Paul Thomas Anderson is a talented director who, in my opinion, has never made a bad films. He is however, very influenced by his predecessors. He’s like Tarantino in this sense, not that there’s anything wrong with that. Before his films took Kubrickian form, they were reminiscent of Scorsese (Boogie Nights) and Altman (Magnolia.)
Check out this thread for more info.
I like to think of Paul Thomas Anderson’s style as that of Martin Scorsese, Robert Altman, and Stanley Kubrick all rolled into one but with his own unique perspective added to the inspiration of these very talented directors. Like Altman, Anderson deals with a large group of ensemble very delicately and precise to a point where they blend perfectly. Like Scorsese, Anderson knows how to use popular music to present his story and the specific time period that the story takes place in and also the swift jump cuts. Like Kubrick, Anderson is very image motivated, especially the way he moves his camera following the characters and action in the manner that Kubrick did. Like Anderson says, “We are all children of Kubrick, there is nothing you can do that he hasn’t done already.”
Paul Thomas Anderson, truly one of the greatest directors to come out of the nineties. Like Tarantino said, “He’s just a badass.”
Anderson has claimed in the past that he is very influenced by Jonathan Demme. Maybe it has more to do with his approach to production and actors, because I don’t really see it as a major part of what actually ends up on the screen.
Yeah definitely, I know of his influence in Altman and Scorsese, Altman’s and Scorsese’s fingerprints are prominent in Boogie Nights and Magnolia. From the use of music like Scorsese, the ensemble casts of Altman, to his opening shot of Boogie Nights which draws from scenes like Goodfellas (and also various Altman films), when Ray Liotta’s character is walking through the Bamboo Lounge and it’s filmed in a tracking shot, where he says: And then there was Jimmy Two Times, who got that nickname because he said everything twice…. ’I’m gonna go get the papers, get the papers’ (Love that line lol). And Magnolia is clearly a sort of a pastiche or homage to Altman.
BUT if you watch Punch-Drunk Love & There Will Be Blood, you’ll see that his Scorsese-esque use of music changes, he doesn’t have his ensemble cast’s anymore, but moreso his movies are strong character studies. And not only does his music change but he adopts music in the likes of Ligeti or Penderecki. Which brings me to my point, There is clearly some kind of connection he is trying to make with Kubrick’s films.
Also check this out, this is from an ASC issue interviewing Robert Elswit (Cinematographer of There Will Be Blood):
Anderson, a fan of Stanley Kubrick’s films, wanted the bowling alley to have a Kubrickian symmetry and menace. “Paul wanted to paint the walls white and turn the room into a white cube, like something out of A Clockwork Orange,” says Elswit. “There’s no character to the lighting at all; it’s just a white box. Paul kept marveling at how Kubrick did things, and I would say, ‘But Paul, Kubrick built sets. He didn’t come walking into a place like this!’”
this is the link it’s from: http://www.theasc.com/ac_magazine/January2008/ThereWillBeBlood/page4.php
But above all I absolutely agree, Paul Thomas Anderson is probably the most incredible film-maker out there right now. But the question I was asking is that his style has changed immensely, I’m just wondering if meeting Kubrick before he died added to that change, because I think it did. I’m still trying to find an article where he would speak extensively about meeting him, if anyone has any knowledge about anything of this sort please feel free contribute! :)
I’ve always found the comparison between Altman and PTA odd. Yeah Magnolia borrows Short Cuts’ basic structure, but stylistically the films are completely different. Magnolia could justifiably be called maximalism (I’m not sure if such a term really exists, but it sounds right), whereas Altman is more restrained and, for lack of a better word, usual (I don’t mean that in a bad way, most films seem usual compared to Magnolia). Also Magnolia has long monologues and clear audio, whereas Altman does the whole overlaying people’s conversations thing (I can’t remember whether he does that in Short Cuts much though). Personally I’d take PTA over Altman most days. I understand the Kubrick comparison and the Scorsese comparison, but the Altman one is lost on me.
http://www.a2pcinema.com/archive/PDL/influences.htm
Thanks alot for that M1KE G, very informative.
Btw two more things about There Will Be Blood that I forgot to mention I noticed is the opening scene goes for almost 20 minutes with no dialogue. And in this 20 minutes, Daniel Plainview goes from mining for gold, to drilling for oil (the transition), and in the process discovers/learns to build a pulley system for the drilling, a.k.a. learns how to use a more advanced ‘tool’
In 2001: A Space Odyssey, there is no dialogue for at least 25 minutes into the movie. The Apes are herbivores but when they come in contact with the monolith they discover/learn how to use bone remnant’s to kill, hence the first ‘tool’. They then go from herbivores to become carnivores ( the transition).
Also you know that Robert Elswit quote I posted in my last post, well it occurred to me that Elswit has been the Cinematographer for all of PTA’s films until now, and the fact that he said
Paul kept marveling at how Kubrick did things
Well the fact of the matter is, that him stating that shows that PTA might have not really talked about giving his films the Kubrickian look in his prior films, if he had Elswit wouldn’t have said that, but in There Will Be Blood he kept marveling at how Kubrick did things, which was different characteristic that PTA displayed than usual, hence Elswit mentioned it. I read another post where people were saying for ‘More Malick than Kubrick’ for There Will Be Blood. I completely disagree, other than the use of natural light, giving the film earthy tones, like Malick’s films, this is film is PTA channeling Kubrick, period.
mertber
Hey guys,
Recently I’ve been watching There Will Be Blood and Punch Drunk Love repetitively, and I just can’t shed the idea from my mind that PTA style has changed so much! His pictures are almost Kubrickian.
I know that he went to meet Tom Cruise in London for Magnolia and was invited to the set of Eyes Wide Shut, and PTA says he met Stanley Kubrick here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjsIlOVJr5E
I’ve been trying to dig up and see if he’s talked about Kubrick before hand, and specifically his encounter with Kubrick. For some reason I’m seeing his encounter with Kubrick as something symbolic like the passing of the torch so to speak. As you know Kubrick died 2 days after he showed his print of Eyes Wide Shut to Warner Bros.
Do you thing PTA was somehow inspired by that encounter, or might have they spoken about something. If anybody has information about any interviews he’s had that shows him discussing this please share