Possibly the most important American film-maker today
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Alexander Payne
YellowManReanimated — 14 years ago(January 16, 2012 03:49 PM)
Alexander Payne is a sublime film-maker. He is one of a very few directors capable of making consistently touching, engaging and immersive films. He touches on themes of betrayal, loneliness, self-discovery and finding meaning in life in a fresh and original way. All the films I have seen of his, from Election up to The Descendents, are wonderful films and he is fast becoming one of my favourite modern day film-makers.
Forget the overly-cerebral Nolan, the sometimes indulgent PT Anderson and the inconsistent David Fincher, as impressive as these guys are on their day, this 16d0guy is possibly the greatest film-maker out there right now.
What sayeth thou?
See no sig, hear no sig -
infogenrevision — 14 years ago(January 17, 2012 04:07 AM)
he said in a Hollywood reporter interview for awards season when asked what his fave commercial releases were in 2011.
"I don't watch commercial releases".
Really!? That kind of ignorance just annoys me and I have yet to like one of his films as they always have a very unpleasant undertone to them. Not seen Descendants or Citizen Ruth yet but the others left me cold. -
YellowManReanimated — 14 years ago(January 17, 2012 04:16 PM)
First of all I wouldn't judge him based on that comment. If we judged artists based on what they say to the media then we'd never be able to appreciate the talent of people such as Lou Reed, Marlon Brando, Lars von Trier, etc. I try to judge the work not the worker.
On his films, I don't understand how one couldn't relate to the universal themes he explores. He seems to me to be an extremely articulate and energetic autuer. What are the unpleasant undertones of which you speak?
See no sig, hear no sig -
AJarcher — 14 years ago(January 23, 2012 01:44 PM)
I don't understand how one couldn't relate to the universal themes he explores. He seems to me to be an extremely articulate
I agree but there is a huge amount of people who watch his movies and every nuance seems to go right over their heads. Someone is bound to come and call us pretentious, or something, but to me it's as clear as crystal, in the most sincere way.
You should watch Citizen Ruth. You didn't list it in the first post, but you'll love it. -
coolbrett — 14 years ago(February 01, 2012 03:03 AM)
Please please please I beg you.. tell me what's great about him. I've seen Sideways and thought it was alright. I'll be rewatching it soon. But I saw The Descendants and I would have to be that movies biggest hater. It's like I'm living in a cuckoo clock if movies like that are celebrated. I'm utterly dumbfounded. It was awful in so many ways. But please, enlighten me. Why do you agree with the OP? Don't give me crap like "he touches on themes such as". Who gives a crap about 'themes'. They don't make movies. So what if his movies have a 'theme' in common with them. That's like saying Meet The Parents is a masterpiece because it 'touches' on the theme of growing to accept people despite personal differences.. oh and 'Family'.
-
AJarcher — 14 years ago(February 01, 2012 11:22 AM)
Sorry I'm in a bit of a hurry and this will sound rushed.
As much as you don't understand why people like him I don't understand how b68you don't, lol, apart from that he's likely just not your thing.
I am not sure I can explain it if you are so angry by the Descendants, as I liked the movie and found it one of the few I'd want to rewatch this year. I find his movies wonderful, hard to define, very RANDOM, and though they are (purposely) not fast-paced, they're incredibly easy to sit through. They are hilarious but realistic, they are a sort of a slice-of-life that can be interpreted in many, many different ways.
They're intelligent and layered and actors tend to do really well directed by him. I DON'T like straight up comedies, I don't like movies that are bleakly depressing with no way out, because life is depressing enough, and I find his movies completely comforting and the opposite of that.
I was amazed by that because it's been a long time since I actually had that reaction to a STRING of movies by the same guy.
There is also a lot of black comedy in them, but not in a way that undermines the characters nor makes you give up on them. They kind of make fun of the stupidity of the real world and how people interact in it.
You seem to like Jack Nicholson (I dunno I just glanced at your history) so at least watch About Schmidt. If you can't find anything that I said above in that movie, then Payne is simply not your thing, and you don't have to be "dumbfounded", or angry, just accept it and move on. I certainly don't get why people like a bunch of things they like and probably never will. -
chas437 — 13 years ago(April 27, 2012 10:31 AM)
I think your statement would have been true about ten years ago. But frankly, since "Sideways", I haven't seen anything great from Alexander Payne. He was at his best writing screen adaptations and directing, but sadly, he often pawns that stuff off on to lesser talents, and is now a producer. "Cedar Falls" is a perfect example of this. When I first saw this, I thought it was a bad rip-off of an Alexander Payne film. Then, I noticed he's listed as one of the111c producers. I don't know if this is the problem, or that his schtick is no longer original. I have yet to see "The Descendants", but I've been told its no where near as good as his early works. Still, I'm looking forward to seeing it, and hoping its much better than "Cedar Rapids".
Alexander Payne gave us two of the most brilliant comedies of our time, with "Citizen Ruth" and "Election", these were the films that were Oscar worthy. "About Schmidt" and "Sideways" were excellent films as well. These four films are ultimately what he will be remembered for. -
jimmy_miller — 13 years ago(August 31, 2012 11:51 AM)
I think that's a bit of a stretch to make that assumption from a guy who's a little over fifty that his legacy is already in cement.
As for being the most important I don't know about that. Certainly one of my favourites though. I don't know why he would be
the most
important, that I'd like to hear. I love Election and Sideways, I think they are pitch perfect American films, About Schmidt not too far behind, The Descendants I didn't like as much, Ruth I haven't found yet.
I think his brilliance is very much in finding a mood to a film, like Sideways is just so "easy" I think to sit through, despite having quite a limited narrative "plot" or whatever you just go with the guys and have a great time despite at times things get really depressing. Another thing is situations that he puts his characters into, and what his stories and scenes are about, I mean Election is just so crazy in this sense, what is it about? How can you make a film like that when it's essentially about something so little like the premise yet turn it into such a whirlwind. Broderick, Giamatti, Haden Church, Nicholson these guys have given some of their best work for him, truelly, truelly spectacular presences in the films. -
chas437 — 13 years ago(August 31, 2012 12:12 PM)
I strongly suggest you find "Citizen Ruth". Its his breakthrough film, and easily one of his best. His trademark early on in "Election" and especially in "Ruth" is the creation of very true to life American caricatures. His mockery of these caricatures was seen as overly subversive by critics and such. But over time, his methodology has become much imitated and gone become mainstream.
"About Schmidt" and "Sideways" mark a slight departure from this style, but show growth in other areas. His work since has been spotty. The "Descendents" was a nice little film, but its nowhere near as good as his early work.
I can't go as far as to agree with the OP's Statement, but I would say he has been one of the most influencial film makers of the last 20 years. You can see his style in many films. -
jimmy_miller — 13 years ago(September 01, 2012 11:44 AM)
I obviously agree that he is brilliant. Like I said before to me Election and Sideways are perfect. Concerning Ruth, I just can't find the damn thing to download or purchase a DVD copy of (I live in Scandinavia, don't want to order it for 30 bucks with no subtitles).
Was out today and kept thinking about this thread and would like to hear some more concrete things than just how "great someone is", the word great has no meaning left anymore. I love PTA, some of Nolan's work and this is just the kind of thread you can find in either guy's message board down here, just change the name of the director and the content is the same. For a true Payne fan would come up with more!
-
ecarle — 12 years ago(August 29, 2013 08:16 AM)
While I won't agree with the OP that Payne is THE most important film-maker, he is one of them, and his movies have a very specific, very nuanced nature to them that is the true mark of an "auteur."
We only have what five films plus the pilot episode of "Hung" to judge him by, but Election, About Schmidt, The Descendants and especially Sideways are important films, works of art with flaws and aggravations that are part of their texture.
The flaws? Well, "About Schidmt" starts very well but seems to go for broad caricuature when Nicholson encounters Kathy Bates and her geeky family. The aggravation? Well, a lot of critics find Payne to be, basically, a snob. He's from Omaha, Nebraska and he seems to be thumbing his nose at the petty high school bureaucracies, chain restaurants, insurance executives, RVs and banal stupdities of middle-class American life in the Omaha-set "Election" and "About Schmidt."
But I think Payne puts all that out there and says "Hey, that's how I see the world. That's how a lot of Americans live." And his movies go the extra mile to make those Americans human and interesting(and, usually, sexually driven, a key element to all of his films.)
I haven't seen "Citizen Ruth," but I have read of it, and using it and "Election" as the linchpins, Payne seems to have slowly matured, one film at a time, from nasty, broad satire(the characters in Ruth, I've heard; and Election, I KNOW, are meant to be way overdone versions of real human being types) to character study. "About Schmidt' goes for caricatures(Bates and Mulroney as mother and son) but "Sideways" and "The Descendants" finally get down to acceptable human realities even if Jack in "Sideways" is somewhat of a human caricature.
I only rarely come to boards about newer movies because while I am young at heart, I am middle of age, and I realize these boards are mainly visited by youth.
But from the middle-aged perspective, I can tell you that Alexander Payne's movies are probably beloved by middle-aged people because they are often about middle-aged people, particularly MEN, and they study their frusttraions and dreams and crushed hopes.
Paul Giamatti and Thomas Hayden Church are middle-aged versions of Jon Favreau and Vince Vaughn in "Swingers" but 20 more years of age makes all the difference in life experience, melancholy, and desperation. Note how Church is still desperattely pinning his life on getting sex, even as he is finally going to get married. Note how Giamatti is on a quest to get over lost love. It has more sting in middle-age.
Matthew Broderick's high school teacher looks young, but he is aging too and he HATES seeing the evil and driven Tracy Flick advance in life as he realizes that he is stuck in a rut, out of gas.
The gray-haired George Clooney in "The Descendants" is flummoxed by his rebellious,foul-mouthed teenage girls, and coming to realize that he is aging, too. (Note that his wife's male lover is at least ten years younger than he is, and that she got fatally injured on a boat with a studly young muscleman.)
Payne directed the pilot of the HBO series "Hung"(and executive produced it) and it is in Payne's wheelhouse, too: Thomas Jane's Detroit area basketball coach is divorced, broke and unsure of his job security when we meet him, so he turns his biggest attribute(an unseen but we are told, huge male member) to become a male prostitute for ladies only. A "golden boy" athlete whose injury took him out of pro ball, Jane is yet ANOTHER of Payne's middle-aged protagonists (and Jane, in depending on his sexual prowess for a career in middle age, is risking it all on a private part that will soon lose its power, without pills.)
Jack Nicholson's Schmidt is beyond middle age he's retirement age, being "put out to pasture" as we meet him, his younger replacement unintersted in learning from him, his life's work thrown into boxes and into the trash. And as an insurance lifespan expert, he knows how many years he has left, give or take and there are fewer left when he loses his wife, he knows.
So even as young people can and do like stories about "their future" Alexander Payne may be so beloved in some circles right now because he speaks not only to an "adult" audience, but to a middle-aged audience.
And they are important, too.