Martin Scorsese or Paul Thomas Anderson?

Started by Finn, November 25, 2003, 08:48:17 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3
User actions

Finn

November 25, 2003, 08:48:17 PM
I couldn't figure which name category to put this under, so I just decided to put it under Director's Chair. Anyways, I've been hearing a lot of talk about which one of these directors are better. Anderson has been inspired by Scorsese in many ways, but he's also made a certain style of himself. Scorsese has obviously done more movies, but do you think they were as good as PTA's? Scorsese has been called the greatest living director, but there's been a lot more talk about PTA on this site than him. Personally I agree that Scorsese is the greatest director out there, but PTA would be in second place.

So, who do you like better?
Typical US Mother: "Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words."

godardian

#1
November 25, 2003, 09:00:24 PM
The only remotely well-considered answer is this: It's not really fair to compare the two. One has a 30-year career and many, many films under his belt. One has a less than 10-year career with 4 films. Wait 'til Scorsese has made his last film, let PTA catch up to him, and then ask this question.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Kal

#2
November 25, 2003, 10:04:04 PM
exactly

modage

#3
November 25, 2003, 11:14:16 PM
yeah its impossible to compare.  you could say well, martin scorsese's made MORE great films.  but he's made MORE films.  you could also say pt's made a lot less CRAPPY films, but he's only made 4 films.  so you really have to give him 20 years to fuck up and come back to decide how great he ends up being.  who am i personally MORE excited about at the moment making films?  pt.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

SoNowThen

#4
November 26, 2003, 08:59:17 AM
Scorsese is better.

but Magnolia is my favorite movie


:?:  :!:
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

rustinglass

#5
November 26, 2003, 10:10:17 AM
I think that both of them are great directors, but neither is the greatest living director. Kusturica is.
But I must say that I have great great expectations for Paul
"In Serbia a lot of people hate me because they want to westernise, not understanding that the western world is bipolar, with very good things and very bad things. Since they don't have experience of the west, they even believe that western shit is pie."
-Emir Kusturica

(kelvin)

#6
November 26, 2003, 10:28:12 AM
Quote from: rustinglassI think that both of them are great directors, but neither is the greatest living director. Kusturica is.

I would say Antonioni is. Or Bergman maybe.

SoNowThen

#7
November 26, 2003, 10:33:19 AM
nope, you're both wrong

it's Godard
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#8
November 26, 2003, 10:35:30 AM
Quote from: SoNowThennope, you're both wrong

it's Godard

Oh, you must join this discussion, if that's the case.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

(kelvin)

#9
November 26, 2003, 10:39:25 AM
Quote from: SoNowThennope, you're both wrong

it's Godard

I prefer Antonioni to Godard, although I appreciate the latter one a lot.
Godard is the theorist, he is almost like an art historian who expresses his research through an art form (and that may be very revolutionary), whereas Antonioni would be the artist in his pure form. (I don't want to devalorize art theorists...just a personal preference concerning movies)

godardian

#10
November 26, 2003, 02:45:11 PM
Quote from: chriskelvin
Quote from: SoNowThennope, you're both wrong

it's Godard

I prefer Antonioni to Godard, although I appreciate the latter one a lot.
Godard is the theorist, he is almost like an art historian who expresses his research through an art form (and that may be very revolutionary), whereas Antonioni would be the artist in his pure form. (I don't want to devalorize art theorists...just a personal preference concerning movies)

See, I think that's a valuable way to look at it, too. I don' entirely agree, but it's a well-informed perspective. You should join the discussion I linked to above, as well.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

Ernie

#11
November 26, 2003, 05:06:27 PM
PTA is the best younger filmmaker working today (like under 40). David Gordon Green and Wes Anderson are close behind. It's way too early to tell if any of them will become the best ever but it's a possibility in a big way.

Scorsese and Godard are definitely possibilities for best living right now, no question. But then there's also Coppola, De Palma, Malick, Herzog, and even Joel Coen and Steven Soderbergh who are becoming THOSE kind of filmmakers. There's too many choices for living much less of all-time...this is why I can't do the ranking stuff.

NEON MERCURY

#12
November 26, 2003, 05:57:53 PM
..just for comparison's sake...

marty is much better....
pta has only done four films..but those four films are phucking great...and he hasn't slipped yet like marty(i.e. kundun).....
and as for the greatest livng director.....

Gold Trumpet

#13
November 26, 2003, 08:53:23 PM
I actually think this is a good topic. Of course it is unbalanced, but what director pairing wouldn't be? And where is the harm is just comparing two directors? It at least allows for potential of discussing them as filmmakers.

-Both have the weakness of directly saluting earlier films. It doesn't say the film will be bad or anything, but there is the risk of the director losing their identity when repeatedly it. That is a big deal.

-PTA (so far) is more ambitious. Scorsese is willing to slip into a project to just direct it. He identifies with this attitude to many degrees because it goes back to the factory days of Hollywood when directors worked like craftsmen of going from project to project. Scorsese grew up admiring this idea. PTA is indepedent and only interested in doing personal projects and expanding his stories and structures.

Then, of course, there is that little deal of the enormous filmography of Scorsese compared to PTA and his four films. Scorsese seems hard to beat just because of his history.

Sanjuro

#14
November 27, 2003, 01:50:54 AM
as of now scorsese of course

and its true that pta is far more ambitious.  this in turn may be what will make him go down in history as one of the greatest as scorsese or it may very well be his downfall... who knows? too early to tell i guess...

but the future definitely looks very bright for pta, after a great start.
"When you see your own photo, do you say you're a fiction?"
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3
User actions