Is Paul Thomas Anderson an overrated boring filmmaker?

Robert Altman is boring and overrated

Yeah man, the entire body of critics and fellow filmmakers who treasure his work are all babbling idiots without a case. Wish we could all be as wise and tasteful as you are! Very persuasive argument!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If this is a thread where everyone just wants to say yes/no as to whether they agree with the OP, there's not much discussion to be had. If it's one where everyone wants to discuss the specific merits and shortcomings of the directors in question, it might be worthwhile. You decide.

__________________
Letterboxd | ReverseShot | SlantMagazine

I was just prodding you to see what you'd say, interesting response. As for the critics and filmmakers who love Altman, I couldn't care less. Some "authority figure" saying this movie is great and everyone should love it doesn't exactly convince me, I'll be the judge of that myself.

I don't claim to be wise or a man of fine tastes, and this isn't a scientific discussion so I don't need "evidence" to back me up. It's an opinion. I don't need evidence to dislike Altman anymore than I need evidence to hate egg salad. I just do. Just because a ton of food critics and chefs come out and say egg salad is the bees knees, the cat's pajamas, and only uncultured swine don't like, I don't suddenly have to back up my opinion with an essay or an Exhibit A.

Now if you want an explanation, that I can attempt. Altman is a filmmaker who rejects fantasy and escapism in favor of "naturalism." He doesn't like "phoniness" in movies. That's his opinion. My opinion is that if I wanted realism, I'd watch a documentary. His maverick attitude might be admirable to some, but as an individual who prizes the classical Hollywood style, a filmmaker that looks down on it as not being worth his time isn't exactly going to endear themselves to me. He has his fans, so good for him. That however, doesn't make me despise his dull, exasperating filmography any less.

That's an awful description of Altman's films. I wonder how many of them you have actually seen, because his films certainly aren't purely realistic. Many of them are highly stylized and their content is often extremely wild and eccentric.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

I love Altman, but I only need to watch a few of his movies - could care less what critics think. And there are a few of his movies I had to turn off, but if you can make "Nashville" and "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" you are a-ok in my book.

He was also an interesting guy.

Any John Sayles fans on here?

I like his sophisticated look with telephoto prime lenses and how he uses foreground objects to help frame his scene, ie-blurred table flowers, part of a wall, someone's sillouhetted shoulder, etc. What was that movie with Sissy Spacek and Shelly Duvall? That was bonkers! Entertaining film. I've seen The Player and few others but still need to see Nashville and McCabe and Mrs. Miller.

I realize his films have a good amount of satire and oddness to them, so I suppose realism was a poor choice of words. Maybe "honest" would be more apt?

To answer your musing as to how many of his films I've seen, I was able to sit through 5 of them before I couldn't watch any more. I have a good friend who is a big fan of his and wouldn't shut up until I saw at least his most acclaimed works.

I touched on it a little in my previous post, but I simply do not like his approach to filmmaking. At all. In fact, you could say my opinion of the entire "New Hollywood Era" is rather negative. We're gonna rebel against Old Hollywood and do things our way! Yeah, good luck with that

Paul Thomas Anderson boring? I don't think so. I enjoyed all his movies, Punch Drunk Love in particular. There Will Be Blood was difficult to watch but that had more to do with the complete jerk that was the main character rather than any fault in the film.

I've been a fan of Aultman for decades. He's had a few stinkers (Dr. T) but M*A*S*H and Gosford Park are incredible.

If you are looking for boring, overrated, el stinko/el pukeo, full of sh*t directors, one has to go no further and Lars "I love to wank watching my own films" von Trier. He needs to just go on to the house.

__________________
Yes, it is your circus and these are your monkeys.

Oddly, I just watched Boogie Nights again last night, as it appeared on Amazon Prime recently. PTA clearly has skills, but what tends to bother me is his blatant thievery of other director's styles and techniques. I mean, if I was trying to make a film, I would probably rob people like Scorsese blind, as well, but PTA tends to completely lift concepts and techniques out of films in a very direct way. The opening scene of Boogie Nights is a blatant rip-off of the scene in Goodfellas with the long steady-cam shot while entering a restaurant. I can't help but be reminded of it, and it's distracting. He pulls the same trick in Magnolia with the steady-cam and it pulls me out of the film every time.

I like most of his films, but his tendency to lift from guys like Scorsese and Altman is irritating. The guy is talented as all hell, though. I hated Inherent Vice, though.

__________________

"Honest" seems like a much more reasonable label, yes.

I guess that's a matter of taste then. I personally am a huge fan of the New Hollywood Era. I don't think there's any kind of disregard towards Old Hollywood in the work of the more serious directors that came out of the New Hollywood Era, by the way. They simply weren't afraid to stand on the shoulders of their predecessors and attempt to look a bit further when possible and appropriate. Don't just call them "rebels" because so many descriptions of them say they were. Most of them were serious thinkers with a broad knowledge of and respect for the classic era of cinema.

How much less could you care? 67%? 15%? 1.3%? In context, it's almost like you meant to say that you couldn't care less, as in you do not care at all.


Sorry. It's a losing fight, I know, but one of the many lazy things in our current colloquial speech that annoys me as the holder of an English degree and a professional writer/editor. Don't take it personally.


As you were.

__________________
"Film is a disease. When it infects your bloodstream it takes over as the number one hormone. It bosses the enzymes, directs the pineal gland, plays Iago to your psyche. As with heroin, the antidote to Film is more Film." - Frank Capra

I must admit I am biased, I love the magic, glamor and romance of the Studio Era and so my natural reaction to the shift during the 60s is unfriendly skepticism.

The only American films of that period I'm particularly fond of are what came out of the grindhouse/exploitation scene. I love Jack Hill

Just to clarify my post, I'm not saying you need to obey critics. I'm saying if swaths of people who know film say somebody is worth watching, they probably are. Saying somebody is good or bad isn't interesting. Understanding their films are.

Can you really call PTA a thief if he is using a technique that is cited in films from the '50s forward? Many have used the long single take to establish their films.

http://www.indiewire.com/2014/03/ran...g-takes-87699/

All this talk about Maverick film makers has me in the mood to talk Sayles and Cassavetes. Anyone? Wrong thread, though.

I've only seen 1 PTA movie. Question to his fans, is it his subject matter that you love, or his directing style. I think it's the same with Scorsese, people love the subject matter most of all.

His handling of the entire craft.

I can respect that, and it's not like I can't recognize that Altman had skill.

However I make a distinction between appreciating something for being well-made and actually enjoying it. Impersonal vs Personal

Although, I am always wary of what "swaths of people who know film" say. Too often their cinematic palate doesn't match my own, and I won't lie about having niche tastes.

What Swan said. It's all the elements. Subject matter (for me his earlier works, primarily), capable cast, understanding the language of cinema (not just lifting but utilizing), his musical sensibilities and how they appeal to his generation and younger (etc Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood post Magnolia, 70's/80's rock/pop/disco hits). They do borrow heavily from Scorsese, this I noticed immediately, but I didn't mind a bit. Good work is good work, and to go back to the understanding that there are no rules in cinema (though many "scholars" would try and have you believe different), if nthere are no rules, you're allowed to borrow and steal as long as the bottom line is solid entertainment or style. As far as having something profound to say, that's murky territory. I could care less what Joaquin Phoenix's character is going through in later PTA films. I have no connection to that mentality and am under no obligation to delve into that world if I am not attracted to it. As a technician, though, any film maker can jump up to the podium and whip their big D out and say "hey look at me, I'm huge!"