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 Pages 1 2 3
User actions

ElPandaRoyal

#15
November 27, 2003, 04:50:06 AM
If the world wins in PTA (as I sure hope it does) a filmmaker as great as Scorsese, then the world will be a better place.  8)
Si

Pubrick

#16
November 27, 2003, 06:31:00 AM
Quote from: NEON MERCURYand he hasn't slipped yet like marty(i.e. kundun).....
so by slipped u mean made one of his best films..

i think u meant New York, New York there.
under the paving stones.

SoNowThen

#17
November 27, 2003, 10:02:29 AM
actually NY NY is a very underrated film.

his best? no. but still great to watch.


also, I don't understand this thing about PTA being more ambitious. barring Boxcar Bertha which Marty pretty much HAD to do to jump his career, his first 4 movies were:

Who's That Knocking On My Door?
Mean Streets
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Taxi Driver

considering he made the first two with next to nothing, then did a studio film with a female lead that brought the oscar home for her, then made what many consider to be the greatest american film ever, well, I'd say that's pretty ambitious... not to mention that he went on to NYNY, which is a big budget musical that was largely improvised.
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.

Gold Trumpet

#18
November 27, 2003, 12:36:32 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenalso, I don't understand this thing about PTA being more ambitious. barring Boxcar Bertha which Marty pretty much HAD to do to jump his career, his first 4 movies were:

Who's That Knocking On My Door?
Mean Streets
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Taxi Driver

considering he made the first two with next to nothing, then did a studio film with a female lead that brought the oscar home for her, then made what many consider to be the greatest american film ever, well, I'd say that's pretty ambitious... not to mention that he went on to NYNY, which is a big budget musical that was largely improvised.

only the last film you mentioned really is ambitious. making films next to nothing is typical of every up and coming filmmaker. doing a studio film afterwards is smart business. Doing it with a female lead only wasn't even revolutionary in the 1910s. It was smart business because many stars back then where female over male. Calling Taxi Driver one of the greatest films ever doesn't transpire to it being ambitious.

SoNowThen

#19
November 27, 2003, 12:41:29 PM
a. I think it was ambitious to make a film that others deemed "sick" and "highly disturbing" and "pornographic", and to do that film on a very small budget, using very avante garde filming style heavily plucked from European cinema (taxi driver)

b. make a "woman's film" when it's painfully obvious that you are a man's man director, and working within the melodrama, when you are famous for your verite style (alice)

also, you can call PTA more ambitious when he makes a hardcore controversial religious film, an adapatation of an unadaptable wharton novel, and a biopic on a spiritual leader in a totally different culture, all within 10 years.
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.

Alexandro

#20
November 27, 2003, 01:00:24 PM
Quote from: SoNowThen

also, you can call PTA more ambitious when he makes a hardcore controversial religious film, an adapatation of an unadaptable wharton novel, and a biopic on a spiritual leader in a totally different culture, all within 10 years.

Indeed...

mutinyco

#21
November 27, 2003, 02:31:45 PM
SoNowThen wrote:
also, you can call PTA more ambitious when he makes a hardcore controversial religious film, an adapatation of an unadaptable wharton novel, and a biopic on a spiritual leader in a totally different culture, all within 10 years. <<<

Yeah, but none of 'em are any good. I think the only comparison between the two directors is an afinity for moving the camera and cutting really fast. That's about it. That and not-so-great storytelling skills that are often overshadowed by those visuals. They're both uneven, though they display flashes of brilliance. Their parts are more interesting than their wholes. But if PTA can mature a bit, I think he'll be a better filmmaker. Don't you love it when I jump into Scorsese threads!
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

AntiDumbFrogQuestion

#22
November 28, 2003, 12:08:58 AM
PT Scorsese!
Martin Anderson!

I love them both, but PTA has yet to make a bland film. Films with bland parts, but not bland. Unfortunately, Marty lost my vote with Bringing Out the Dead (in many parts, although I dug much of the Movie), but then, he's made SO many movies before that one, including Raging Bull and Goodfellas which are my faves.

TIE.

Jeremy Blackman

#23
November 28, 2003, 12:29:31 AM
I think Boogie Nights is far better than Goodfellas. Boogie Nights is mindblowing and heartbreaking, and I have absolutely no emotional connection with Goodfellas.

Pubrick

#24
November 28, 2003, 12:39:52 AM
man, it's like comparing the father to the son.

they are different generations and scorsese did what he had to do with his time. pta is around a much better time, with more freedom, and that's why he's done so much more with his first 4 films. seriously, if scorsese was pta's age he would be doing the same thing as any young maverick would.

but then, there wouldn't be a pta without scorsese.
under the paving stones.

ElPandaRoyal

#25
November 28, 2003, 04:54:57 AM
Quote from: Pbut then, there wouldn't be a pta without scorsese.

Or without Ghoulardi.
Si

SoNowThen

#26
November 28, 2003, 09:40:41 AM
Quote from: Pman, it's like comparing the father to the son.

they are different generations and scorsese did what he had to do with his time. pta is around a much better time, with more freedom, and that's why he's done so much more with his first 4 films. seriously, if scorsese was pta's age he would be doing the same thing as any young maverick would.

but then, there wouldn't be a pta without scorsese.

Agreed.
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.

Sanjuro

#27
November 28, 2003, 12:20:56 PM
magnolia is a very ambitious film
pdl follows
then
boogie nights
then
hard eight

these arent very conventional film plots and i think thats what makes them ambitious especially magnolia.
"When you see your own photo, do you say you're a fiction?"

billybrown

#28
November 30, 2003, 12:02:42 AM
Jeremy Blackman wrote:

I think Boogie Nights is far better than Goodfellas. Boogie Nights is mindblowing and heartbreaking, and I have absolutely no emotional connection with Goodfellas.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another comment that I just have to respond to and type till my fingers blister.

Holy hyperbole-infested overstatement of the decade, Blackman!!! In the immortal words of Henry Hill, Jeremy: "You really are a funny guy."

First off, let me just say that like most of us on here, I am a huge fan of PT Anderson and all his films- Boogie Nights included- but to say that it is FAR better than Goodfellas is just plain nuts.

Sorry, but the whole "no emotional connection" criticism is a very amateur and pedestrian way to critique a film that is basically just personal opinion and /or preference, that can be basically applied to any film. When actually looking at the 2 films constructively, Goodfellas is head and shoulders a far better and more thoroughly detailed view into a particular world and the people that inhabit it. Whether you care for the characters emotionally or not is not even the point. Marty, unlike most directors, has, for the most part depicted grim, gritty worlds w/ usually unredeemable characters that aren't portrayed in a fashion upon which viewers will or should sympathize in the standard movie-going fashion. That's not a flaw, but rather a completely refreshing and welcome approach to making films that we don't see enough of. PT meanwhile, with BN and Magnolia anyways, has shown a particular affinity for basically writing superior melodrama which is meant to be heavy on emotions, etc., very akin to really good soap operas. It is, IMHO a strength and weakness of his, which at times creates uneven pictures. Early on in a key scene in BN, when Mark Wahlberg has it out w/ his mom, it is a thoroughly underwhelming scene for which it should have played out as a far more explosive and emotionally engaging moment. Not sure if it was the writing or the acting, but it just doesn't feel real as one of the trigger points to the advent of Dirk Diggler.  Even the end of the film, we see the characters PT most wants us to connect w/ emotionally enjoying a happy ending of sorts which also feels a lil manufactured and convenient. Flipside, Goodfellas never has a false beat, and competely seduces the viewer into a world so richly portrayed, that it's ridiculous.  Very few films are able to capture a time and place as well as Goodfellas. The films has soooo many now classic scenes, i.e., the Copa shot, the "what's so funny" Pesci sequence... the use of freeze frame and music (Eric Clapton anyone?), slo-mo, etc., etc, and even the entire backend of the film which works as an almost separate film in depicting the downfall of the wiseguys is just plain exhilerating and frightening to watch. Boogie Nights is a treat to watch visually no doubt, but Goodfellas remains one of the most fluidly directed films of all-time. It's the work of a director at the absolute apex of his powers.

Final thoughts... just from a purely influential POV, Goodfellas has influenced far more films and directors than Boogie Nights has, with Boogie Nights itself infact being one of them. That alone illustrates the superiority of Goodfellas over BN. PT is still young and will no doubt have many many great films to come, but Marty is the MAN and the MAN just happens to be the reigning God of cinema and you can't really fuck with the Jesus. Cheers :-D.

Pubrick

#29
November 30, 2003, 12:26:19 AM
haha, jb, u shouldn't hav said "far".
under the paving stones.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3
User actions