I’ve read somewhere that Martin Scorcese called Wes Anderson “The next Martin Scorcese” or something along those lines. What I’m wondering is, is he sure he didn’t mean P.T. Anderson?
I love Wes Anderson. He’s made some of my favorite films. But honestly when I watch his films, I don’t think to myself “That was so Scorcese right there.” Scorcese doesn’t even come into mind at all honestly. Sure I’m positive there’s his influence in there from time to time, but, what films nowadays aren’t inspired atleast a little by Scorcese?
Now, P.T. on the other hand, I see huge traces of Scorcese. I just got done watching Boogie Nights actually. My god, that film was pretty much to the porn business what Goodfellas was to the gangster business! That didn’t take from the experiance for me. I found Boogie Nights to be an amazing cinematic work of art. As always, P.T. had my eyes glued to the screen and my heart ready to burst out of my chest at any given moment. It was a great work in it’s own right, but, I still found HUGGEEE influence by Scorcese in it. Specifically in terms of editing and camera work.
Is there a chance Scorcese was talking about the wrong Anderson? Just a thought. Feel free to comment on anything said here…Wes, P.T. Scorcese, his influence, which Anderson you like more…
Hell, talk about sunsets, margarittas and Luis Guzman for all I care.
But your replies are truelly appreciated. Thank you.
u are right about boogie nights, i also thought that had a goodfellas feel
paul w.s anderson has directed resident evil afterlife! (director of the original)
Definitely like PT Anderson more. If I had a top 5, Boogie Nights would be in it.
To me, Wes Anderson just makes the same movie over and over again. Each one is “good,” in a technical sense, in that they’re pleasing to watch, but I can’t help but find his shtick less and less appealing with each successive release.
As far as Scorsese goes, I feel like Goodfellas was somehow edited “dirtier” than Boogie Nights. Like, I understand the comparison, and I’d definitely need to watch Goodfellas again to flesh out my viewpoint, but PT feels, overall, like a far more meticulous, “clean” director. From an editing perspective, especially, everything is very much in its place, whereas Scorsese feels scrappier to me, in a way. One of the sort of obvious Scorsese rips in Boogie Nights are those stylish insert shots where you have like 3 things happening in quick succession. But while, with Scorsese, those seem to come out of a sort of scrappy, “dirty” editing impulse, they feel more cleaned up—less jarring—in Boogie Nights.
I dunno, PT is far more “cleaned up.” Which isn’t to say that Scorsese hasn’t been clean before in his career. I actually don’t tend to think of Scorsese as a guy who has a hard-set aesthetic, but rather as somebody who shows a bit of flex from film to film. So when somebody gets compared to Scorsese, it’s almost necessary to zero in on the the specific film, because he doesn’t really have what I would consider a “unified vision” or something like that.
Scorsese also credits Decaprio for rejuvenating his love of film making, so his opinion is pretty damn suspect nowadays ;_0
Yes! I don’t understand Scorsese’s DiCaprio-Muse obsession. It seems almost too transparently to be a case of him seeking out a younger actor with an Italian last name, as DeNiro and Pacino fade into the sunset.
I think DiCaprio is a more-than-serviceable actor, don’t get me wrong. But the problem with a director clinging so desperately to a working relationship is that it threatens to become a disruptive part of the narrative for every movie produced out of that relationship. For the audience, each new film is to be understood on its own, but also as part of that metanarrative between Scorsese and DiCaprio.
“I wish I could quit you.”
“But then there’d be no movie!”
Bottle Rocket, The Criterion Collection essay (selected highlights):
“Here was a picture without a trace of cynicism, that obviously grew out of its director’s affection for his characters in particular and for people in general….
“Wes Anderson, at age thirty, has a very special kind of talent: he knows how to convey the simple joys and interactions between people so well and with such richness. This kind of sensibility is rare in movies….
“Anderson has a finse sense of how music works against an image. There’s the beautiful ending of RUSHMORE, when Miss Cross removes Max Fischer’s glasses and gazes into the boy’s eyes—really the eyes of her dead husband—as the Faces’ “Ooh La La” plays on the soundtrack. And I also love the scene in BOTTLE ROCKET when Owen Wilson’s character, Dignan, says, “They’ll never catch me because I’m fuckin’ innocent.” Then he runs off to save one of his partners in crime and gets captured by the police, over “2000 Man” by the Rolling Stones. He—and the music—are proclaiming who he really is: he’s not innocent in the eyes of the law, but he’s truly an innocent. For me, it’s a transcendent moment. And transcendent moments are in short supply these days."
Thank you for those quotes. I honestly didn’t like Bottle Rocket enough to try and pick up the criterion, but I may get around to it one day, just to be a completist of Wes Anderson films.
I honestly don’t understand why people say Wes makes the same story over and over… Yes his style and writing is consistent but I actually will make the case that he goes out of his way to make the story different. It’s a commonly made claim so I may be overlooking something, or biased because of my love for his films, but I never understood that.
Also @Bolo Te, I do understand what you mean about Goodfellas being grittier in editing that Boogie Nights, but to me there was still a huge similarity in the way the story was told. I’ve been thinking lately one which one I like more but I honestly can’t come to it. Over my love of Goodfellas I’m fearing I actually liked Boogie Nights more. Time will tell I guess…
-I’ve read somewhere that Martin Scorcese called Wes Anderson “The next Martin Scorcese” or something along those lines.-
This is actually somewhat of a distortion due to seperation from its original context. Basically, here’s what happened: Esquire commissioned Scorsese and several other writers to write a piece about who would become “The Next Scorsese.” Andrew Sarris nominated Kevin Smith. Kenneth Turan nominated David O. Russell. Tom Carson nominated Alexander Payne.
Elvis Mitchell nominated The Wachowski Brothers. Todd McCarthy nominated Paul Thomas Anderson. Scorsese nominated Wes Anderson.
Here’s what the piece actually said:
“The most talented new generation of film directors since the auteurs of the ‘70s is upon us. They won’t all last. They won’t all leave a great body of work. And they won’t all continue making ambitious movies. Which one of them will become…”
[“The Next Martin Scorsese” headline here]
“A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, I watched a film called Bottle Rocket. I knew nothing about it, and the movie really took me by surprise. Here was a picture without a trace of cynicism, that obviously grew out of its director’s affection for his characters in particular and for people in general. A rarity. And the central idea of the film is so delicate, so human: A group of young guys think that their lives have to be filled with risk and danger in order to be real. They don’t know that it’s okay simply to be who they are.
Wes Anderson, at age thirty, has a very special kind of talent: He knows how to convey the simple joys and interactions between people so well and with such richness. This kind of sensibility is rare in movies. Leo McCarey, the director of Make Way for Tomorrow and The Awful Truth, comes to mind. And so does Jean Renoir. I remember seeing Renoir’s films as a child and immediately feeling connected to the characters through his love for them. It’s the same with Anderson. I’ve found myself going back and watching Bottle Rocket several times. I’m also very fond of his second film, Rushmore (1998)—it has the same tenderness, the same kind of grace. Both of them are very funny, but also very moving.
Anderson has a fine sense of how music works against an image. There’s the beautiful ending of Rushmore, when Miss Cross removes Max Fischer’s glasses and gazes into the boy’s eyes—really the eyes of her dead husband—as the Faces’ “Ooh La La” plays on the soundtrack. And I also love the scene in Bottle Rocket when Owen Wilson’s character, Dignan, says, “They’ll never catch me, man, ‘cause I’m fuckin’ innocent.” Then he runs off to save one of his partners in crime and gets captured by the police, over “2000 Man” by the Rolling Stones. He—and the music—are proclaiming who he really is: He’s not innocent in the eyes of the law, but he’s truly an innocent. For me, it’s a transcendent moment. And transcendent moments are in short supply these days."
Notice that Scorsese does not actually compare Anderson to himself, but rather to McCarey and Renoir.
who cares? i don’t want there to be another Scorsese or another Lumet or another Godard. I understand that influence is inevitable, but the last thing a revolution in film needs is a bunch of carbon copies emulating each other’s film collection.
i think Wes Anderson has a very visual eye; quirky in many ways which make it hard for anyone to not want to see what’s happening on the screen.
i think P.T. is a good filmmaker who probably knows this himself (hence, THERE WILL BE BLOOD). I think that as long as he can keep a cap on his ego, he will continue to produce works of cinema that RIVAL the work of the older auters.
just….please, don’t imitate. flattery is only necessary when trying to pick up women.
But Wes Anderson pretty much does create the same story over and over again. Quirky family-type-unit is fractured because of character flaws, and through some sort of collective travails (often involving a poignant death), they come to terms and learn to live with one another.
The only movie of Anderson’s that doesn’t seem to fit this model is “Rushmore,” which is one of the reasons why, of all his work, I like that one the best. (Also because Max Fischer isn’t a Richy McRichypants.)