Anyone feel like his films are missing something?
-
pretentiousanderson — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 04:21 PM)
So, your statement is that someone can't know the "real substance" if they haven't experienced it in the real life.
That's not my statement at all. You deliberately mischaracterize my argument to set up a straw man. I'd say "Nice try" - except that it isn't.
Do you really think I believe that one must have been possessed by Satan in order to make The Exorcist? That one must have been an astronaut who came in contact with alien life on order to make 2001?
Please. If you are going to debate, then at least have the intellectual honesty of characterizing the point you dispute honestly.
I only used the Hemingway analogy as an example of what my actual statement is: That wanting to make films as an end in itself will always produce works that are far more hollow than making a film because you have a specific, compelling story to tell.
The great directors had compelling stories they wanted to tell, and thus decided to use the medium of film to tell it. Anderson's primary motivation seems focused on wanting be a great director as an end in itself, and thus he feels the need to conjure up stories in order to fulfill that goal. There is a big difference there.
When Coppola made Godfather and Apocalypse Now, do you think the reaction was "his love of film is obvious"?
When Cimino made Thunderbolt & Lightfoot and The Deer Hunter, did they say "What an auteur! His love of filmkaing comes through in every frame!" ?
When Lumet made 12 Angry Men, did his base of fanboys shout out "What an ode to filmmaking!" ?
Of course not. These people made great films because they had great stories to tell - not because their primary goal was to be thought of as a great filmmaker by the film-school/video store crowd.
That is not the case with Anderson, and that is why his films ring hollow. I'm not the OP of this thread, so obviously many others feel that his films are "missing something" that they can't quite put their finger on. I am merely giving a possible (but likely) explanation for their feelings.
Anderson fanboys are upset with me because deep down, they identify with Anderson in that they only want to create stories in order to fulfill their goals of being a director with total creative control. They do not want to direct because they have compelling stories to tell. Their goal of being a director is an end in itself. They figure if a fraud like Anderson can do it, then they can do it too. His career validates their own fraudulent aspirations, so they get upset with me when I point out the obvious.
That is what separates the video-store generation of filmmakers from the true greats of the past - trying to conjure up stories in order to be taken seriously as a director, rather than needing to make films because they have interesting stories to tell.
The fact that you Anderson fanboys can't even distinguish between the two concepts and how such works ultimately differ is a telling indictment of just how shallow your tastes are. -
Kompressor_Fan — 9 years ago(April 17, 2016 03:06 PM)
I think you summed it up so well. I thought this guy really had it going on when he made Boogie Nights.and I loved the film he made before BN (Hard Eight) when I saw it a few years later. Then came Magnolia which seemed to be compellinguntil the ridiculous "rain of frogs" ending ruined the whole thing and made the film pointless. Punch Drunk Love? Yuck. Then came The Will Be Blood.and I thought that maybe PTA had gotten his groove back. I was so looking forward to seeing The Master.saw it the weekend it was released.and was utterly disappointed. What a lot of hollow, pretentious dreck. Inherent Vice? Watched that at home for about 45 minutes and turned it off.unbearably bad.
Yes.having good actors, beautiful locales, and a flashy filming and editing style is great if you have a good story to tell. On the other hand, if those technical aspects are all you have, it tends to draw even more attention that your film is just a hollow exercise in self-indulgence. -
Struckworld7767 — 9 years ago(December 14, 2016 01:43 AM)
I get what you're saying about PTA. I enjoy his films though, I liked the way everything connected in Inherent Vice. Magnolia is alright, it is urgent and pretentious. The kind of movie that crosses its arms and demands your attention.
On the flipside though about Coppola making Apocalypse Now. I always thought Apocalypse Now was pretentious. I feel even Cimino fell under that category with Heaven's Gate. I mean what does Coppola know about being a solider in Vietnam? He was never in war. What statement does he have on it? Hell a good part of Apocalypse Now is inspired from Aguirre: The Wrath Of God. These guys grew up watching John Ford and Billy Wilder movies wanting to make the grand epics.
In my honest opinion I'd say Werner Herzog would be a man with stories to tell and something to say. Even when he did things that were seemingly symbolic but he was just coming up with it on the spot, he really knew film and had fun with it.
I agree with you though, if you have a a lotta experiences in life you'll have more to say.
I'm from Paris
TEXAS -
pretentiousanderson — 9 years ago(July 06, 2016 04:12 PM)
Thank you indeed.
Its quite unfortunate that this forum usually consists of complete strangers offering nothing but simple declaratory statements along the lines of "I loved it!" or "I hated it!" without any real substance or context behind it, which is admittedly not worth reading or engaging with.
But your reaction is very much appreciated and I hope others with open minds will consider reading what is offered above. -
Christopher_Smilax — 10 years ago(February 10, 2016 08:17 PM)
I feel the opposite to be quite honest.
But understandingly, I can see how the conclusions of The Master and Inherent Vice can be seen as unsatisfying and empty. Initially, I didn't know how to feel after watching those. Wasn't sure if I felt something was missing, but there were so many fragments in both movies that I hadn't connected yet so ultimately it didn't feel "whole" in a sense, but at the same time, I did have a feeling I was missing something so I saw 'em again and they eventually felt "whole" for me.
Given how "loose" he's become with narrative structure and approach to character exploration as of late, his films may seem a bit aimless and unsatisfying at first. Hell, I'd say most of his movies are growers so that may be why. Maybe it's a thing where you have to give them time and they'll sneak up on you?
I never thought that Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Punch Drunk Love were missing something though. I guess that argument can apply to There Will Be Blood as well but I don't think it really compares to The Master and Inherent Vice.
Howard Hughes was Italian? -
donn-44655 — 10 years ago(February 28, 2016 07:59 AM)
Damn. I agree with Brian_McInnis. It's probably the most pure, emotionally fed film I've experienced, and not "emotional" in a trite way but a way in which you pretty much experience what the main character does as it happens. It's really connected for a 19-year-old who had trouble getting a date like I was when I first saw it.
I think those who think it's terrible are smart enough people, but the DNA of life experience one adds to a film aids it's legitimacy.