← Back to Reviews
in
Magnolia
A series of unrelated events which collectively help build the tension of life.
Paul Thomas Anderson is considered a great director by his peers. This bleeds into critics community. Critics crave freshness and they have a knack for spotting commercial beats in a movie, which isn't that hard to find. So any movie that can pass these test is already on the good side of critics. Add to that a good pace and an energy in direction, you have a perfect movie for critics. PTA and directors like Spike Jonze or Andy Kaufman are the pioneers of independent film making community. They struggled like all others and through their talent and being able to connect to audience they became high profile. So all independent artists look forward to their movies and often times are soft on their movies. This is the summary for another of PTA's movie Inherent vice on rotten tomatoes - "Inherent Vice may prove frustrating for viewers who demand absolute coherence, but it does justice to its acclaimed source material -- and should satisfy fans of director P.T. Anderson." Tell me where the negative elements are highlighted ? nowhere.Compare this to a movie by Scott Cooper called hostiles and here is the summary - " Hostiles benefits from stunning visuals and a solid central performance from Christian Bale, both of which help elevate its uneven story."Here the critics have already made up their mind that the director has made a sub-par movie and they totally got his movie and they are fully qualified to judge his movie. So this is the difference between an auteur and a sub-par director.People assume he must be right just because he made some great movies and it their own fault that they didn't get the movie. Critics are like that. Since they all know that he is a director who came from indie background and is a voice for independent cinema and has made some great movies they feel like he is honest filmmaker and so they don't have to make fun of him and his self important attitude.
All these opinions and attitudes are very important if you want to build a consensus to win an Oscar. Your movie should be challenging and at the same time shouldn't be self important. It should be entertaining but not pandering to audience.This movie has different people in different stages of their lives and the director uses all their plights to create this coherent emotional arc in a way of trying to make sense of life and world. It doesn't do anything magical but its just the first of its kind.
So the major take away from the movie is that its funny and interesting.But the circumstances surrounding the reaction to this movie sort of gives us an insight into auteur worship culture which is very much based in Los Angeles and they have a huge microphone and reach. So its attracts similar kind into the orbit of this culture.
A series of unrelated events which collectively help build the tension of life.
Paul Thomas Anderson is considered a great director by his peers. This bleeds into critics community. Critics crave freshness and they have a knack for spotting commercial beats in a movie, which isn't that hard to find. So any movie that can pass these test is already on the good side of critics. Add to that a good pace and an energy in direction, you have a perfect movie for critics. PTA and directors like Spike Jonze or Andy Kaufman are the pioneers of independent film making community. They struggled like all others and through their talent and being able to connect to audience they became high profile. So all independent artists look forward to their movies and often times are soft on their movies. This is the summary for another of PTA's movie Inherent vice on rotten tomatoes - "Inherent Vice may prove frustrating for viewers who demand absolute coherence, but it does justice to its acclaimed source material -- and should satisfy fans of director P.T. Anderson." Tell me where the negative elements are highlighted ? nowhere.Compare this to a movie by Scott Cooper called hostiles and here is the summary - " Hostiles benefits from stunning visuals and a solid central performance from Christian Bale, both of which help elevate its uneven story."Here the critics have already made up their mind that the director has made a sub-par movie and they totally got his movie and they are fully qualified to judge his movie. So this is the difference between an auteur and a sub-par director.People assume he must be right just because he made some great movies and it their own fault that they didn't get the movie. Critics are like that. Since they all know that he is a director who came from indie background and is a voice for independent cinema and has made some great movies they feel like he is honest filmmaker and so they don't have to make fun of him and his self important attitude.
All these opinions and attitudes are very important if you want to build a consensus to win an Oscar. Your movie should be challenging and at the same time shouldn't be self important. It should be entertaining but not pandering to audience.This movie has different people in different stages of their lives and the director uses all their plights to create this coherent emotional arc in a way of trying to make sense of life and world. It doesn't do anything magical but its just the first of its kind.
So the major take away from the movie is that its funny and interesting.But the circumstances surrounding the reaction to this movie sort of gives us an insight into auteur worship culture which is very much based in Los Angeles and they have a huge microphone and reach. So its attracts similar kind into the orbit of this culture.