Provided he remains consistent, he could become a cinematic legend.
no in my opinion
he could certainly be a good director tho
I personally don’t see much merit in being referenced in the same breadth as Scorsese.
I’m glad you posted this.
My answer: Hell yes. I think PTA and Charlie Kaufman are the future of American cinema as long as they both keep working. PTA has got all the potential in the world right now, he’s only 39 and Hollywood is giving him however much money he wants now. Of his 5 films, only one, in my opinion, wasn’t great (Hard Eight). I know TWBB gets its fair amount of hate but I still think it’s the best film of the decade, Punch-Drunk Love and Magnolia were both excellent films and I don’t think there’s any denying that. My point is, he’s young, he’s got money, and he has been improving with each film. If he plays his cards right, he could very well be in the same league as Kubrick and Scorsese in 30 years, possibly even better than them (no offense meant to Kubrick or Scorsese, Kubrick is my all-time favorite filmmaker and Scorsese is one of my favorites).
Let’s wait and see. He’s a hell of a young director and he may have a lot more up his sleeve.
why not, do you mean to say that Scorsese’s made two or three masterpieces but that the rest of his filmography is inferior to say goodfellas and raging bull
I love Scorsese. As for my thoughts on his filmography, he is not too consistent. I consider Raging Bull, Mean Streets, Goodfellas and Taxi Driver to be in a league of their own, but almost all of his other films are still very good. I think he’s the third best American filmmaker of all-time, behind Kubrick and Hitchcock (who are both British filmmakers in a sense).
What’s your opinion of Boogie Nights Robley?
I wouldn’t call any of Scorsese’s films masterpieces. I suppose his earlier stuff was competent for what it wants to be, but what it wants to be is both unambitious and (to me) quite condescending.
Boogie Nights was great but not as ambitious or refined as PDL and Magnolia, though still ambitious. I think it was a perfect second film for him, it really displayed an immense amount of talent and showed everyone what he could really do. I love it, but I don’t consider it as good as PDL and Magnolia because it had more flaws than any of his films, besides Hard Eight.
Why do you consider them unambitious and condescending Bruce?
I’m not pinpointing, but just out of curiosity, what its flaws in your opinion
what were its flaws*
I have not seen Hard Eight, but I have seen his other four, and Magnolia is personally my least favorite, mainly because I could never come to grips with the frogs falling from the sky at the end. It seemed too arbitrary
Unambitious in that they are “realistic” character studies, a genre that has never pushed the aesthetic or narrative grammar in new directions from what I’ve seen, and condescending in that Scorsese seems primarily interested in violent dumb manchildren characters, and in several films quite explicitly for the purpose of a kind of ecclesiastical “compassion”, which is to say that the characters are blessed merely by the fact that we are watching and caring about them.
I think most of the characters could have been better developed. I think characters should have a proper establishment, to let us properly understand each one. I did not sense that with any of them, except Burt Reynolds and Mark Wahlberg. The writing was excellent, but it had not developed to that Magnolia and beyond level yet. I consider it near-perfect, but when I say it had more flaws than any of his others, I mean it had very few flaws, but I would have a rough time trying to criticize his past three films.
If his career ended today, what has he gave us that could be considered masterpieces ?
Maybe There Will Be Blood ?
I can understand that. At first, I just thought “What the……”, but I understood properly after I read Roger Ebert’s great movie review on the film. He cites the two main themes to be cruelty to children and coincidence.
“And all leads to the remarkable, famous, sequence near the film’s end when it rains frogs. Yes. Countless frogs, still alive, all over Los Angeles, falling from the sky. That this device has sometimes been joked about puzzles me. I find it a way to elevate the whole story into a larger realm of inexplicable but real behavior. We need something beyond the human to add another dimension. Frogs have rained from the sky eight times this century, but never mind the facts. Attend instead to Exodus 8:2, which is cited on a placard in the film: “And if thou refuse to let them go, behold, I will smite your whole territory with frogs.” Let who go? In this case, I believe, it refers not to people, but to fears, shames, sins."
Bruce: You must keep in mind that Scorsese was a pioneer of the character study.
Hudson: I think TWBB and Magnolia would be his masterpieces. But you must remember, he is only 39, which is very young for a successful filmmaker.
Anderson is just months shy of 40. By the time Kubrick was 40 he’d already made The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Lolita, and Spartacus, and 2001:A Space Odyssey (plus Fear and Desire and Killer’s Kiss). By the time Scorsese was 40, he had made Who’s That Knocking on My Door, Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, and Raging Bull (plus, Boxcar Bertha, Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore, etc.)
There Will Be Blood
PT Anderson’s filmography is not that much inferior
The Killing, Paths of Glory, Lolita, Spartacus, and 2001 compared to what PT Anderson has now is not vastly superior though maybe slightly
Hard Eight = Killer’s Kiss
Boogie Nights = The Killing
Magnolia = Paths of Glory
Punch-Drunk Love = Lolita
There Will Be Blood < 2001, though TWBB is still amazing.
And technically, Kubrick was 40 when 2001 was released, so ya never know, The Master (PTA’s next film) could be as good as 2001. ;)
Hard Eight = Who’s That Knocking on My Door
Boogie Nights = Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore and Boxcar Bertha
Magnolia = Mean Streets
Punch-Drunk Love < Taxi Driver
There Will Be Blood = Raging Bull
I think that if he’s behind them, it’s by very little. If PTA stays consistent and improves, he could still pass them both, because the thing is, Kubrick’s rate of filmmaking slowed down by quite a bit with the following projects. As for Scorsese, he kept making great films at a steady pace, but you could say that Scorsese stopped improving after Raging Bull, because I would say Mean Streets, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull are three of his top four films.
Goodfellas is arguably on the same level as Raging Bull
When I said three out of his top four, Goodfellas was the one I was referring to. Actually, I think Goodfellas is his best film, though you could definitely make arguments for the other three being better than Goodfellas.
I think Boogie Nights will be more renowned than ADLHA and Boxcar Bertha, but that’s just my opinion.
Boogie Nights = ADLHA + Boxcar Bertha?
It sort of depends on how big a breath you’re taking before you start talking. Anderson hasn’t made anything as good as 2001: A Space Odyssey or Paths of Glory, or Mean Streets, Taxi Driver, or Raging Bull, for that matter.
Well we’ll just have to disagree on that one because I think TWBB is as good as Mean Streets, Taxi Driver and Raging Bull, and better than Paths of Glory. But I don’t think any of his stuff is better than 2001, but like I said, Kubrick really slowed down in his filmmaking in the 70s and Scorsese didn’t have that much success with any film after Raging Bull besides Goodfellas.
Whaaaat??!?! We are taking about three completely different styles of directing here. Kubrick is a true pioneer, he is a genius, self-taught, perfectionist, his movies are mostly story driven, he puts great effort and care into camera work, camera resolution, set design, lighting, composition, making sure his actors are picture perfect, Scorsese is the opposite, Scorsese is the product of a film school, he is influenced by acting directors like Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, John Casavettes, and Elia Kazan, he makes movies for the most part once every 3 years, he lets his actors improvise, his stories are character driven, the driving philosophy behind most of his pictures (if any) is existentialism. The only similarities that Scorsese and Kubrick share are the fact that they have both mastered what they do for a living, but in very different ways. The interesting thing about Paul Thomas Anderson though, is that he is heavily influenced by both Kubrick and Scorsese at the same time, Boogie Nights is an Homage to Raging Bull and other Scorsese pictures, and There Will Be Blood is an homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey and other Kubrick movies.
I guess my point is that both Kubrick and Scorsese are both master directors, the best at what they do, only, they are to different to compare with each other, Kubrick made practically 2 movies per decade, while Scorsese made about 5 movies per decade, so it is a lot easier to say that Scorsese was more inconsistent seeing as how he has made twice as many movies as Stanley Kubrick. Nevertheless, I think the two are equal in the number of masterpieces they’ve made. Anyway, yeah, sure, PTA is a great director, only, he needs to make more movies, in my opinion, because he makes them good, and i want to see more of his work, not a new one every five years.
I think TWBB is a very good film and an evolutionary leap from Anderson’s previous films. Kubrick and Scorsese is aiming pretty high, and I’m not sure historical opinion will bear the equation out. On the last BFI/Sight and Sound critics’ poll (2002), 2001 was ranked #6, Barry Lyndon was tied at #27, Taxi Driver #35. The directors have Dr. Strangelove #5, Raging Bull at #6, 2001 at #12, and Taxi Driver at #31.
What Bryan said.
I just want people to admit he has the potential to be as good as either of them. And you can’t deny that if, hypothetically, PTA made a film every three years, that was at least as good as Boogie Nights for the rest of his career, he could be as great as either of them.