cigs & redvines possible interview

Started by modage, September 03, 2012, 06:43:40 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


ballsy question: did the tragic loss of his friend jeremy blake stir any form of inspirati--eh, he wouldnt touch this one.


Quote from: MacGuffin on September 04, 2012, 04:08:52 PM
Quote from: Reelist on September 04, 2012, 08:36:31 AM
Quote from: MacGuffin on September 03, 2012, 10:43:47 PM
Ask him how many bears he has drunk.

I got your answer:

Then ask him, left nut or right arm?

you guys. you guys. this bear thing. i even laugh about it later

i also just read a tweet that ebert retweeted, "You think film festival audiences are smart, savvy, discerning viewers until the Q&A, when you realize they're morons."

all of you.
who likes movies anyway


I really don't have a concrete question, but I'm extremely curious about how the editing process for The Master differed from the rest of his films. I've seen the film, and the trailers show that it could have been so many different entities. It almost feels like it could have been cut into a mini-series. It's slightly disappointing because so many of those scenes/shots from the trailer were so poetic and full of depth. They showed so many different layers to the characters/story--but now they are lost.

After my first viewing, I'd impulsively say that some of the guts of the story could have been lost somewhere in the editing room...but that's on one viewing...still a bit blind...I'm even more fucking excited for the second viewing than I was for the first.

Jeremy Blackman

^ One reason why I'm not watching the trailers (until after the film). Well, except the first teaser. But I barely remember it.

But that's a disappointing review. Are you saying it's edited in a conventional way?


I also didn't watch any of the trailers. Stay strong man, it's worth it. You'll enjoy the trailers afterwards for dessert  :yabbse-thumbup:

QuoteBut that's a disappointing review.

It's more of an observation than a review. Here's my non-disappointing/spoiler-free review (keep in mind, first viewing):

The film just washed over me like a "hazy fever dream" as somebody else put it. It was angry, it was drunk, it was dark, it was hilarious (HILARIOUS), it was brutal, it was dreamy/hazy, it was beautiful, it was endearing, it was a concoction of's a film that needs to be viewed so many times. It is EASILY PTA's most DENSE work to date. EASILY. This one is for the analyst, for the intuitionist...the scenes are so thick. Some of the greatest sequences ever put on film. This is a fucking experience.

QuoteAre you saying it's edited in a conventional way?

I'm saying the opposite, actually. The film is edited completely unconventionally, the editing is sublime to say the least. But in it's sublime nature, it leaves a lot of things behind that were probably just as juicy. Let me just put it this way, this film was much more like a beautiful piece of music than a great novel. And after you see some of the greatest trailers ever made, you'll realize that there was SO MUCH more to these characters, so much more to some of the scenes presented, and so many more stories that could have been told with it than we even know. So, this isn't really about being disappointed, it's about being a bit greedy.

EDIT: Just keep in mind that I can feel completely different about all of this after the next viewing...and the one after that.


Quote from: HeywoodRFloyd on September 04, 2012, 11:53:08 PM
Wow at that picture, what a legend.

I have an obvious question that should be asked if we don't find an answer until then.

Why did he release alternate takes/unused footage from the film in the teasers and trailers?

We all have our theories, but it'd be nice, not to mention concrete, if he were to shed some light on that

Here is some light shed on the question I asked last week:
What's the secret to a great trailer?
PTA: I don't know. In the case of Leslie Jones -- the editor I work with, She's the one who's spearheaded a lot of that stuff -- we started doing stuff like that on "Punch Drunk Love," where we had a lot of material that wasn't in the film and we wanted to work with it. But we didn't have any place to put it. It didn't belong in the film. So I don't know. Hopefully they can stand alone as their own little weird little things. They've been fun to do. Really fun. Kinda great. Yeah. Kinda great. Fun.

Full interview:


I don't know if this is interesting or not, and I remember Paul refusing to answer a similar question years ago, but let me give it a try:

Is there a reason why Leslie Jones is back as editor and frequent collaborator Dylan Tichenor is out of this one? Are there any considerable differences in the way they approach their work?


Maybe there was something about the way it was phrased the previous time he was asked that question, but if the emphasis is on the "differences in the way they approach their work" part, then it seems like a perfectly legit question. I'd love for that question to be asked... the editing in Punch-Drunk Love and in The Master lean toward experimental, in the sense that PTA seemed more open to trying different ways of cutting the material together. I almost get the sense there are were many cuts of The Master before settling on this cut. I'd love to hear about this process, and it's not a question I remember being asked before.


Found this in the IMDB boards:

smoghani23: "In all honesty, seeing that the film is regarding the ideals of cult, I'd love for this film to have been an intentional project to have had these unorthadox elements of storytelling and ambiguity to have intentionally seen who is willing to jump onboard (critics, fans, etc.) and call him a genius, much like how the followers of Lancaster revered him as a genius. Then I'd call this film a masterpiece for brilliantly breaking the fourth wall and becoming more than just a movie."

It would be interesting to actually read this to Paul and see his reaction  :ponder:


That's kind of one of the most simultaneously endearing and infuriating things about him, though.  He's not about to get into any deep discussions about his intentions.  At that press conference he looked so weary and unimpressed with any sort of attempt to engage him or get him to engage with his material or show his hand.  I think that kind of layered filmmaking is a bit too clever and cute for PTA, and his schtick is much different.  He doesn't set out go say something immediately, but rather is drawn to material and ends up telling a similar story in a better way, shuffling the deck of themes we're so used to, dealing 'em out in different orders and combinations.

As for PTA using unorthodox methods of storytelling, smoghani23 is too used to a frankly "American" or "Hollywood" way of seeing a film unreel.  If the editing throws you off and helps reveal the story in a refreshing way, that in itself is the reward.  I look to the editing of two films I remember that have done this novelly.  Off the top of my head it'd be Greenaway's The Pillow Book and Breillat's Fat Girl.  I haven't seen The Master yet, so I can't compare and contrast.  But the world is more than this continent, especially where editing is concerned.


^The question/idea is flawed and probably posted by someone who has never taken films seriously before.

The fact he considers it a possibility that PTA would make "just a movie" reveals his lack of insight into PTA and disdain for movies in general. He's had one idea permeate his narrow mind through the sheer force of PTA's clearly meaningful intentions, so he's convinced he must have cracked the case.

He talks like a conspiracy theorist, which as I've mentioned regarding the shining, seems to be the only way people can talk about a movie having any meaning.
under the paving stones.


I'd rather just wait for The Master Insider podcast to come out.


I definitely agree with you guys, no question. I just thought the idea was pretty hilarious. PTA would have a nice laugh. You guys gotta know that this film is nothing like any of his previous work though. Even though PTA approaches all of his films fresh, this one is the most drastic of a change. I really don't think you can analyze it like a normal PTA film, whatever that means. Need to see it again, can't fucking wait.


Why doesn't he record commentaries for his films (Magnolia onwards)?

Does he plan on recording commentaries in the future?

Since he himself said he learnt a lot from watching films with commentaries, I'm surprised he's stopped doing them.


Quote from: HeywoodRFloyd on September 19, 2012, 01:12:33 PM
Why doesn't he record commentaries for his films (Magnolia onwards)?

Does he plan on recording commentaries in the future?

Since he himself said he learnt a lot from watching films with commentaries, I'm surprised he's stopped doing them.

Wants films to speak for themselves. I remember him also saying a lot of people misinterpreted/took as gospel things he said on the Boogie commentary.