PTA is not very food

aclockworkjj · August 27, 2003, 10:14:25 PM

Quote from: cinemascopesend me a link or something from the pta forum giving some real arguments for reasons why pta is a good director, all i'm finding is trivia and news updates.

Quote from: aclockworkjj.watching Magnolia ...and one scence always sticks out in my head cause it's just that fucking great!! The scene I am speaking of is Phil's "This is the part in the movie where you help me out..."

Over and over, everytime I watch it, this scene constantly sticks out. Just the movie reference within a movie alone is amazing. Writing at it's best...cause it's very true, and Phil says it's true, and it is true. We all reference movies on a daily basis, but to see it in inside of a movie is something you don't see too often. What I like about Paul's movies (and this scene demonstrates it perfectly) is the way they are written and shot, often will make you forget it's a movie you are watching. Or at least you drift away at times. But the real life references you can make from Magnolia in particular are limitless....You can find yourself saying, "I know a guy like that...", "I have seen that happen before...", or even "I know how that character is feeling cause I have been there". Not taking away from other movies, but a movie that can make you look at your own life in many different ways, is truely the complete cinamatic experience!

Maybe I am just on a huge Magnolia high right now, but I am too broke to go out to lunch so instead I am spending it here....

reasons or arguments making him a great director, are purly opinion. What defines a "great director"?...surely not your textbook, cause there is a different one stating the exact opposite.

What makes him good: The fact that I was rammbling like a liitle girl, with a new crush....palms sweaty, all giddy...and this was all after watching magnolia, for the 4th time that same week (obessive like that schoolgirl crush), paul's movies don't get old to me, therefore, I think of him as a great director. But that's only an opinion.

(honestly I thought this thread was a joke when I first saw it...good luck though dude)

AK · August 27, 2003, 10:23:33 PM

Quote from: RegularKarate
PT IS cool... there's no question about that, but he also knows how to capture a scene with his camera... he knows how introduce characters and situations... he knows how write diologue that sets itself apart from the rest... He puts details like no other in his films... you can watch his films over and over again and notice something new each time.

I could go on and on and on and on and on... and sometimes I do, but I don't really need to when there is an entire forrum dedicated to that right here!

Don't throw pearls to pigs , Regular Karate.....

Just agree ....yeah...PTA sucks, all his movies are copies, "Truffout" is better cuz he made more movies...whatever...

MacGuffin · August 27, 2003, 10:32:04 PM

Quote from: cinemascopeIs there a reason no one is giving me reasons to like pta, i'm willing to listen to why people think he's great, but I guess being able to explain why a director is good is hard for you guys, other than saying "he's sooo great, and so viceral and real, he speaks the truth and from the heart" PTA to me just seems like a trendy guy who thinks it's cool to be a film director.

It really is wierd that no one has written why he's great, that was originally my intention was for someone to write why he's good. I guess I could have said that staight out but usually peoples reaction to attacks on directors is explaining why the attacker is wrong, not saying-"Go AWAY-YOU DON'T THINK LIKE US- YOU CANT SPELL-TRUFFOUT IS DEAD-GO WRITE ABOUT TRUFFOUT IF YOU LIKE HIM SO MUCH-WE LIKE PT BECAUSE HE'S COOL"

If you look back at your first post, you will see that your introduction to us is filled with arrogance, an insult towards us (yes, we have seen films made before 1985) and telling us how we should run our board. Not really the best way to get on our good side to answer your 'original intention'. The reason your are receiving sarcasm is because no one believes you are for real. This board is an offspring of an exclusive PTA board, so we've never had to explain ourselves and never had any non-PTA likers join us (not even Kevin Smith fans have bashed their way in), and is the reason why you won't find much PTA debate. Another reason you are not getting what you want is that we don't know you. The way you are coming across (with the continuing insults, this one about explaining being too hard for us) is that, even if we did give our opinions, would they really made a difference? Why should we waste our time because how do we know you are open-minded to listening to us?

MrBurgerKing · August 27, 2003, 10:36:10 PM

Now all the contempt for Truffaut because this prick undermines PTA's work compared to Francois. I can enjoy both of their operas personally. I was explaining to a woman the other that I do prefer the Whopper, but I will also eat a Wendys Cheeseburger any day of the week. This woman (it coulda been a man actually, with the mustache.. maybe it's a new fashion for women) was offended and told me she prefers to stay at home and cook because she doesn't want to drop dead at age thirty from heart disease from eating that garbage. Fair enough, you eat at home, I eat at Burger King.. I don't have contempt for your 'home cooking', why do you have contempt for my favorites? thanks though, that was pretty insulting. I know she didn't mean to insult me, but it hurt because she basically told me I was going to drop dead from heart disease. You've insulted my favorite value meal, and my health, don't even think about inviting me over to try one of your great "home cooked meals" so I can see what the fuss is all about. I never talked to that woman again.

Gold Trumpet · August 27, 2003, 10:37:04 PM

cinemascope,

I can identify with your position even if disagreeing. My opinion is usually in the minority with agreeing with people. I don't mind if you dislike PTA, but you don't really bring any good criticism against him at all. First, you give argument to how you can pin point many shots from his films that are rip offs of others, films from people like Godard and Scorsese without realizing their cinema was encorporating nearly all realms of cinema into their own personal concerns. Godard with criticism of film and Scorsese with general encyclopedic knowledge of film. All this means is that they both took shots and specific filmmaking techniques from other filmmakers. Scorsese was most accused of lifting Ophuls and Welles and bringing a story narrative that was a cross between Cassavettes and Kazan. Everyone back in his early beginnings identified his filmmaking through his knowledge of film history. Its just that this argument explains nothing about talent in PTA and actually explains the typical for filmmakers in most of its history.

Then you cut into his use of narrative from Short Cuts because of similarities. Again, what does this explain in PTA's talent or lack of? Because structure and similiarity resides in a previous work you can say it is bad? Both Short Cuts and Magnolia are similiar, yes, but that explains nothing about how good each film is. With further thought, the lines of similarity between films and other films and even more so other books and narratives has to be so intertwined in similiarity that with any dime connection, you can sue someone else for plagiarism. Another film that is similiar to both Short Cuts and Magnolia is Kieslowski's Red, but no one accuses that film of anything. Its similiar in outer markings of what its purpose is, but the style and taste is of course different. This holds true with PTA and Altman.

I'm not going to defend PTA because you really have yet to give any argument against him. I don't mind getting into this kind of argument. Actually, I love it, but what your arguments smell more like rationalizations.

~rougerum

cine · August 27, 2003, 11:44:59 PM

I would love to argue this guy into the ground but really.. whats the point? We're all dumber for listening to him because he's ignorant, uneducated, and many other negative qualities that make up the quintessential jackass. I really don't know what else to say about it. Everybody and their mother has put in their two cents (I already did briefly earlier) on a guy who has too many stupid things to say. Why must we waste our time with him? Will somebody just please sacrifice him?

soixante · August 28, 2003, 12:37:17 AM

What makes PTA great?

For one thing, he gets great performances from actors. Has Mark Wahlberg ever been better than he was in Boogie Nights, or Burt Reynolds either? Tom Cruise gave his best performance in Magnolia. Adam Sandler, not known as a serious thespian, gives a performance of unexpected depth in Punch Drunk Love.

Of course, how do you "prove" that PTA is good with actors? You either enjoy the performances in his films, or you don't. But a more objective measure is the willingness of A-List actors (such as Cruise and Sandler) to work on PTA films for next to nothing. In today's greedy Hollywood, that in itself is notable. In fact, the only two times Cruise has worked for scale is for PTA and some guy named Kubrick.

PTA is still young, and young artists display their influences more prominently. Quite often, artists, filmmakers and composers will do parodies or rewrites of existing materials, or outright copies, simply to learn the craft. PTA did Dirk Diggler Story in the pseudo-documentary style of Spinal Tap, but when he finally turned it into Boogie Nights, he was more influenced by Scorsese and Altman.

Another measure of PTA's talent is the extent to which I get emotionally invested in his characters. Boogie Nights starts out in a light-hearted way, and touches upon the campy elements of the porn milieu, but as it goes along, it gets deeper, until we feel compassion for all of the characters. As much as I enjoy Tarantino's work, his characters never inspire pathos. For me, the scene in which Julianne Moore goes to a custody hearing and cannot escape her dark fate is truly moving. It is truly a "Wages of Sin" moment that shows what a high price these people pay to be in this business. Ultimately, Boogie Nights is a serious, moral film that shows the high cost of the lifestyle -- along with its flashy fringe benefits.

Stylistically, Boogie Nights is a cinematic tour de force, but it is also more than just a flashy exercise in style -- all of the characters are drawn with depth and sympathy, and seem like fully-breathing, lived-in human beings who happened to step into camera range. Like Midnight Cowboy, Boogie Nights shows that even the lowliest of human beings have dignity.

PTA's cinematic skills and empathy for all of his deeply flawed characters is on display in Magnolia as well, on an even broader canvas.

In Punch-Drunk Love, we see the anxiety and uncertainty and first tentative steps taken by a recluse who wants and needs love. Here is a film that is sensitive to all of the aggravation and fear and joy of falling in love. Not since Cassavetes in his prime has there been such a complex look at romance.

Certainly, no new filmmaker can match PTA for ambition, sense of scope, mastery of technique and ability to work with actors. But hey, that's just one person's opinion.

prophet · August 28, 2003, 12:55:02 AM

This thread makes me feel better. There's someone that got his ass kicked on the board more harshly then I did.

Sleuth · August 28, 2003, 12:56:32 AM

Why, what did you do?

Pedro · August 28, 2003, 12:58:01 AM

Quote from: CinephileI would love to argue this guy into the ground but really.. whats the point? We're all dumber for listening to him because he's ignorant, uneducated, and many other negative qualities that make up the quintessential jackass. I really don't know what else to say about it. Everybody and their mother has put in their two cents (I already did briefly earlier) on a guy who has too many stupid things to say. Why must we waste our time with him? Will somebody just please sacrifice him?

Just because you don't agree with his opinions doesn't mean that he isn't worth debating with. Personally, I STRONGLY disagree with him, but this isn't the way to deal with that. Take a stance like GT. what he did in his respsonse sums up a lot of what I dig about him....He argues decently....even if I totally disagree with him (as i often do...) he still proves himself well...

It's weird...one of your worst enemies here is Pantalones....he has been criticized in the past for doing exactly what you just did. Personally attack someone because because he disagrees with an opinion someone has...that's as serious as i'll ever get

prophet · August 28, 2003, 12:59:15 AM

CONAN should be before Jay Leno. I don't know, I guess I didn't post anything good, so I got made fun of and shut down.

cine · August 28, 2003, 02:35:15 AM

Quote from: Pedro the Wombat
Quote from: CinephileI would love to argue this guy into the ground but really.. whats the point? We're all dumber for listening to him because he's ignorant, uneducated, and many other negative qualities that make up the quintessential jackass. I really don't know what else to say about it. Everybody and their mother has put in their two cents (I already did briefly earlier) on a guy who has too many stupid things to say. Why must we waste our time with him? Will somebody just please sacrifice him?
Just because you don't agree with his opinions doesn't mean that he isn't worth debating with. Personally, I STRONGLY disagree with him, but this isn't the way to deal with that. Take a stance like GT. what he did in his respsonse sums up a lot of what I dig about him....He argues decently....even if I totally disagree with him (as i often do...) he still proves himself well...

It's weird...one of your worst enemies here is Pantalones....he has been criticized in the past for doing exactly what you just did. Personally attack someone because because he disagrees with an opinion someone has...that's as serious as i'll ever get

I see exactly where you're coming from. The thing is.. I love PTA and people like GT summed it up perfectly.. whats the sense in a guy like me reiterating what he just put? Personally I just don't like the idea of a guy like cinemascope starting this huge decision thats comparable to --as we've briefly touched on in this thread-- saying Scorsese ripped off people like Cassavetes and Kazan and a lot of the Italian cinema. Well, no he didn't.. he took his influences and made his own style.. and people like us love it. Now this guy is coming in here saying "Why's he so great? He copies.. Truffaut is better" and all that shit.. its annoying and a waste of arguing with. What's the use?
If you'd like me to explain why *I* feel PTA is a great director then okay.. fine.. to please the few of you who actually pleaded that justification from me then fine. I love PTA's films because they're ALIVE. In Boogie Nights, you're just welcomed to Horner's world of the pornography biz and you're sucked right in. And the music helps to just grasp you like a claw and you're hooked for however long the film is. That's what happened with me and Magnolia. I was literally on the edge of my seat in the theatre for the 3 hours and a bit that it was on and just GLUED to the screen. The film is so alive and free.. absolutely compelling.. and when Melora Walters smiles with Aimee Mann singing "Save Me", I sunk back into the seat and thought, "That was cinema at its fucking best." The direction of the scenes, the characters, the dialogue, the suspense, the soundtrack, and that CLIMAX. Whatta climax. And you don't see unpredictable climaxes like that in the cinema, do you? (unpredictable when not knowledgeable about exodus 8:2) That's cinema at its best. Boogie Nights. Magnolia. PTA made it. Not Truffaut or Godard or Altman or Scorsese or Demme or Tati or any of them. Paul Thomas Fuckin' Anderson. And I didn't even scratch the surface on how he revived the classic romance in PDL.. its so beautiful I could cry when I watch them kiss in those heavenly closeups. That's film for ya. No matter HOW much he uses from other films.. he puts it together into a PTA picture and makes magic with the chemistry of the actors/actresses and the flowing of the dialogue, action, etc. That's all PTA. That's all I want to say about PTA right now. Perhaps now you see why I got so offended by the guy asking "What's so great about him?" Folks, if we HAVE to we can just refer to the Tomatometer for Boogie Nights and research the 95% of critics who felt Boogie Nights was a great movie. A masterpiece of modern cinema, I'd say and so would many others. Ah I'm done.

The Silver Bullet · August 28, 2003, 03:10:13 AM

Pubrick · August 28, 2003, 06:17:24 AM

uh, why are so many ppl taking this guy seriously? mac, u are making great points and hav totally defeated him intelligently..

..but really, he's clearly stupid. three pages is way more attention than he deserves.

chainsmoking insomniac · August 28, 2003, 07:43:07 AM

Cinemascope,

I'm quite eager to hear your arguments against PTA. I think the life blood of message boards is dissent and conflicting views (that's what makes them interesting and this is how people learn differing views). However, you still haven't brought up any valid arguments other than that he uses shots and story structure from other director/writers, which those director/writers do too. Art is derivative. Everything's been done, to coin a phrase. The key is using what's been done before in such a way that it engages the audience. Now ask yourself this question: does PTA succeed in this? When you're watching his films, do you turn them off because they're boring? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you do. Unless you really do turn them off (and please tell me if you do) how can you possibly say with a straight face that PTA has failed in achieving audience interest?