Christopher Nolan vs Paul Thomas Anderson

[Kellen]

So I was browsing youtube tonight and this popped up in the little 'related videos' feed:

[Jeremy Blackman]

"That's a tough one." ... 

Since he called him "Paul Anderson," I'm assuming he's including this body of work in his "overall" score.

[socketlevel]

this guy is an idiot. he's not also talking about who also has the worst films, batman begins and dark knight rises both missed their mark. i know i'm preaching to the converted on this site, but come on, PTA has never dropped the ball.

[Pubrick]

PTA has never dropped the ball.

Dixon.

[socketlevel]

PTA has never dropped the ball.

Dixon.

Aha! but he didn't drop the ball, if he released the film as stated in the 'diaries' with 9 stories (with dixon) and not 8 then possibly he would have. he is even upset at himself that he didn't have the beats right going into the diner scene with dixon, the whiz kid, and the worm.  So while he fumbled the ball, in the clutch, he turned around and saved it.

dixon, even though he saved it, is not as bad as that stupid nuke shit and a cafe in paris scene. or all of insomnia being boring as shit. or batman begins, while cool i guess, is just boring as well.

i love momento, the prestige, love the dark knight rises... but it kinda ends there. inception is also good, i guess.

[Gold Trumpet]

Just noticed this thread but yea, even PTA's misfires (as I see them) are well beyond what Nolan has done or seems capable of ever doing. Nolan is a fun filmmaker for trying to see how much of a chess match he can make plot complications in his films, but the results are generally dim and over analyze itself. I honestly think he's too conscious of themes and characters having to spell them out, but I honestly think if you look at a film like Inception and then imagine how Andrei Tarkovsky would have approached the same subject, you get an idea of how often Nolan succumbs to Hollywood ideas when he wants them to look like something more.

[polkablues]

Which is a better food, lobster or ice cream? 

The whole thing just seems like a ridiculous comparison to make.  They're not similar filmmakers, in intent, style, or output. 

[Gold Trumpet]

That I do understand and completely agree with your sentiment. However, I don't think relativity to a filmmaker's type of film they make can squash all levels of comparison or some measurement of standard. PTA may be interested in making a film Nolan has no interest in, yes, but because he's interested in making films that are more interesting and Nolan has lost all interest in that, I think that says something. If you look at Following and Memento and remember back to the kind of filmmaker some thought he could be, I definitely think two filmmakers (PTA and Nolan) started out at somewhat similar starting points and PTA has definitely taken the more interesting route. Other filmmakers who pick and choose between commercial and independent make more challenging films than what Nolan has done in a decade. I just think he's at a Spielberg level now where he has to work within the confines of a certain budget and won't bend too much from it so his films have to have commercial interest. I wish he could have more flexibility.

[Lottery]

I really like Nolan actually, he tries something ambitious and keeps it palatable for a wider audience. His films are really enjoyable.

I would really to see him get back to the style of his first 3ish movies, all neo-noirish and so on. It's interesting to think what his career would be like if he didn't get the Batman gig and if, say, Aronofsky got it instead (with his hobo-Batman and black mechanic Alfred).

[polkablues]

I like Nolan too, and I'm not saying that there's no basis whatsoever for comparing the two filmmakers, inasmuch as you can measure any two artists against each other, but I feel like the question as originally asked and answered is based on a faulty premise, that there is some scale of filmmaking that each director can be measured against, and when you look at the photo finish one squeaks out ahead of the other. It's a weird way of looking at art, but I suppose film, with its equal proportions of craft and commerce, is a weird art form.

I don't know. All in all, it just seems like an arrogant and presumptuous way of asking "Whose movies do you personally prefer?" If it had been framed that way from the beginning, I don't think the whole thing would bother me so much.

[Sleepless]

Which is a better food, lobster or ice cream?

Completely agree and genuinely shocked this thread when on for so long without someone saying this. I haven't watched the video, just the title of the thread alone made me think this. It's a redundant discussion.