Make a Case for Paul Thomas Anderson

I’ve liked some of his films, but I never thought he warranted the praise he got. There are definitely nice cinematic moments in all of his films, but I find them lacking in some way. For example, Magnolia just seemed a bit sprawling—like it was a rough draft in need of pairing down. Indeed, I think in an interview after the film, Anderson mentioned that he suffers from “reverse writer’s block,” and I thought, “Yes, I can see that on the screen.” The other thing is that he seems to be going for something profound (my impression of Punch-Drunk Love and There Will Be Blood), but either doesn’t know what he wants to say or doesn’t have anything profound to say). Now, maybe I’m just not getting it. Hence this thread. I hope those who are passionate about his films can make a case and enlighten me.

Btw, of his films, I liked Hard Eight the best. The story was simpler and not as grand, but it was more focussed. It also had some nice performances.

“Now, maybe I’m just not getting it. Hence this thread. I hope those who are passionate about his films can make a case and enlighten me.”

I am not a fan of PTA but I think you should probably just watch his films again, read some reviews, both favorable and unfavorable, and form your own case for or against. When you do that I will be glad support you if you don’t like him and tell you why you’re wrong if you do :)

Ha! Well, that might just motivate me to see the films again. So are your reasons for not liking him the same as mine?

Basically. I find them to be somewhat overblown attempts at being visionary. I no longer have much patience with attempts at visionary profundity or successes at visionary profundity. I don’t remember Hard Eight being much better but it is at least more low key. Magnolia was the nadir for me, as well. There are a lot of guys out there who want to be Kubrick. They want to blow us away with a “message” about man’s inhumanity to man or something. I would like to sit Anderson, Aronofsky, Nolan, Solondz, Labute and a bunch of others in a room with the films of John Cassavetes and begin the lecture by saying “you don’t have to try so hard…”

Of that list, I agree about Aronofsky, which is said because I think he has some talent. (I’ve only seen Solodnz’s Welcome to the Dollhouse, which I didn’t think was an attempt at a grand vision.) I wouldn’t put Labute in that group though. I don’t see him as super ambitious in the way that you mention. I found In the Company of Men and The Shape of Things thought-provoking and an engaging. Why Cassavettes?

I will say that I don’t mind attempts at grand visions or dealing with profound issues—because when they pull it off (like in Malick’s The New World) or when they make a worthy attempt—like Sally Potter’s Yes (underrated!) I think it’s exhilarating! It’s rare, but I love it when it happens.

“Why Cassavettes?”

Ozu would work as well. I would have to go into great detail to explain my theories but for now I’ll just say “i was born but…” towers above most “grand vision’s” including Malick’s. Cassavetes, like Ozu understood that the navigation of seemingly simple social situations like buying a hot dog is a thousands times more exciting than any battle sequence.

I just watched a film today called Cry Funny Happy by Sam Neave. I think it won a couple of prizes at Sundance and then was promptly forgotten. It is an astonishing masterpiece that ranks with the greatest cinema. Just for laughs, i checked out old Rotten Tomatoes reviews. Naturally, the shmucks we have passing for critics in this country all basically repeated the same remarks praising the film for its’ "modest ambitions’ and suggesting that the director will probably produce a major work someday. Cry Funny Happy was more of a major work than all of PTA’s work put together but these bozos are hoping he’ll tackle something “weighty” like the palestinian situation or something. It traverses the delicate nuances of ordinary couples who can’t communicate with pinpoint mysterious realism. In this here
film world such things don’t impress because they don’t have a tag line or issue critics can latch onto. Up is down and black is white. We are through the looking glass.

I never saw I was Born But… so I can’t comment specifically about the comparsion with Malick’s The New World. I think I understand why you chose Cassavettes now. I don’t know if I agree that “buying a hot dog” (i.e. something mundane) is “a thousand times more exciting” than any battle sequence (what about the Milinium Falcon flying through the asteroids?). But if you’re point is that sometimes less ambitious and grand projects can be just as great as ones that go for the Truth, then I more on board. I don’t feel like directors should feel bad about making films that aren’t “serious,” nor should they be penalized by critics for doing so.

On the other hand, when selecting the greates films of all-time, I’m not sure if the more serious films (that succeed) shouldn’t be given more consideration than films that are more entertaining than serious.

I hereby find Paul Thomas Anderson GUILTY!…of bruising an apple.

Jazzahola – I’m right there with you. He’s not a horrible director, but certainly the most overrated in recent memory.

The critic Godfrey Cheshire has managed to sum up my feelings better than any other, thus far. Here is a sample of what he has to say in his review of “There Will Be Blood”:

“When any art tilts toward decadence, an anxious aesthetic nostalgia brings forth young would-be artists who produce florid, half-baked imitations of earlier, better works and critics who exhaust the thesaurus in hailing their derivative creations as nothing short of exalted perfection.

This, in a nutshell, is the story of Paul Thomas Anderson. It’s not just the story of one obviously talented but imitative, unsure and very uneven writer-director who manages to produce five diverse features by the time he’s 37, films that would have had him regarded as an interestingly ambitious wannabe 30 years ago yet today have him headed ‘into the pantheon,’ according to The New York Times. It’s also, necessarily, a story of old-line cinephile culture sucking its own fumes, of critics old and young not only wishing They Still Made’em Like They Used To, but convincing themselves that They Still Do—And Even Better, By Golly!

When I wrote about Boogie Nights, Anderson’s 1997 breakthrough, I started out opining that the extravagantly over-the-top critical reaction to the film struck me as far more interesting than the film itself, a well-acted but sitcom-like and satirically limp romp through the SoCal porn industry. ‘When,’ I wondered, ‘did so many reputable critics write so many preposterous things all at once?’

If Boogie Nights set some kind of record in that regard, and Anderson’s subsequent woozy-mystical and more-imitative-than-ever Magnolia upped the ante even further, his new There Will Be Blood seems headed for the Mount Rushmore of Ecstatic Overreaction.
…
There are two salient hallmarks of screenwriting that’s overly influenced by the banalities of TV writing, which I think has been Anderson’s big problem all along. First, the drama is devoid of ideas that are not entirely trite or predigested….Second, just as political and historical issues are reduced to clichés, so are human personalities flattened into cartoons.
…
Ultimately, I think Anderson has nothing to say other than that he wants to make movies like the great ones of yore. And critics, seeing no new Altmans or Kubricks on the horizon, are all too ready to mistake his pretensions for the real thing."

Read the whole review here:

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid:166877

…so has anyone made something visionary/epic and/or with references in recent years and not been a pretentious imitator?

There Will Be Blood may be the best movie of “This” century.

I’ve never understood hating PTA, there are so many worthier candidates, lol. I think he’s always brought a fairly challenging perspective to film — mainly through his daring use of getting sympathy for seemingly unlikeable characters. That’s at least a hint of moral complexity in a film world that’s largely un-nuanced. If you grew up in So Cal, on the fringes of show business, in a broken home, you’d know a lot of people like the ones in his films. I still think his films will be ones that people of the future will look to when they want to understand who we are — as much the period pieces Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood, as the daring exposes of millennium chaos in Hard Eight, Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love. And though he may have only made one and a half undeniable masterpieces so far, none of his films is bad.

Justin Levine: Of course, that critic seems to be holding PTA’s praise against him. His argument has far more to do with a reactionary position vis a vis the critical reception of PTA’s work than it actually does with PTA’s work itself (by his own admission). I think there’s room for critiquing the critiques, but it’s problematic to put that burden on the movies themselves, as if the critical reception PTA’s had is his own fault or something. As usual, “overrated” doesn’t really tell me a whole lot about the value of art, but rather the value of criticism. Since when is the criticism of an artist’s work meant to be the artist’s cross to bear? It would seem that this is just a way of targeting critics for professional sins and then putting the artists they critique to the firing squad instead of the critics themselves. It’s passive-aggressive and cowardly thing to do. You’ll notice that most media people never criticize each other, or when they do, they always use non-media targets as proxies … to target each other is bad for business.

Jazzaloha: I’m not really sure what to tell you about PTA. I agree with the other poster that you should watch his movies again, read existing views on his work, and form your own view. It rings kind of hollow, and feels like flamebait honestly, to write a thread presumably asking PTA fans to “explain” his work. It feels like you want explanations that you can argue against, even though you’re coming from a limited perspective (i.e. you haven’t formed your own solid views of how his films fall short).

I think perhaps you just don’t like dense camera work. A lot of people say that PTA is a “flashy” director. I don’t really think so. I just feel like the cinematography in his movies is really dense and baroque-feeling. Some people don’t like that, just from an aesthetic or stylistic point of view. And I understand that. I think it’s great, but then again, it’s not the only type of camera work I like. I’m not really picky in that regard, as long as the cinematography fits the content, the tone, etc.

Also, I think Magnolia is probably his least enduring picture. It’s one of those movies that blew me away on the initial viewing, but which I find more and more tiresome on repetition. Boogie Nights only gets better, in my view. As a period piece, it’s among the most meticulous and believable I’ve seen, and the casting (as usual with PTA) is just flat out incredible. I can’t believe the studio was angling for Leo DiCaprio as Dirk Diggler. I just couldn’t imagine anyone other than Wahlberg in that role. It’s the one reason I’m glad Titanic was made. It may make sense to think of Punch-Drunk Love as kind of a technicolor romance meets Hulot film, or something like that. I’m not going to add to the praise of There Will Be Blood because, honestly, it’s the film of his I’ve seen and mentally processed the least. And Hard Eight, out of necessity really (but not to its detriment) is more of a barebones, stage-like drama, which is kind of cool. The only real setback in that movie is that you can kind of feel the “film student” vibe of it (even if he wasn’t technically a film student at the time he made it). I feel like a lot of the dialogue and the action in the scenes kind of “hits” at the academically “correct” points, and in that way it feels kind of mechanical in places. But even Hard Eight, I think, tops Magnolia, even with its huge budget and grand scale.

@Jazzahola: Would you be willing to make a case for Ozu or Capra? From what I’ve seen those guys need much more articulate justification proportional to the praise they receive.

Bruce: The last thing this thread needs to become is a spiteful back and forth, though I do think it’s worth examining the idea that we should be looking toward a director’s work for an accounting of the critical praise he/she receives. Shouldn’t we be looking at the praise, instead? The problem is that critics often project their own deficiencies (or the deficiencies of others in their field) onto the films whose values they appraise. Instead of calling out a colleague for gushing blindly about a specific film or a director’s work, they turn around and trash the director in question, because they think that the best way to counter overpraise is with an intentional under-appraisal.

Right, few respond point by point to what anyone posts — unless it’s to cut the poster down and undermine him. Most threads are a series of related tangents rather than true discussions. But where would people learn to have such discussions? I doubt many have read the Nabokov-Wilson letters from The New York Review of Books.

Bruce,

I’d love to make a case for Ozu, although admittedly the case would be based on only a handful of films—as long as the endeavor is not a my-guy-is-better-than-your-guy sort of thing. As for Capra, I don’t know if I’d make the case that he’s a great director, although I can and would enjoy explaining why I consider him a favorite.

“There Will Be Blood may be the best movie of “This” century.”

I believe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

“The other thing is that he seems to be going for something profound (my impression of Punch-Drunk Love and There Will Be Blood), but either doesn’t know what he wants to say or doesn’t have anything profound to say)”

That’s what I like about him, he doesn’t have to SAY anything, instead he gets out of the way and let’s his larger-than-life characters do the talking. Does every director have to have something to “say” in every film they make or have some message? That’s what I loved about “There Will Be Blood”, he’s not really trying to tell the audience anything, he’s basically saying “Here’s Daniel Plainview, this really interesting albeit messed up guy”. “Magnolia” is one of my favorite movies of all time simply because the characters grab me and never let me go the entire time. Truly inspiring stuff

Bolo Tie -

“Since when is the criticism of an artist’s work meant to be the artist’s cross to bear?” Nobody said it was. The whole point of criticism is not just to give a binary “thumbs up” or “thumbs down”, but to put the film in greater perspective – both within the context of other film work and (most relevant to our current discussion) within the context of what the rest of the critical community might think.

If somebody feels that a director’s work is UNDERRATED and not being given the attention it deserves by others, isn’t it the critic’s job to speak out and try to rectify what he/she believes to be an error on the part of the rest of the critical community?? Then why is it not legitimate to argue against criticism that goes the other way as well (opinions which tend to give too much praise to a director and result in overrated reputations).

This is neither “passive-aggressive” nor “cowardly” as you put it. It is in fact, the very heart of legitimate criticism.

If you honestly believe what you say, then you must feel that Jazzaloha is “cowardly” and that the entire thread that he started here is illegitimate. Please re-read how he started his post: “I’ve liked some of his films, BUT I NEVER THOUGHT HE WARRANTED THE PRAISE HE GOT.”

Jazzaloha isn’t asking anyone to make a case for the Anderson himself – he is (quite legitimately) asking people to make the case for THE PRAISE THAT OTHERS GIVE HIM. How is this any different than Godfrey Cheshire (whom you deem “cowardly”) has done?

With all due respect, I think your comments are way off the mark in my opinion.

[* Please do not interpret my use of capital letters in this comment as a form of disrespectful yelling. I only use them for emphasis since I don’t know how to do italics within this board.]

There Will Blood is probably the best film of the decade and Boogie Nights & Magnolia are in at least the top 20 films of the 90’s, sure his films may not be as good as those from the 70’s and earlier, but compared to the most of the current directors, he is a master. So his praise in the current era is warranted.

Justin Levine: If somebody feels that a director’s work is UNDERRATED and not being given the attention it deserves by others, isn’t it the critic’s job to speak out and try to rectify what he/she believes to be an error on the part of the rest of the critical community?? Then why is it not legitimate to argue against criticism that goes the other way as well (opinions which tend to give too much praise to a director and result in overrated reputations).

The problem is when this gets treated as though it’s a problem with the director rather than a problem with the critics. If the critics are overpraising a director, take them to task on it. But I don’t see why it’s necessary to turn into a reactionary and say something like “not only is he not a great director, as the critics say, but he’s actually a bad director.” Why can’t the truth ever be somewhere in the middle? The quotes you posted make it seem like the guy is just being a reactionary twit, so bent out of shape about overpraise for PTA that he sees fit to “balance” it out with vitriol directed toward PTA. What he seemingly fails to realize is that his main beef is with other critics, not PTA. It really is one of my biggest pet peeves when critics hold directors responsible for their critical reception, and punish them for the overzealousness of their colleagues.

This is neither “passive-aggressive” nor “cowardly” as you put it. It is in fact, the very heart of legitimate criticism.

Actually, it is passive-aggressive and cowardly, because this guy’s taking out his annoyance with other critics on the director. I don’t really see how he substantially addressed PTA’s work outside of a construct of being annoyed by other critics.

Please re-read how he started his post: “I’ve liked some of his films, BUT I NEVER THOUGHT HE WARRANTED THE PRAISE HE GOT.”

So Jazzaloha needs to show us examples of the critical praise that he finds objectionable, and then he needs to dismantle the words of those critics. Asking those of us who like PTA’s work to make an accounting for every single positive critical interpretation in existence is absurd.

Here’s what I said toward the end of my original post: “Now, maybe I’m just not getting it. Hence this thread. I hope those who are passionate about his films can make a case and enlighten me.”

To me, that statement pretty much states where I’m coming from. I’m open and interested in hearing from those who really love PTA and are willing to make a case for him.

Jazz, each film has a very different feel. Hell, Punch-Drunk is meticulously crafted on all fronts. The double disc artwork, the soundtrack etc. I could continue, but I would suggest you watch it again.

Magnolia is a fine film…however it is TOO much drama from every character for me. The performances, as in all of his films, are beyond compare.

so much for any more typing.

Godfrey Cheshire is a FUCKING MORON

Jazzahola about Hard Eight – It also had some nice performances.

As opposed to say There Will Be Blood?

I’d make him a case, but I wouldn’t know what kind he’d like…

Where to send it to him. Even if he’d like having a case made for him. I don’t even know the guy.

Paul Thomas Anderson IS THE BEST DIRECTOR alive and working in America.

WILLIAM HERNANDEZ VALLE: …so has anyone made something visionary/epic and/or with references in recent years and not been a pretentious imitator?

I don’t know how far back you would consider “recent” years, but just off the top of my head -

LA Confidential
Inception
The Thin Red Line
Seven
The Fall

I’m sure I could come up with many more if I sat down and really thought about it.