|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Jul 29, 2019 4:43:29 GMT
ehh that's debatable. I'd certainly call PTA a unique and distinctive artist, and I definitely prefer him to Scorsese and Altman for starters (although that's totally subjective and irrelevant i know). Regardless, you can't deny PTA's films are recognizable as entirely his own. His films defy comparison. They're one of a kind. He's an original in every sense of the word. Yeah it's debatable. And what's original to some may seem worn out to others. Just look at the arguments around First Reformed last year... some people denounced it as Winter Light 2.0 for structural and thematic similarities. I can see where they're coming from but to me that's missing the point in a key way. You can't invent a "theme" and you'll have a hard time coming up with a new "structure", but an intuitive artist can express something new... and there's no way a 1961 chamber piece from Sweden (which uses a lot of 19th century ideas, true to Bergman) is expressing the same thing as the contemporary American nightmare that is First Reformed. I'd have no trouble calling it one of the most original American films of the decade. Because the mood is new, and this gives new meaning to old ideas. Agree 100% on First Reformed (which thematically owes a lot more to Taxi Driver than Winter Light). And I know it's all subjective and everyone has different experiences but to me what you're saying about Schrader is how I felt seeing There Will Be Blood, The Master, and Phantom Thread for the first times. And for the record, those are the films I think about when I consider PTA's true aesthetic because they're the ones that most stymie comparison. Obviously he pulled a lot from Scorsese in the 90s, a lot of people did, and Scorsese himself owed a lot to the French New Wave. But he wasn't pulling from Scorsese or Altman when he made those three films. TWBB and The Master especially feel so closely linked artistically and yet completely apart from virtually anything else I've seen or heard about, and that's because whatever influenced those films were clearly supplemental to PTA's vision and filmmaking style, not intrinsic to it. That's what separates truly visionary directors from gifted imitators; the ability to create something fresh and unique from ingredients that have all been used before. Also, I think there's something to be said for a director wearing influences on their sleeve if a particular style of vibe serves the story being told. Call Me By Your Name is a great example of this with its stylistic callbacks to Rohmer (the idyllic setting, the emotion conveyed subtly through conversation), and the film's visual language also owes a lot to James Ivory (especially of A Room with a View and Maurice) and I think that was intentional on Gaudagnino's part and not just because of Ivory's involvement. If it's not broke, it doesn't need to be fixed. Rohmer's films are lovely and beautiful, so are Ivory's, so is Call Me By Your Name, and although it borrows from Rohmer's and Ivory's aesthetics you can't say it's precisely like any film from their filmographies. It exists apart. Same thing with Tarantino. You can watch Dark of the Sun and notice how aspects of it inspired Inglourious Basterds, but no film that inspired Tarantino has ever felt precisely like any of the projects he's created. I think the same applies to PTA. So while you might detect a bit of Ophuls and Visconti in Phantom Thread, I think it's exciting enough that PTA, combining the exquisitely textured look of the film with a darkly comic (and masochistic) love story in the fashion industry and an ensemble of brilliant performances took those influences and distilled them into something unlike anything else we've seen from cinema in that last few decades at least. That's what makes PTA an original voice. No one is making movies like him right now and I think it'd take an enormous amount of effort not to mention talent to replicate or even imitate the lightning in a bottle that especially defines There Will Be Blood, The Master and Phantom Thread, and that goes far beyond simple mastery of the craft, which of course PTA has for days.
|
|
Javi
Badass
Posts: 1,532
Likes: 1,622
|
Post by Javi on Jul 29, 2019 5:11:45 GMT
I probably need to give Punch-Drunk Love another watch... saw it ages ago and honestly it's a blur.
Agreed on the influences; movies complement each other all the time, there's a dialogue between French New Wave and New Hollywood, and PTA incorporates his influences in mostly interesting ways. I just personally don't see him as a visionary director (yet), but there are flashes of brilliance in There Will Be Blood that seem uniquely his own. The imagery in that is unforgettable and there's meaning and dramatic charge behind it, not just great craftsmanship. I wish that brilliance was sustained.
Strongly admire Phantom Thread, maybe even love it. It's an American director playing with a (mostly) foreign sensibility and it's thrilling to watch. I think our disagreement there boils down to semantics alone.
Love your comment on Guadagnino (I'm a fan of his work) and Rohmer btw. Spot on.
|
|
|
Post by themoviesinner on Jul 29, 2019 5:20:49 GMT
Both have made masterful films, but also films that I didn't like at all. I'll say PTA, just because he has made the best film for me from either's filmography (The Master), but I'm not a really big fan of either.
|
|
|
Post by urbanpatrician on Jul 29, 2019 5:26:32 GMT
PTA fanboys take a seat and a purgative.
We get that lots of films in general feel like previous, past films. Scorsese may have been influenced from the French new wave, but no way did he make it so apparent in his emulation. Can't compare the extent of PTA's emulating to Scorsese's. It's not even close. PTA wins that one by a landslide.
We're simply stating we can't credit PTA for being that much of a unique American voice when so much of his work is taken from the 70s guys. And some of you haven't denied that at all. Pointing out specific attributes of his work that make him unique does not mitigate that fact. Every auteur has unique aspects. Whit Stillman has unique aspects. And so....?
|
|
|
Post by Johnny_Hellzapoppin on Jul 29, 2019 12:13:54 GMT
For now I give Coppola the edge, but honestly, one more great film from Anderson and he'll take the win.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2019 12:16:20 GMT
He also didn't make The Godfather, The Godfather: Part II, The Conversation, or Apocalypse Now. lol He also didn't help make Sofia Coppola - a huge tick in FFC's favor.
|
|
futuretrunks
Based
Posts: 3,206
Likes: 1,427
Member is Online
|
Post by futuretrunks on Sept 14, 2019 23:34:36 GMT
The Godfather Part II is worth more than PTA's entire filmography to date. I say that as someone who loves Boogie Nights and PDL. He's just not remotely as important as Coppola, and his filmmaking has gone from derivative but technically and tonally masterful to willfully confused.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Oct 1, 2019 1:16:38 GMT
First of all - he doesn't know how to end movies - Magnolia (and Inherent Vice) may still be playing since it never actually wraps up .......TWBB his greatest film has an ending right out of existentialist theater (it's The Lesson - not saying he stole it, but he kind of "used" it at least) and Phantom Thread is a great ending ..........for a NOVEL .........when everyone else would have ended it without dialog/narration a beat or two or three earlier. What are your thoughts on The Master's ending? I think I remember you calling it a flawed great film... do you find the ending to be an issue there?
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 1, 2019 7:56:10 GMT
First of all - he doesn't know how to end movies - Magnolia (and Inherent Vice) may still be playing since it never actually wraps up .......TWBB his greatest film has an ending right out of existentialist theater (it's The Lesson - not saying he stole it, but he kind of "used" it at least) and Phantom Thread is a great ending ..........for a NOVEL .........when everyone else would have ended it without dialog/narration a beat or two or three earlier. What are your thoughts on The Master's ending? I think I remember you calling it a flawed great film... do you find the ending to be an issue there? You have a real good memory The_Cake_of_Roth - like normally people say BS to me and I have to say "No, I never said that where's the screenshot?" The very last shot in The Master is great - but you've gotten there before the movie does. I always felt the last 2 Phoenix/PSH scenes don't set up that shot in a way that peaks naturally. You have to go back and try to unravel those scenes like in a novel - "What does Dodd "mean" when he says _________" and things like that. Now this was my #1 American film and #2 overall of 2012 so obviously it didn't bother me that much but at a certain point you're still like "Ok I know where this is eventually going".......... because you feel from a writing POV, he's tipped his hand.
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Oct 1, 2019 17:09:20 GMT
What are your thoughts on The Master's ending? I think I remember you calling it a flawed great film... do you find the ending to be an issue there? You have a real good memory The_Cake_of_Roth - like normally people say BS to me and I have to say "No, I never said that where's the screenshot?" The very last shot in The Master is great - but you've gotten there before the movie does. I always felt the last 2 Phoenix/PSH scenes don't set up that shot in a way that peaks naturally. You have to go back and try to unravel those scenes like in a novel - "What does Dodd "mean" when he says _________" and things like that. Now this was my #1 American film and #2 overall of 2012 so obviously it didn't bother me that much but at a certain point you're still like "Ok I know where this is eventually going".......... because you feel from a writing POV, he's tipped his hand. Are you saying that the last 2 Phoenix/PSH scenes show PTA tipping his hand ("Slow Boat to China" and.... the phone call dream in the movie theater or the motorcycle scene in the desert)? If you're describing those scenes as ones that we have to go back and unravel and are more opaque, then I guess I'm not sure how that's a sign of PTA tipping his hand. I do agree that at a certain point we know how Freddie will end up, but I'm just not sure how Dodd's enigmatic dialogue specifically plays a role in that.
|
|
|
Post by pacinoyes on Oct 1, 2019 18:09:32 GMT
Are you saying that the last 2 Phoenix/PSH scenes show PTA tipping his hand ("Slow Boat to China" and.... the phone call dream in the movie theater or the motorcycle scene in the desert)? If you're describing those scenes as ones that we have to go back and unravel and are more opaque, then I guess I'm not sure how that's a sign of PTA tipping his hand. I do agree that at a certain point we know how Freddie will end up, but I'm just not sure how Dodd's enigmatic dialogue specifically plays a role in that. It's tipping his hand because at a certain point - I haven't seen it in a while but I think it's after the Laura Dern scene (maybe?) - the characters exist in a sort of static form.........there's nothing that is said between them after that which allows the film to pivot to something else to resolve. The things that happen to Freddie could be that instead - ie Doris marrying etc. - but that point of impact is blunted by having him talk to Dodd after and before that last shot. PTA sometimes misjudges his film's emotional arc I think - is that last scene great, well sure, but is it integral.......to me, it isn't really, it actually belongs in a different order - before he learns about Doris etc.
|
|
|
Post by hugobolso on Oct 1, 2019 18:11:02 GMT
It's a joke?
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Oct 3, 2019 0:45:42 GMT
Are you saying that the last 2 Phoenix/PSH scenes show PTA tipping his hand ("Slow Boat to China" and.... the phone call dream in the movie theater or the motorcycle scene in the desert)? If you're describing those scenes as ones that we have to go back and unravel and are more opaque, then I guess I'm not sure how that's a sign of PTA tipping his hand. I do agree that at a certain point we know how Freddie will end up, but I'm just not sure how Dodd's enigmatic dialogue specifically plays a role in that. It's tipping his hand because at a certain point - I haven't seen it in a while but I think it's after the Laura Dern scene (maybe?) - the characters exist in a sort of static form.........there's nothing that is said between them after that which allows the film to pivot to something else to resolve. The things that happen to Freddie could be that instead - ie Doris marrying etc. - but that point of impact is blunted by having him talk to Dodd after and before that last shot. PTA sometimes misjudges his film's emotional arc I think - is that last scene great, well sure, but is it integral.......to me, it isn't really, it actually belongs in a different order - before he learns about Doris etc. I hadn't thought about the ending that way before, but it's an interesting way of looking at it, and I can see why you would prefer it if the scenes occurred in a different order. For me, I actually don't mind the way PTA structured it because I like the idea of Freddie going back to Dodd after hitting a dead end with Doris because he's still mysteriously drawn to him... and even though he seeks closure by returning, he knows deep down that choosing to stay with him won't last and that he may indeed be beyond help or that the structure that Dodd offers will never be "enough." I think the static nature of the characters that you describe towards the end feels purposely baked into the dramatic arc because we come to understand that growth is not actually possible for Freddie. So I like how the final scene between the two characters sort of highlights that contradiction of them having this strange connection, yet they remain irreconcilable despite Freddie's failure to find happiness elsewhere (reuniting with Doris).
|
|