Licorice Pizza - Speculation & General Reactions

[Montclair]

This isn't up for debate.

The red flags are coming fast and furious at this point, but I wanted to point this one out specifically. You have absolutely no power to preclude or end discussion on a topic or prevent people from responding; for that you can start a blog or a website.

As for the topic, adapting a great work vs. having written that great work are different levels difficulty, but I think there's more nuance to it than you're allowing. The original author and adapting author are different people with different processes, writing an original novel and adapting a novel into a screenplay are wildly different disciplines, etc.

Clearly there's a lot to talk about and plenty of room for debate, so we don't need to be planting our feet and crossing our arms when someone disagrees. I'll ask you to take things down a notch or step away if you feel too heated about this topic.

Speaking of "fast and furious" and allowing for "nuances" I get that the first "Fast and Furious" movie was an original screenplay and that writing it wasn't as difficult as Orson Welles' failed attempt at adapting Heart of Darkness for the screen. Trust me, I get it. Writing a great novel and writing a great screenplay are two very different levels of writing. Adapting a story into a script and writing an original script are two very different levels of writing. I sincerely hope that we can all agree on the fact that creating something great out of thin air takes more talent than adapting something great from an already great source. If you read the play of "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" by Edward Albee and then read the Oscar nominated screenplay by Ernest Lehman, you'll find that all of the dialogue from Albee's play was transcribed by Lehman into the screenplay. Again, he got nominated for an Academy Award for this. Edward Albee might disagree with you on adaptation being merely about "different processes" and "different disciplines." Edward Albee would say that what he did in creating the play is miles ahead of what Ernest Lehman did when it comes to adapting it into a screenplay. He'd also say that the amount of talent it took for him to write the play is miles ahead of the amount of talent it took for Lehman to write the adaptation.

[Shughes]

Very much wishful thinking on my part but could the "longer project" mentioned by PTA be Mason & Dixon?

No, because he wouldn't say that he's having difficulty "writing it" since it's just an adaptation.

That doesnt really rule Mason & Dixon out. If its a tough book to adapt then he could be having trouble "writing it".

Yes, it rules it out. Adapting a novel isn't difficult in comparison to writing an original story. He adapted Inherent Vice by copying it out into Microsoft Word and then cutting it down. Pretty simple.

You're experienced in both, are you? 

What? Do I have to be experienced in both to know that creating an original great work of art is MUCH more difficult than transcribing/copying/tracing an original great work of art? This isn't up for debate.

I would say that both adapting existing material and writing original material would be challenging in their own ways.

As we know, what works in a novel doesn't always work on screen. It isn't a case of just copying it over. In some ways original material can be more freeing because you're not tied to making something work from the novel. In any case, I wouldn't say either would be a simple process.

I would say this is very much up for debate.

As for Paul's own description of the process that you mentioned, I'm sure there's more to it than that. If he made it sound simple I'm almost sure he was being self-effacing and humble.

Dude, I'd say what F. Scott Fitzgerald did when he wrote The Great Gatsby was much more difficult than what the many different screenwriters did when adapting it. That's not up for debate. Also, Paul isn't making "Mason & Dixon" as his next film, that would've been a huge announcement. I'm really not sure why we're even still talking about this?

I'd only add that we're not debating the act of creating a piece of literature and comparing that to adapting it for the screen. We're discussing the original remark that suggested adapting an existing piece of material was simple when compared to writing an original.

We're still talking about it because I disagree, as I feel some others may too. I appreciate that other opinions exist, and would just put forward that I believe both could be equally difficult, and have different specific challenges on a project by project basis.

If the original post rubbed me the wrong way it was simply the certainty with which the opinion was put forward. I am a writer but don't think that makes my opinion more valid than anyone who doesn't write.

To bring us back on topic, all of this is to say that I don't believe Paul hitting difficulties when writing rules out the notion that it could be an adaptation he was working on. (I don't believe he's adapting 'Mason & Dixon' either).

Adapting an original source and turning it into a great story is difficult. Writing a great original story is MUCH more difficult. NOBODY who knows ANYTHING about writing would EVER deny this. When Paul said he was hitting difficulties on a much longer project, it definitely was not an adaptation. I promise you. In fact, when the new project gets announced, let's do a ban bet. Are you up for it?

Haha. I won't take that bet. I agree he is probably not writing an adaptation. That was never the part I was debating.

As for the rest, let's agree to disagree. I'm excited for LP and whatever comes after.

Out of curiosity, how do people feel about the amount of work Paul has made - 9 (dramatic) features in 25 years - since it came up in the Q&A?

I think that's quite prolific and something anyone could be proud of, especially with the quality of the work.

The younger me would think that more was possible in that time, but I feel like I now know how difficult it is to get any feature made. My stance has softened - or even reversed - as years have gone on.

Scorsese said of Kubrick, if he'd made more films in that time we wouldn't have gotten the ones he actually made (I'm paraphrasing). This sums it up for me. Good work takes time.

[Montclair]

Very much wishful thinking on my part but could the "longer project" mentioned by PTA be Mason & Dixon?

No, because he wouldn't say that he's having difficulty "writing it" since it's just an adaptation.

That doesnt really rule Mason & Dixon out. If its a tough book to adapt then he could be having trouble "writing it".

Yes, it rules it out. Adapting a novel isn't difficult in comparison to writing an original story. He adapted Inherent Vice by copying it out into Microsoft Word and then cutting it down. Pretty simple.

You're experienced in both, are you? 

What? Do I have to be experienced in both to know that creating an original great work of art is MUCH more difficult than transcribing/copying/tracing an original great work of art? This isn't up for debate.

I would say that both adapting existing material and writing original material would be challenging in their own ways.

As we know, what works in a novel doesn't always work on screen. It isn't a case of just copying it over. In some ways original material can be more freeing because you're not tied to making something work from the novel. In any case, I wouldn't say either would be a simple process.

I would say this is very much up for debate.

As for Paul's own description of the process that you mentioned, I'm sure there's more to it than that. If he made it sound simple I'm almost sure he was being self-effacing and humble.

Dude, I'd say what F. Scott Fitzgerald did when he wrote The Great Gatsby was much more difficult than what the many different screenwriters did when adapting it. That's not up for debate. Also, Paul isn't making "Mason & Dixon" as his next film, that would've been a huge announcement. I'm really not sure why we're even still talking about this?

I'd only add that we're not debating the act of creating a piece of literature and comparing that to adapting it for the screen. We're discussing the original remark that suggested adapting an existing piece of material was simple when compared to writing an original.

We're still talking about it because I disagree, as I feel some others may too. I appreciate that other opinions exist, and would just put forward that I believe both could be equally difficult, and have different specific challenges on a project by project basis.

If the original post rubbed me the wrong way it was simply the certainty with which the opinion was put forward. I am a writer but don't think that makes my opinion more valid than anyone who doesn't write.

To bring us back on topic, all of this is to say that I don't believe Paul hitting difficulties when writing rules out the notion that it could be an adaptation he was working on. (I don't believe he's adapting 'Mason & Dixon' either).

Adapting an original source and turning it into a great story is difficult. Writing a great original story is MUCH more difficult. NOBODY who knows ANYTHING about writing would EVER deny this. When Paul said he was hitting difficulties on a much longer project, it definitely was not an adaptation. I promise you. In fact, when the new project gets announced, let's do a ban bet. Are you up for it?

Haha. I won't take that bet. I agree he is probably not writing an adaptation. That was never the part I was debating.

As for the rest, let's agree to disagree. I'm excited for LP and whatever comes after.

Out of curiosity, how do people feel about the amount of work Paul has made - 9 (dramatic) features in 25 years - since it came up in the Q&A?

I think that's quite prolific and something anyone could be proud of, especially with the quality of the work.

The younger me would think that more was possible in that time, but I feel like I now know how difficult it is to get any feature made. My stance has softened - or even reversed - as years have gone on.

Scorsese said of Kubrick, if he'd made more films in that time we wouldn't have gotten the ones he actually made (I'm paraphrasing). This sums it up for me. Good work takes time.

Yeah, Wes has made 10 in that same amount of time. I'd love to have more from both of them, but you can't rush greatness. I REALLY wish Spike Jonze would've made more, though. He's perhaps the greater filmmaker out of the three.

[itwasgood]

Picture from today's screening

https://twitter.com/ByClaytonDavis/status/1457505003417923589

[HACKANUT]

I found it particularly perceptive that the moderator said Paul doesn't go fast or slow in terms of choosing his projects...  he's deliberate.
That's not really something I've thought before word for word, but it struck me as one of those things that, once you hear it, you feel you've always known.

[Yes]

https://twitter.com/TheLewisTan/status/1457533809906257927

[nomorecoffee]

Seems pretty clear that Cooper is not joining the Q&A sessions contrary to what was planned? Maybe he changed his mind/director wants to protect him?
Wonder if he will show up Tuesday in NYC for the first screening in the city

[Drill]

Seems pretty clear that Cooper is not joining the Q&A sessions contrary to what was planned? Maybe he changed his mind/director wants to protect him?
Wonder if he will show up Tuesday in NYC for the first screening in the city

He was never scheduled for the LA screenings. Just the NYC ones.

[Yes]

https://twitter.com/loquaciousmuse/status/1457584699027582980

[wilberfan]

Absolutely agree.

[Drill]

Interesting. Coincidentally, she and Wes Anderson were a couple for a while.

I LOVED @licoricepizza ! Its so great to see an artist / filmmaker keep getting better and better #paulthomasanderson I met you when I was 15 years old and went to boarding school with Amanda Anderson you're little sister and her BFF @kellybadham who became my closest friend at school . I remember hearing all the family drama and stories and it is so reflected in this incredible film .. truly this is so dilled with the feeling of coming of age and one's first crush .. the emotion of being different then what is deemed "normal " and expected .. it felt like a great film of the 70's yet with more awareness and I am so blown away and forgot what it felt like to see art on the big screen again ! THANK YOU . Standout performances by @alanahaim and #cooperhoffman . And @bradleycooperroffical is always great . It was unexpected amd original .. beautiful cinematography and the feeling in it and the movement / rhythm.. was just so right in every single way . I really forgot how good it feels to be in a dark movie theater alone with something bigger then life that reflects so much of what life is about so that you walk out a little bit less alone , a little more understood , and a little bit more conscious and aware Then before . Thank you for making great art . And film is art . More then most commercial "art " is these days and this was way more then that . Please go see this film!!!

View this post on Instagram

[d]

Interesting indeed. This one apparently is linked to some really unique and personal relationship with his family but in general I worry a little bit if too much fun and appreciation of LP does not come from deep understanding or even living there and then. A few opinions of those slightly disappointed mention that it apparently appealed more to the middle aged residents of those areas.

[Lots of Bees]

Whoever's running that "Sam Harpoon" account on twitter is like a human encyclopedia of film. Who could it be? I've seen theories for PTA, Maron, Rian Johnson, Pynchon himself... all of the above? Really entertaining to read through if just for the sheer amount of name dropping and (I'm assuming) made-up anecdotes.

And what's the consensus here? Is it just Stiller in makeup?

[RudyBlatnoyd]

From what I can gather – including PTA's jokey responses to the Stiller question in that Q&A – it is quite clearly actually Stiller, no?

[Drenk]

https://twitter.com/loquaciousmuse/status/1457584699027582980

I don't mind, but I believe that kind of stuff is more spoilery than plot details. « There's a great five minutes scene with that actress! Brace yourself! » creates all sort of expectations, and then I'm « oh, here is that scene » instead of letting the movie flow, whereas plot details are abstract to me. Character dies at the end? Okay.