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?
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.
exactly
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.
Scorsese is better.
but Magnolia is my favorite movie
:?: :!:
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
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.
nope, you're both wrong
it's Godard
Quote from: SoNowThennope, you're both wrong
it's Godard
Oh, you must join this discussion (http://xixax.com/viewtopic.php?t=1414&start=225), if that's the case.
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)
Quote from: chriskelvinQuote 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.
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.
..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.....
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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!
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.
I think Boogie Nights is far better than Goodfellas. Boogie Nights is mindblowing and heartbreaking, and I have absolutely no emotional connection with Goodfellas.
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.
Quote from: Pbut then, there wouldn't be a pta without scorsese.
Or without Ghoulardi.
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.
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.
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.
haha, jb, u shouldn't hav said "far".
P wrote:
haha, jb, u shouldn't hav said "far".
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haha, P, you really are a funny guy.
thanks. are u being sarcastic?
jb = JB = Jeremy Blackman.
also, (https://xixax.com/templates/xixmac/images/lang_english/icon_quote.gif).
Sarcastic? Nooo. Not me.
I was aware that jb = JB = Jeremy Blackman... should that meam something to me?
Also, not sure what you meant by: "also, quote" since Henry Hill never said, "P, you really are a funny guy," which indeed you are, so that quote is an entirely new creation of mine and not Nic Pileggi or Marty :-D .
Quote from: billybrownSarcastic? Nooo. Not me.
oh, ok. good then.
Quote from: billybrownI was aware that jb = JB = Jeremy Blackman... should that meam something to me?
nah, i was adding that in case u thought jb meant u for sum bizarre reason.
Quote from: billybrownAlso, not sure what you meant by: "also, quote" since Henry Hill never said, "P, you really are a funny guy," which indeed you are, so that quote is an entirely new creation of mine and not Nic Pileggi or Marty :-D .
i was referring to the Quote button located on the top right corner of everyone's posts. when clicked, it's good for quoting ppl.
cheerio then!
I was just "joshing" as the kids say with that whole quote thing P, but thanx for the quote button reply feature as I am a wee bit slow w/ all the various intricacies and short cuts on this MB as I am relatively new to it. That'll come in quite handy now when I'm too tired to do the whole cut and paste thing when needing to respond comments, be it agreeable, or in the case of JB = Jeremy Blackman, sacreligiously outlandish. Cheers! :)
Quote from: billybrownI was just "joshing"
i hear that way too much....funny saying tho.
The reason you HAVE to note PTA's ambitious quality is mainly because of Magnolia. With Magnolia, 29 year-old, let me repeat that again 29 year old PTA reached a certain level of maturity that would take the average filmmaker into at LEAST their mid-30's to achieve. Tarantino's most mature work was Jackie Brown, and he was 35 when he did that, and Jackie Brown doesn't even scratch the surface of Magnolia's maturity (I know it's not supposed to, but I'm just saying). When I say "maturity", I'm not just talking about Mag's subject, I'm also talking about the quality and depth of the writing, the characters, the direction, everything.
Also, with Punch-Drunk Love, he's already created a style so unique, and so original that it makes one wonder what else he has up his sleeve.
I'd write more, but it's 12:15 in the morning, and I'm surprisingly tired....
Quote from: billybrownPT 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.
Couldn't agree more.
Good show.