PTA reminds me of Kubrick...

[kassius]

In light of Paul losing for Best Director and seeing his film lose for Best Picture, I can't help but remind myself of how much Paul reminds me of Stanley Kubrick.

Not so much as for having similar styles of filmmaking although one can certainly point out similarities found in 2001 and The Shining when watching TWBB – but as far as the career paths that the two took.

Stanley Kubrick, from what I've read was a true film buff who decided one day that he wanted to make movies. As the story goes, his dad bought him a camera when he was 13 and he took some beautiful pictures and his work, landed a job at a local magazine a few years later.



Kubrick also showed a great admiration for movies, frequenting film screenings in New York City where he recognized and appreciated the camerawork of Max Ophüls, the German born director, whose visual style Kubrick most certainly used throughout his own career as a filmmaker.

BUT Stanley to my knowledge never had any formal education in filmmaking. He was first and foremost a fan of movies, who one day decided... "I want to make movies" and simply made movies.

I see a lot of that in Paul. Paul from what I know, attended a film school in New York for about a week before dropping out and used his money for college to finance the short film, Cigarettes & Coffee which turned out to be a wise decision. BUT Paul never really had any by-the-book classes on how to make movies and one can argue whether that is a good thing or a bad thing... I like to believe his lack of by-the-book formal education on movie making has allowed him to have a much rawer and sometimes a cliché free perspective as a filmmaker. Of course, that's just my opinion.



BUT I only bring this up because last night the Coen Brothers, of course as we all know, won Best Director and Best Picture for No Country for Old Men. The Coen Brothers in sharp contrast have been making movies since 1985. In that time they've seen films like Fargo and Where Brother, lose Oscars. It's been a bitter road traveled.

AND unlike Kubrick and Paul, Joel Coen spent four years in the undergraduate film program at New York University! The two brothers certainly paid their dues and worked hard to get to where they are... In other words, it didn't come naturally. I think it bugs people when others are naturally gifted, rather than those who spend years earning the respect they deserve. 

Don't get me wrong, No Country for Old Men was a great movie and I am huge Coen Brothers fan, but I just felt like Paul got shafted for things beyond him and his film. Call me crazy...

I bring this up this whole "deserving an Oscar" theory, because I remember years ago when Bill Murray lost the Best Actor award for "Lost in Translation" and afterwards a few critics were trying to put it into perspective. They made a good point... while other actors are in film class struggling to perfect their craft and always trying to receive more education and bettering themselves, Bill Murray is out playing golf and being silly. They don't see this level of struggle and hard work in Bill's career and have a hard time awarding him.

That being said, I have to wonder if Paul's lack of formal filmmaking education is causing him to be punished by the Academy? It might be a silly argument since he's still young and Martin Scorsese certainly waited a long time for his due.

BUT back to my point on comparing Stanley Kubrick to Paul, I can't help but notice the similarities.  Paul is a perfectionist waiting years before undertaking his next project. He's clearly concern about his overall body of work and would rather make 6 great movies in his entire career than 30 films only 5 which are worth a damn.

I say this because you look on IMDB and Paul hasn't even begun considering a new film after TWBB. In fact, most of his movies are spaced 3 years apart. Not as far apart as Kubrick though who through the 70's and 80's, was pretty much 7 years or more apart from making each film. BUT compare the two of them to the Coen Brothers, who already have four new films in the works! haha And I'm sorry, but I truly believe that Paul would never be caught dead making some crap like The Laddykillers or Intolerable Cruelty. The Coen Brothers just don't give a damn sometimes and that bothers me.

STILL when it's all said and done, I still respect the Oscars. I think it's still the more respectable award show of the entire entertainment industry. The Grammy in sharp contrast is an absolute marketing joke. The Grammy's is all about star power on the red carpet and it's just pathetic!! Personally, I listen to a ton of music, most of which is very indie and underground but most defiantly reviewed more favorably to what ultimately wins on shows like The Grammy's or the American Music Awards. To me, something should win Best Record because it was the Best Record, even if it didn't go Triple Platinum.

Compared to the Oscars... where there are so many award shows leading up the big night like Cannes and Sundance and the Golden Globes and let's see, The Directors Guild and BAFTA and the Berlin International Film Festival and a list that goes on and on... compared to the music industry really doesn't recognize any other award format other than The Grammy's and so, the lack of being a respectable award show is just completely diminished.

BUT Oscar night is also dealing with a decline in the ratings, so maybe the Grammy's decision towards more star power and less quality is allowing them to laugh all the way to the bank? I don't know...

O.K., but my final point is although I am frustrated that Paul didn't win, I haven't given up all hope on the Oscars and respect their decision.  That is all.

Sorry for the ramblings.

[Gold Trumpet]

They have very general similarities, as many filmmakers have with each other. I wouldn't try to make too much of it. If you just focus on that then you lose distinguishing the characteristics that show the best of their talents.

[FrunLg]

Not so much as for having similar styles of filmmaking although one can certainly point out similarities found in 2001 and The Shining when watching TWBB – but as far as the career paths that the two took.

I also discovered another Kubrick comparison with TWBB and FMJ. If you can remember that sweeping dolly shoot in FMJ when the troops are running towards the ambush, with the fire up ahead. It's almost the same sweeping shot/effect in TWBB, the one from the trailer. Who knows if it's deliberate, but Kubrick is definately swimming around PTA's unconscious.

[Gold Trumpet]

Not so much as for having similar styles of filmmaking although one can certainly point out similarities found in 2001 and The Shining when watching TWBB – but as far as the career paths that the two took.

I also discovered another Kubrick comparison with TWBB and FMJ. If you can remember that sweeping dolly shoot in FMJ when the troops are running towards the ambush, with the fire up ahead. It's almost the same sweeping shot/effect in TWBB, the one from the trailer. Who knows if it's deliberate, but Kubrick is definately swimming around PTA's unconscious.

Many filmmakers take shots from each other. If you look too deeply into that then you can make a case for numerous filmmakers taking after each other, but the fact is that the shots and techniques a filmmaker uses don't mean that much. Each film and filmmaker profess different philosophies and ideas beneath all the techniques. As much as you want to read into the common traits both filmmakers have, there is little intellectual similarity between them.

[Gamblour.]

I know the Coens aren't the point of this, but I would say that they most certainly are naturally talented filmmakers, despite having gone to film school. Those two aren't mutually exclusive. Not everyone learns everything at film school.

[md]

Diablo Cody won the best screenplay award....so you and the oscars both fail.

[Jeremy Blackman]

It just struck me that the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey looks a lot like Matthew Barney.

[Alexandro]

PTA lost the oscar because a film like There Will Be Blood, to win a major award like best pic or director, needs the universal love that this year was shown all around to No Country for Old Men. Both films are deeply hated by regular folks just going to the movies. They are, in their eyes, incomplete, insatisfactory, depressing and pointless films. They don't make them feel good at the end, and instead of that, leave them with a fucking question mark over their heads. That's great for you guys and me, and one big minority in the world, but is not the norm. The Oscars are a popularity contest that this year got bullied by every critic and association into giving a completely anti oscar film their biggest prizes. And those people did that because they felt No Country was the better film (or maybe the least alienating one). I don't know if they were right or wrong, but I do know that the vibe around is that if No Country is a bad film for the average joes, Bood is even worst. I personally can't choose between them. They're both beautiful nightmares to enjoy till I depart from this world.

[Gamblour.]

It just struck me that Matthew Barney looks a lot like the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey .

[Reel]

[Pubrick]

And that scene ends with Thus Spake Zarathustra introducing Frank TJ Mackey, the star child.

PTA is the new Kubrick that has always been known, even to himself.

He doesn't talk about him that much though, not as much as Altman. Which is weird. I think thematically he has more in common with Altman (not least because Altman embraced actors as his best friends) but spiritually PTA's ass belongs to Kubrick.. because they are both redeeming mankind.

[Fernando]

He doesn't talk about him that much though...

yep he doesnt, but when he does he always puts SK in a high place, just watch this clip which im sure everybody here has seen from his magnolia period.



i love how he stutters to say ews.

also, lest not forget how he channeled the shining with cmbb.