anyone can watch the sequence of PDL where Sandler leaves Watson's bedside and pursues Hoffman in Utah without going absolutely nuts for PTA. But maybe it's just me.
Don't know where I was when this thread was running hot, and I know it was bumped up for a different purpose, but reading these posts got me riled.

I'd like to say--and yes I am throwing down a glove here: anyone who knocks a director for "stealing shots" is a complete jackass. Whether it's homage or downright stealing it's part of the creative process. Imitation, emulation, whatever. If it fits in the context of the piece it flies. Reminds me of this completely moronic post I saw on amazon.com slamming Wild at Heart because the film buff posting noticed that he "stole" the dog-runs-with-severed-hand shot from Kurosawa's Yojimbo. It's the classic film buff cop-out: proud to recognize the reference but unable to find a more constructive way of calling attention to him/herself other than attacking a director, as if said director was trying to slip one by.

Altman vs. Anderson? I don't know. PT hasn't been around long enough and CERTAINLY hasn't made enough films to warrent such a comparison. I've never seen a PTA film that I thought sucked. Seen several from Altman. Would rather review this comparison in 10-12 years. Sadly, I think it's safe to say that Altman's glory years are behind him. I suspect Gosford Park will be recognized as his last masterpiece (and I know I'm fairly lonely in the camp that so claims) in time.

Punch Drunk Love: one of those films I can easily watch every few months. Very surprised about the poor reviews. Beautiful film shot for shot, line for line. Brilliant casting. Excellent story and exploration.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#3 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Thu Jul 21, 2005 11:24 pm

I think if someone can bring a unique emotional range to something, it's worth recognizing as such. PTA is probably saying more with his films than most directors his age, currently. I must admit that the only Altman picture I know by heart is The Player. I've seen bits of Short Cuts, and made the Magnolia connection to it as well. But, if I can use a musical comparison I see PTA as Miles Davis (seeing Magnolia gave me the feeling I had after listening to Bitches Brew) and Altman as how Miles was influenced by Louis Armstrong. Or how Clapton was influenced by Robert Johnson, etc, etc. Everyone was by inspired by something, or otherwise we'd all be prisoners in our own homes with no imagination whatsoever. It might be naive, but that's how I feel about it.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#4 Post by Polybius » Fri Jul 22, 2005 2:45 am

For me, it's more like Altman is Miles and PTA is the 1984 era Wynton Marsalis who went around meticulously copying and trying to resurrect the Shorter-Hancock-Williams-Carter era, with himself standing in for Miles. It's good material and he does it competently, but it's still (generally) a pale shadow of the ground breaking original.

At least Altman isn't incessantly publicly telling PTA to go fuck himself, as Mr. Davis did in that situation 8-)

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#5 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:09 pm

lol. I love the story that the straw that broke Miles' back as far as leaving Columbia and going to Warner Brothers was when he was asked by a CBS executive to call Wynton up because it was his birthday.

User avatar
skuhn8
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Chico, CA

#6 Post by skuhn8 » Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:15 pm

Polybius wrote:For me, it's more like Altman is Miles and PTA is the 1984 era Wynton Marsalis who went around meticulously copying and trying to resurrect the Shorter-Hancock-Williams-Carter era, with himself standing in for Miles. It's good material and he does it competently, but it's still (generally) a pale shadow of the ground breaking original.

At least Altman isn't incessantly publicly telling PTA to go fuck himself, as Mr. Davis did in that situation
nah. as a jazz fanatic I'd say you're insulting Altman there. At least he tries to make good films. Miles threw in the towel after On the Corner (personally I can't stand Bitches Brew and all that followed). Wynton does what any consumate artist should: he brings it all together in a massive artistic dialectic...and blows it out the door. But then, I'll settle for Clifford Brown (looking at an Clifford Brown autographed LP of Brown and Roach Inc. LP as I type this....ahhhhhh).

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#7 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Fri Jul 22, 2005 1:48 pm

There is a great documentary out now directed by Murray Lerner about Miles' early electric period called Miles Electric: A Different Kind of Blue. Part of it deals with the criticism of this period. I personally wonder what the critical response to Miles was if he just stuck to playing acoustic music during that time.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#8 Post by Polybius » Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:33 am

Miles Davis never wanted to be a jukebox. He pioneered, perfected and discarded about half a dozen styles in his career.

Incidentally, I own the 4 CD Bitches Brew, (coolest CD packaging, EVER), and consider it all convincing evidence of the Divine, so...my perspective is a bit different.

I like Marsalis, I've seen him live, seen his brother twice and got an opportunity to talk to him (Branford) briefly once, and am generally an admirer. But you never, ever tell an artist of Miles Davis' stature how to do his thing. Not if you value your mental and emotional well being.

User avatar
exte
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:27 pm
Location: NJ

#9 Post by exte » Sat Jul 23, 2005 3:06 pm

Well, this is a fine derailment...

User avatar
skuhn8
Joined: Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Chico, CA

#10 Post by skuhn8 » Sat Jul 23, 2005 4:04 pm

PT Anderson vs. Miles Davis vs. Robert Altman vs. Wynton Marsalis

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#11 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:19 pm

I think Miles would win, even with the handicap of being dead against him.

User avatar
jorencain
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:45 am

#12 Post by jorencain » Sat Jul 23, 2005 5:36 pm

I don't think that any competition between these two is just in any way. Anderson is a fan of Altman's - no question about it - but he has obvious other influences (one of them being Scorsese). He's not a mere copycat of either of those directors, although their influences are certainly felt in "Magnolia" and "Boogie Nights". "Punch Drunk Love" is a beautiful departure from those two films, and would never be confused for the work of either of the aforementioned directors.

I agree with what someone earlier said, wherein any comparison between the two will need to happen several years from now. Presumably (and unfortunately), Altman is nearing the end of his career, while Anderson is just beginning his. I'm more interested in the result of their collaboration on "Prairie Home Companion", both cinematically and in how Anderson uses whatever he learns from being on the set with Altman. If P.T. Anderson carries on the torch from where Altman left off, that'll be fantastic. If he goes in a new direction that's all his own, that will be pretty great too. Either way, I think he's one of the best young American directors around right now.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#13 Post by Polybius » Sat Jul 23, 2005 7:57 pm

I think he crossed the line from "influenced by" and "homage to" over to "slavish DePalmaesqe aping" with Magnolia. Which still worked for me.

It wasn't until Magnolia that it started to grate. At least for me.

User avatar
Fletch F. Fletch
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
Location: Provo, Utah

#14 Post by Fletch F. Fletch » Mon Jul 25, 2005 9:15 am

Polybius wrote:I think he crossed the line from "influenced by" and "homage to" over to "slavish DePalmaesqe aping" with Magnolia.
And then he stopped that crap with Punch-Drunk Love... well, the use of a song from Popeye not withstanding. :wink:

rs98762001
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:04 pm

#15 Post by rs98762001 » Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:36 pm

Sorry to jump in so late to the debate.

Hard Eight and Boogie Nights had some good things in them, despite the oft-noted and obvious influences of BOB LE FLAMBEUR and Scorcese respectively.

But Magnolia was a long bore, and Punch Drunk Love was a short bore.

Anderson's kind of like Dirk Diggler. Impressive on the outside, hollow on the inside.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#16 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:16 am

rs98762001 wrote:Anderson's kind of like Dirk Diggler. Impressive on the outside, hollow on the inside.
And just like Dirk, his talents always impresses his audience... at least when he's not coked up. Actually, PTA is probably still coked up.

Now, if you will excuse my bitching, honestly, aside from the snappy zinger (and I was amused when I read it), this isn't really an original criticism against PT Anderson's methods. It's just a rehash of the should-already-be-tired-but-just-won't-die "style over substance" argument, which is just beginning to sound like the standard argument against any young filmmaker who works within the Hollywood system. I'd rather someone point out exactly what components of PTA's film are actually morally bankrupt, corrupt, or vapid rather than just dismiss the style employed by mentioning yet another film that he is referencing. We get that the shots are not original and are lifted from Altman, and Scorsese, and Melville, and I Am Cuba, and on and on. We understand that it's how he constructs his films. I would find more weight in this line of criticism if someone were able to demonstrate why selecting that same camera position/movement is incorrect for the material PTA is filming, and offers more proof of his lack of substance other than telling us that the supposed substance is not overly apparent.

Hell, I'm the first one to say Magnolia is endlessly and excruciatingly infatuated with itself and its own sense of pain and suffering, but that's the problem I have with its content, not PTAs shot-selection or efforts at homage.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#17 Post by Polybius » Tue Jul 26, 2005 1:21 am

There's really no quantifying it. It's a purely subjective aesthetic opinion. It worked before but at some point, it simply stopped working for me. It hit critical mass in Magnolia, very early.

That, plus a lot of other specific problems I have with that and the subsequent film, (shallowness, self absorption, annoying cinematic techniques, some really dreadful casting) are my problem(s). I've addressed those earlier in the thread.

rs98762001
Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 6:04 pm

#18 Post by rs98762001 » Tue Jul 26, 2005 2:33 am

The reason I wasn't more specific in my criticisms of Anderson is for the reason you state - that they're obvious and have been done to death.

Personally, it's not so much his style I have a reaction against. I don't really care if he cribs from whoever. What I don't like is the fact that his films don't really have a soul. Bob Le Flambeur or Goodfellas are infinitely stylish movies, but they have an uncanny ability to find the humanity within each flawed character.

There's not really a truly rich characterization in any of Anderson's movies. There are some great one-note stereotypes (thinking particularly of John Reilly in Boogie Nights) but any time he tries to get truly human on us, he fails miserably (thinking particularly of Tom Cruise's embarrassing emotional moments in Magnolia). I for one was completely unconvinced by the romantic entanglements in Punch Drunk Love.

User avatar
Polybius
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 10:57 pm
Location: Rollin' down Highway 41

#19 Post by Polybius » Tue Jul 26, 2005 6:29 am

rs98762001 wrote:There's not really a truly rich characterization in any of Anderson's movies. There are some great one-note stereotypes (thinking particularly of John Reilly in Boogie Nights) but any time he tries to get truly human on us, he fails miserably (thinking particularly of Tom Cruise's embarrassing emotional moments in Magnolia). I for one was completely unconvinced by the romantic entanglements in Punch Drunk Love.
Agreed, in all particulars. Reilly plays the same guy in every film anyway. His high reputation among people who should know better is truly baffling to me.

I have hope for PTA. As I always try to make clear, I liked his first couple of films as much as I've hated the latter two. He's got plenty of time to develop into a major artist and all the tools. He just need to assemble it into one consistent package, or in 15 years we'll be writing "What Might Have Been" stuff about him like we do w/ Cimino and Bogdanovich, now.

User avatar
Andre Jurieu
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)

#20 Post by Andre Jurieu » Tue Jul 26, 2005 10:35 am

rs98762001 wrote:What I don't like is the fact that his films don't really have a soul... There's not really a truly rich characterization in any of Anderson's movies... There are some great one-note stereotypes ... but any time he tries to get truly human on us, he fails miserably
Yeah, I can see what you're saying on this point. That's pretty much the exact reaction I had to Magnolia, because for all its attempts to illustrate anguish, they never quite ring true in any other fashion other than hollow reflections and empty clichés. Actually, that's not true for all the characters and storylines, just for far too many of them for me to excuse its artificial contrived tone. Maybe it's just the fact that, despite its attempts to stay true to its characters, I can't stand the rampant air of victimization in the film. It's a great film for just watching technique though.
rs98762001 wrote: ...but any time he tries to get truly human on us, he fails miserably (thinking particularly of Tom Cruise's embarrassing emotional moments in Magnolia).
I'm not so certain he fails miserably every time. Hoffman's embarrassing breakdown in Boogie Nights feels genuine... until PTA lets the beat run a tad too long and you start to witness the seams fall apart slightly. I think that's part of my problem with his methods. It's as if he's overcompensating for his lack of genuine emotion, so he stretches his emotional scenes too far. Of course, sometimes the effort works since it's impressive to watch actors being so unconsciously gaudy and oblivious to their own embarrassing appearance. I think that's why the Cruise scenes in Magnolia work for me. It's interesting to see a man who controls (maybe that should be "controlled" given recent events) his public image so stringently, embarrass himself so openly by displaying his torment over his own relationship with his own father (I don't really care if he denies it, it's so freaking obvious the entire relationship is based upon Cruise's own family history). I find the same appeal in watching Sandler breakdown in front of his brother-in-law in Punch Drunk Love after confessing he doesn't like himself very much.
rs98762001 wrote:I for one was completely unconvinced by the romantic entanglements in Punch Drunk Love.
What I love about Punch Drunk Love is that it embraces its artifice so openly. The romantic entanglements are completely absurd and Barry's trials and obstacles are preposterous, but that same lunacy and pretense is what makes it feel genuine in the end. It's as if PTA abandoned his struggle to honestly display typical emotions (pain, anguish, heartache) and just decided to concentrate on two extremes - uncontrolled rage and nonsensical love, and for me that decision completely works. That same decision to admit its own pretense is what is missing in earnest attempts such as Boogie Nights and Magnolia. It appears to me that we aren't really supposed to be convinced that the romantic entanglements between the characters within Punch Drunk Love are authentic or legitimate, but instead we're merely asked to celebrate the cinematic expression of that rush we find in quick-tempered reactionary violence and that illogical sudden immature crush that (hopefully) grips us occasionally, and then perhaps accept that the two reactions are somewhat tied together.

User avatar
Michael
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm

#21 Post by Michael » Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:34 am

Ok. For those who think PDL is a masterpiece, can you please explain why you think that? I disliked it for various reasons (cardboard cut out treatement of Lena, awkward, rushed ending, what's the point?!) when I saw it at the theater three summers ago. But I must admit that some scenes and images keep coming back to me over the years. PDL is short, colorful and breezy.... might be perfect for viewing on a lazy summer night and I'm up to give the film another chance. But I still would like to learn more in depth about the greatness of PDL.

User avatar
Lino
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
Contact:

#22 Post by Lino » Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:55 am

PDL is a film that can be ranked with the likes of Brewster McCloud or any quirky, kooky comedy that feels so left-field to leave any viewer disoriented at his/hers first viewing. It's a film that lives in a world all its own and that makes no apologies for being just the way it is. Yes, it is a radical departure from the family films PTA did right before but also one that he surely needed to do just to try himself out, to see if he could do something that at times felt like ad-libbing, a kind of free-jazz improvisation. And in this light, it is successful in lots of areas.

I will never forget my viewing experience which pretty much sums up what people think about this one: I was sitting next to a group of girls who had brought an early teenage with them (probably a nephew or something) and they just could not stop laughing in disbelief all the way through at what they were seeing (I sure can understand them) but the biggest laugh came at the end of the movie when the small boy got up with the most counfused face I'd ever seen on a child and uttered this immortal sentence: "This was the worst film I've ever seen in my life!". :lol: Priceless!

Michael, do see it again. I think you will change your opinion afterwards.

User avatar
Michael
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm

#23 Post by Michael » Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:12 pm

It's a film that lives in a world all its own and that makes no apologies for being just the way it is.
So is Magnolia. And also Boogie Nights. What I love mostly about those films is that they deal with lost souls creating families of their own - "blood is thicker than water" is not always a good thing and I definitely could relate to that. The characters in those films seem a lot more complex and real - much more than those in PDL unless I'm misunderstanding or missing a point. My favorite part is Barry's breakdown at the family gathering. But the whole thing with the sex phone thing.. whats the point?!

User avatar
jorencain
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 1:45 am

#24 Post by jorencain » Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:36 pm

Michael wrote:But the whole thing with the sex phone thing.. whats the point?!
Well, he only calls the phone sex line because he wants to talk to someone. He's obviously not too into the sex part of it; he's just trying to reach out to somebody anonymous. The call is made just after he asks his brother-in-law about seeing a psychiatrist. So, the phone sex thing blows up in his face because he's now being scammed for his money. Rather than just getting screwed over as he always would have in the past, he has a confidence and strength (as he says in the film) because of the love he has found. He is actually able to deal with and rectify the situation. His energies were so misdirected and screwed up before he really had any connection with anyone. Once Emily Watson takes a chance on him, it makes all the difference in the world for Barry. It's really sweet, actually (IMO).

User avatar
Michael
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 12:09 pm

#25 Post by Michael » Tue Jul 26, 2005 12:43 pm

That's it. Thanks once again, jorencain. I was probably not in a good mood when I first watched PDL.

Post Reply