Paul Thomas Anderson

[kid-glove]

The filmmaker who Altman considered his successor.
Fans consider the closest successor to Kubrick.

Lynch, Scorsese and Woody Allen have all admitted PTA to be their favorite auteur working today.

Tarantino considers PTA to be Montgomery Clift for his Brando or vice versa. And he always bandies PTA to be a contemporary, who pushes him to do better. Like a competition for him.

PTA, however, had made it clear through Daniel Plainview,
"I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed."

On that note, I might have to pitch in my first review (http://www.imdb.com/user/ur22480757/comments), that I transferred to Imdb only recently. On "There will be blood". I might have to post a revised review, sometime later. But it's a short glimpse to my personal flirtations with his films, in view of American film history and its placing (specifically TWBB) within last century or so.

Discuss his films here.

[kid-glove]

Tarantino comparing the relationship/competition with PTA to De Palma-Scorsese

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvgxyHmVsRU

De Palma-Scorsese :: Tarantino-PTAnderson

About fair, I think. DePalma's favorite is QT, and Scorsese's is PT Anderson. Hope they give us damn good movies, that's all that matters.

Btw, it's about the Raging bull opening credits shot that De Palma first saw (he thought Blowout was going to be his best film, and he went to see RAging bull, and after the opening, he went "F--k!, no matter what you do, there's always f-ing Scorsese". I guess that's how QT reacted to TWBB, at least I'd like to believe :lol: ).

[salaam_chennai]

I saw "Punch Drunk Love" last week and i liked it. After seeing this thread, I browsed imdb to see PTA's filmography and found that Punch Drunk Love is his movie. The movie is worth the watch. It was good to see Adam Sandler in a serious role.

[kid-glove]

"Punch-drunk love", in his words, is "to f-up the rom-com genre a little bit." :lol: Haanesty :notworthy:

[Sid_316]

Loved all of his works.. havent seen there will be blood though.. magnolia tops the list.. brilliant brilliant film. Punch drunk love is brilliant in its own way.Liked sidney eight and boogie nights.
But magnolia stands apart.

P.S : i still didnt get the ending though with the exodus reference... Thilak i remember u explaining the ending to bala once.. but aana ur english sathiyama purila :twisted: could u explain it in simple words pls :P

[Sid_316]

Any idea about his next film?

[kid-glove]

Sid,

I never sought out to explain that ending in context of "Exodus" and/or biblical references.

P_R once posted an article (http://metaphilm.com/index.php/detail/magnolia) in this vein, but I think it doesn't comply with its author/auteur, because...

Watching the extras in DVD, and reading few articles on PTA, he seemed to have got the "Exodus" reference only later. The "Frog" rain was planned and could have done without the exodus 8:2 reference, if it hadn't been brought to his notice much later. So he just used it as an in-joke and a sleight of hand (the only thing that I agree about, in that article), in using it symbolically and as a numerical reference for production design. Staying off it, I think the idea was to show some singular happening that would shape and conclude the problems of the characters. One possible way to do it is through natural calamity/disaster, that alters the characters' lives and bring about a conclusion. Every possible way of ending the multiple story lines (all connected by Parent-children thematics) is to be seen as a manipulation anway. Especially the idea of connecting/affecting 'em. Doing it the Altman way, "Earthquake" seems no less artificial (although they do function metaphorically as a disaster to the American dream), and paradoxical, because as much as a natural disaster it is, it brings about its own manipulative storytelling. PTA opts for something more theatrical and opulent, and exposing the director's wand through an absurd ridiculous event, the frog rain. I thought it was a brilliant juxtaposition to seemingly realistic believable set of stories, the special-effects seemed out of Dinosaur or Godzilla movie. :lol: That (and the song "wise up") is unashamedly claiming itself as a work of fiction (and that's how it should be). In any fiction of interlinked stories, deux-es-machina, is within the narrator's realm. The characters and the painting within the movie, remind themselves, "it did happen". We are conditioned to ask why it did, but why should it necessarily be any other way?! There are other ways to do hyperlink cinema which are connected by (oil - Syriana, drug trafficking - Traffic , Earthquake - shortcut, butterfly effect - ditto, Gun - Babel, Place - Gomorrah, etc), but this particular author opts this way to uplift the children, even if temporarily, like a fantasy. According to him, coincidences and strange happenings are possible. The absurdity was foreshadowed with interconnected short stories (all too strange and yet seemingly "Realistic", not farcical) in beginning of the film.

About Exodus again, PTA had said he'd have rained cats and dogs if it were possible. when pressed for a possible explanation.

The religious reference is one possible interpretation, but in view of his filmography, and especially after "TWBB", it is unlikely. And In fact, his next film is titled "The Master" tentatively, starring Philip Seymour Hoffman, is about a man who invents a religion. I expect it to be largely polemical, the spiritual fraudulence, in make of O'Connor's "Wise Blood" (one of PTA's hero, John Huston, had adapted it) and Scientology, and not supportive of religion, ala "The Apostle".

After doing Upton Sinclair's Oil!, PTA could do a take on the other Sinclair, Lewis's book "Elmar Gantry" which came out the very year of Oil!, 1927. That's possible !

[Sid_316]

Thanks thilak :)

[kid-glove]

Btw, it's not necessarily deemed "fantasy", but purely Fortean phenomenon. More examples:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/17/japan-rain-tadpoles

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5491846/Sky-rains-tadpoles-over-Japan.html

[ajithfederer]

Haven't seen any of his films.

Couldn't muster up my patience to watch There will be Blood. I just cannot sit through how DDL talks in that film. Puts me to sleep quite easily or makes me change channels :oops:

Will definitely see Magnolia in the near future.

[kid-glove]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rp5NjLRRyw

Tarantino on TWBB

[Bala (Karthik)]

Courtesy: app_engine

http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2010/03/01/Fish-rain-on-Australian-town/UPI-83001267492501/


LAJAMANU, Australia, March 1 (UPI) -- Weather experts said the fish that fell on a remote Australian town for two days had likely been sucked up by a thunderstorm before falling to the ground.

Residents of Lajamanu said hundreds of small white fish, believed to be common spangled perch, fell from the sky during the weekend despite the town's location 326 miles from the nearest river, The Sun reported Monday. Locals said many of the fish were still alive when they hit the ground.

Mark Kersemakers, a senior forecaster with the Australian Bureau of Meteorology, said the fish could have been transported by a storm system.

"It could have scooped the fish up 40,000 to 50,000 feet in the air," he said. "Once they get up into the system they are pretty much frozen. After some period they are released."

Locals said it has rained fish in the town twice before, in 1974 and 2004.

[kid-glove]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcthPJ88h8k

Interesting, what Ebert made of it.

The film is very conscious, in its construction of the interlinked story lines. There are some unfavorable connections to manipulative and contriving films, notably Kevin smith who found it to be "Cinematic root canal" and preference of"Shortcut", which ties the rug closely (somehow, I feel, this very quality masks a lack of talent. This excessive and forbearing need to "round" off the plot) and dissembles with its natural disaster, even if symbolically, the American dream. "Magnolia" works on a higher level, despite the lack of political allegory.

[kid-glove]

An excellent analysis (http://www.thefilmcake.com/2009/07/21/the-nonsense-of-paul-thomas-andersons-magnolia/) (quite rightly dismissive of reading in biblical terms) to offer credulity to deliberate fortean themes implanted in Magnolia. Even if it is enough for PT Anderson's admission in dvd extras and interviews, it's interesting to look into the work. The deliberate ploy to implant biblical references happened much later after final shooting draft. It doesn't mask the actual intention and the interesting (fortean) forethought before lending the device (exodus 8:2), as a sleight of hand. Hell, the film is a bag of tricks.

Summary from the link,
[tscii:a7ea4bd274]
Paul Thomas Anderson presents Magnolia as a sort of Fortean tale. It is a story full of wonder. For some, wonder is provided by the supernatural. For others, it is provided by nature. The credulous among us will believe that “this is something that happens” and be content to leave it at that. Their credulity will inspire awe and provide a basis for hope. But, the skeptics among us will look at the film as sheer entertainment crafted quite masterfully. We will be inspired simply by excellent storytelling and a common human experience. For all of us, Magnolia can be a wondrous experience, nonsense and all.[/tscii:a7ea4bd274]

Agree with this. Btw, the analysis doesn't curtail the final epilogue to the frog rain, the gun, returned back to officer Jim. In eyes of some people, A token award to the benevolence and forgivingness he'd bestow towards Donnie (and his kindess to the girl who does drugs and had been a victim of incest), and the strings are so explicitly pulled. Well within the realm of the world of magnolia, by PTA. Officer Jim could be instantly seen as the model hero (and Christian evangelicals could even concede that's the whole point of the film), forgetting the incompetence and his failings that follows him everywhere, unless given a hand by the creator. As are the other characters. But as the analysis (in the link) aptly identifies,
All of this stuff, including faith, motivational dogma, conspiracy theories, and paranormal explanations become desperate rationalizations for some people. Such easy answers are nonsense. The raining frogs do not resolve anything. They do not make someone good. They do not create love or fix damaged relationships. They do not cure cancer.

But rather, as I had said, this particular author opts this way to uplift the children, even if temporarily, like a fantasy Even if, the word "fantasy" is problematic.

[kid-glove]

Magnolia Extras: Jason Robards on his own cancer experience, coming to fore...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tnPnMmO7As

Another trivia: PT Anderson, being a Robardian like mentor J. Demme, was inspired by their work in "Melvin and Howard", would inspire young PTA, and lot of the father-son thematics (notably Hard Eight, or Sydney) are inspired by this film.

Interestingly enough, there are some influences of Peckinpah's "Ballad of Cable Hogue" in "There will be blood". Some visuals, random lines, and certain characters. On that note, an anecdote by Robards on "Ballad of Cable Hogue" in Magnolia extras:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VZS3LnwO32c

[kid-glove]

Sticking to Robards, a very interesting character actor. After Melvin and Howard, He went to TV, and gone off radar for a while. His best days were gone for a while, until films like Philadelphia, Magnolia (that was his last film, and he died of cancer :( ) happened in 90's.

I suppose, it would have turned out different, had he done Herzog's Fitzcarraldo, but that's certainly Kinski territory. Look at this, Robards and Jagger's take was so dreadful. Kinski, on the other hand, was born to play the role!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTgDXu_Nhys

[kid-glove]

Charlie Kaufman's mock-interview (http://www.beingcharliekaufman.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&gid=81&Itemid=136) as a foreward to shooting script of Human nature, parodying PT Anderson's foreward to his published script for Magnolia. Especially PTA's usage of profanity.. :lol: :lol:

[kid-glove]

[tscii:a4a07411a4]
Of all things, why frogs?
Oh, the frogs falling from the sky! The question of the ages! [Laughs] Well, I just liked the idea. I read about it. It really happens! So that was the initial reason; it just seemed cool, but then as I thought about it, I realized how to fit it into my story. Because it’s like, if it’s raining frogs, then there’s no sense to anything. Nothing you believed to be true holds. And I wanted to look at that and, more importantly, force the audience to sit with that thought: that there is an irrationality to all of our lives and until something so out of the norm happens, we can’t see that. I want people to see it and think about it. And frogs are green, which is the color of nature. So in a way frogs represent the natural world and I’m saying, “Look, the natural world is falling the fuck on top of you. Look up, gaddamn it, and take notice.”

What made you decide to use sequences of weird historical coincidences as a framing device for the film?
It’s a promise. A promise to my audience. I’m saying, look at these stories. They’re all weird and bizarre and maybe true or maybe not, but, hey, if you give me four hours, I will give you a story just as weird and wonderful and amazing as these stories, because this stuff does happen in the world. Y’know? The world is bigger than we think.

Is the end of the film cathartic or unresolved? Is there some hope at the end of the day? Or will the sadness just go on and on?
For me it’s totally cathartic! It’s hope and wonderful and I cry whenever I see the movie for that reason. But of course it’s sad, too. And I cry about that as well. For Mercedes and me it’s important to look at the whole spectrum of feelings that any situation creates. Love is great, but it’s also hard as shit. It’s a lot of work and sweaty and embarrassing. But the surrender to it is so beautiful. What else is there, really?

The problem with traditional movies is they usually have to have it one way or the other: happy or sad. For those people who need it, we have a happy ending, but for people who want to look deeper, the movie is saying, yes, love is real, but the road to it is complicated and you’re going to make terrible messes along the way and you need to go on anyway.

My goal in my work is to show that motherfucking paradox, because I believe that it is in this paradix that you find life. That is what my work, at least at this point, is really all about. It’s complicated, y’know? Life is fucking complicated. Too many filmmakers don’t want to deal with that. They want to dumb down their vision for mass consumption. Listen, I don’t think it’s an accident that film is an art form that utilizes a lens. Filmmakers are the eyes of a society. We see and we reflect. We need to show what is wrong and painful. But a true lens is all encompassing; it also shows all the motherfucking hope and beauty in the world.
[/tscii:a4a07411a4]

:rotfl:

[P_R]

Read your review of TWBB.


"There will be blood" paints a polemical subtext on Oil and Religion, Capitalism and Evangelism - the fraudulence of it all. Or maybe the moral shortcomings of the two main protagonist. As failed human beings. True. Just that I found the film extremely boring.

But I kinda see there is perhaps no other way this story could have been told (having decided that it would have to be told!)


A film theorist once said films are moving pictures with accompanying sound. The story and themes are excuses to entice & indulge the audience. yaar andha theorist ? :lol2:

[P_R]

Every possible way of ending the multiple story lines (all connected by Parent-children thematics) is to be seen as a manipulation anway. Yeah. But - to use an exaggerated expression - it kinda violates the contract you have with the audience about reality. And if that is supposed to be the very point then I'll have to say it didn't work for me. In fact it pretty much ruined whatever I liked about the film till then.

I see the links about how it is physically possible for such a phenomenon. :lol2: That is not the point. To portray an abnormal event on screen and say 'wierd stuff happens you know' is quite unacceptable.

(varisaiyA varEn, yet to read Ebert revee ling)

[kid-glove]

A film theorist once said films are moving pictures with accompanying sound. The story and themes are excuses to entice & indulge the audience. yaar andha theorist ? :lol2:

Anon. :P

Honestly, I was reading a lot at the time. I suppose it's a paraphrase of paraphrase from some obscure film journal.

[kid-glove]

I see the links about how it is physically possible for such a phenomenon. :lol2: That is not the point. To portray an abnormal event on screen and say 'wierd stuff happens you know' is quite unacceptable.
But it superbly subverts and plays around the notion of 'what is real or unreal', 'what could happen and not happen'. And especially so in case of movies as it has that sense of urgency and immediacy. People want realistic stories. But what is drama? Lack of dull moments. Not realism per se. To me, it could be as operatic and opulent given the theme of the film. I felt it was all intimately tied together.

[P_R]

People want realistic stories. But what is drama? Lack of dull moments. Not realism per se. That is exactly the challenge. A challenge that IMO is not overcome even in the best of films. There is perhaps not a single film (or book) where there is not even one place that feels unreal and convenient. The best storytellers mask it really really well. Make it feel as if it is a vignette from reality and yet manage to be engaging.

As such it just cannot be engaging. (Kaufman's 'nothing happens in life' with McKee) You can joke about it, get-meta and all. But you can't try to have your audience take your story 'seriously' and still try to pull off these kind of things. I am aware this kind of thing would work eminently in a comedy. To push some armchair psychology I'd speculate this may be because there is a inherently a distance between the viewer and material in the comedy/farce.


But it superbly subverts and plays around the notion of 'what is real or unreal', 'what could happen and not happen'. I kinda get what he was trying to do (I'd believe it if it happened in the movies - line). But this sort of thing does not work for me.

[kid-glove]

Agree on farce/comedy.

Btw the moment the camera is placed somewhere, reality is altered forever. Even in 'documentaries' where the camera is supposedly hidden.

Recently I came across old behindwoods interview of Mysskin which echoes some of my thoughts on this matter..

[P_R]

Btw the moment the camera is placed somewhere, reality is altered forever. Even in 'documentaries' where the camera is supposedly hidden.
Theoretically true. But that's about it, no?

These "if you come to think about it...." statements, are no doubt interesting but do not fundamentally alter how we perceive something.

[kid-glove]

But the point is that it's much much more potent in case of non-documentary films, no?

And also it depends on the genre. What kind of universe the (imaginary) characters would/should/could dwell in.

Even if what he states is obvious, check the part on realism. It is refreshing to hear (from one of those supposedly 'realistic' filmmakers acc. to our fublic and press)
http://www.behindwoods.com/features/Interviews/interview-5/director/mysskin-01.html

[equanimus]

Excellent! அதான்... அதே தான்!

[P_R]

Yeah k_g, pretty obvious. pudhusaa oNNum sollalai. The MGR example is very "eh?"


What kind of universe the (imaginary) characters would/should/could dwell in. and that's pretty sacred. If the 'effect' of the creation is going to come from messing with that - well what's interesting about that? (rhetorical question, don't answer :lol2:)

Here is something by Jeyamohan which I quoted in his thread in the Tamil lit section


கதை என்பது ஒரு நிகரனுபவம். உண்மையான வாழ்க்கையை வாசகன் கற்பனையில் வாழச்செய்வதென்பது அதன் அடிப்படை இலக்கு. வாசகன் பெறும் கவித்துவமும் தரிசனமும் எல்லாமே அவ்வனுபவம் மூலம் அவன் அடைபவை. . புனைவென்பதே அந்த அனுபவத்தை புனைந்துருவாக்குவதே. அவற்றை அளிக்காமல் புனைவிலக்கியம் நிகழமுடியாது.

I largely share this opinion.

நிகரனுபவம்...whatay word.

[equanimus]

PR,
The MGR example is old and readily understandable to everyone, but he's clearly (and even abruptly) universalizing the idea to all kinds of films. "So, in a similar situation in real life I may not beat bad men but will at least raise my voice against bad people. This is what is cinema." This is a bold statement to make in today's times where almost every filmmaker considered serious by the audience is using the word "realistic" almost interchangeably with "good."

[P_R]

That was is portrayed is by a meta-defintion not 'real' does not mean one can stop attempting to be as real as possible.

I guess I understand what PTA was trying to do, teasing our notions, messing around with expectations etc. But neither did I find it profound, nor could I see the funny side of it.

[equanimus]

PR,
I'm not sure what exactly is being debated here (sorry, haven't exactly read through all posts). Do you disagree with the idea that films don't have to be realistic to strike as real (true or authentic or what have you) in a visceral sense, be emotionally resonant etc.?

[kid-glove]

P_R,
I don't think he was messing around with the universe simply as to tease (OTOH, he did overuse 8 and 2 numerical symbols, signifying the exodus, to grab attention of symbol-hunters. That in fact defies 'realism', and simply reiterates that the universe is the filmmaker's sandbox. And the kind of operatic undertones with which he moves forward the story is further evidence. The frog rain at the end is his own intervention, not divine. He isn't afraid of making his presence (storyteller) felt. He prepares us in the prologue. It'd be a lack of trust over audience if he carried on the voice narration for exposition, standing in for him & beat our head with it.). I hope I didn't come out that way. It isn't even the universe as we know it, the one inhibited by his characters. So there's no point of saying he 'messed it up'.

And finally it isn't that such an event wouldn't be 'plausible'. At no point, one feels PTA reduced it to 'fantasy'.

[P_R]

PR, I'm not sure what exactly is being debated here (sorry, haven't exactly read through all posts). The Magnolia Ending.



Do you disagree with the idea that films don't have to be realistic to strike as real (true or authentic or what have you) in a visceral sense, be emotionally resonant etc.? Hmm... I don't understand the distinction between realistic and real here. Except special cases fantasy etc. in general you (I mean I) want to believe what is being shown is real. i.e. it is a slice of A's life, that is how A would speak, how A would react B, would do in a situation such as this etc. Any creation that fails here fails fundamentally.

When Milan Kundera says கதைமாந்தர்கள் are அயோனிஜர்கள் in TULB it is interesting in passing. Quite daring to attempt to take you behind screen during the course of the story. The tingling thrill is because he is doing something he is not supposed to do.

The other film ending I think of here is Taste of Cherry (இந்தப் படத்தை நான் பல தடவை இங்க திட்டிருக்கேன்). The ending could be scene as a stroke of genius for its 'btw this is just a movie, okay'-ness.

That seemed like a total cop-out to me. Wanting to beat cliche is quite noble. But if this is how it is going to be done then it doesn't feel like 'beating' to me.

Of course Magnolia is far far more interesting than ToC. I am talking only about the idea behind such an ending.

[P_R]

(OTOH, he did overuse 8 and 2 numerical symbols, signifying the exodus, to grab attention of symbol-hunters. That in fact defies 'realism', and simply reiterates that the universe is the filmmaker's sandbox.
:-)
நானே சொல்லணும்னு நினைச்சேன். என்னத்துக்கு self-goal போடணும்னு விட்டுட்டேன்.

Not that I caught any of the planted symbolisaums in this film. I agree that planted symbols are what are patently unreal. But if don't subtly enough, that does not rankle me at all.

I don't at all mind symbols - as long they are not make or break. (No meat - Trojan horse 2001 theories).


He isn't afraid of making his presence (storyteller) felt. Well if he was well nigh absent when he wanted us to build relationships with his characters. And then he taps us on the shoulder with : 'well, you do know this not the real world right'. Or atleast that's how I understood thus far in the discussion of how the ending can be read. (Perhaps I crudely reduce). That didn't make much of an impression on me.


It isn't even the universe as we know it, the one inhibited by his characters. So there's no point of saying he 'messed it up'. The universe inhabited by his characters is the same as the one inhabited by us. There is no reason to believe otherwise, is there?


And finally it isn't that such an event wouldn't be 'plausible'. At no point, one feels PTA reduced it to 'fantasy'. Hmm...once again, at the risk of bruntly reducing, I paraphrase one of the reviews you quoted: "if it can rain frogs in this world, anything can happen (i.e. not in a hopeful way, just as an observation of the limitless possibilities)"

That did not strike me as profound.

[kid-glove]

But ' limitless possibilities ' doesn't have to be reduced to fantasy, right?

And I don't think it was a tap on the shoulder. He renders the film in such a way that we looking through the spectacles.

What do you mean by,

The universe inhabited by his characters is the same as the one inhabited by us. There is no reason to believe otherwise, is there?
The universe is tinted for we are looking through filmmaker's pov. When we say it's light or dark, be sure it's through HIS glass.

I repeat Equa's question,

Do you disagree with the idea that films don't have to be realistic to strike as real (true or authentic or what have you) in a visceral sense, be emotionally resonant etc.?

We aren't arguing it's profound per se, but the dissension doesn't across as judicious. At best, it's restrictive. One that I find less rewarding and most times misused.

[P_R]

Equa's questionukku dhaan (ennaala mudinju aLavukku) mEla answe fannirukkEnE

[kid-glove]

ToC ending vis-a-vis Magnolia ? Sorry, you lost me.

[P_R]

The universe inhabited by his characters is the same as the one inhabited by us. There is no reason to believe otherwise, is there?
The universe is tinted for we are looking through filmmaker's pov. When we say it's light or dark, be sure it's through HIS glass.
Why is that important?

To be trivial: the same laws of physics apply, the same laws of human relationship, social interactions, basic reasonability, logic -all of that applies.

To quote the waeld famous line: If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck it probably is a duck.

[P_R]

ToC ending vis-a-vis Magnolia ? Sorry, you lost me. As I said, the link may be weak. thONichu sonnEn, that's all.

In ToC *foiler for those who have not seen and despite my best advice are going to* they don't show the ending of the story. They suddenly step back and show him as an actor, show the film crew and what not.

Whatever the point of that was - one of the things was to shake out of the reality of the story and show that this is 'after all' a story being told by a storyteller.

That is the ending I am reminded of when reading the analyses of Magnolia.

As you know, I didn't have any reading whatsoever myself when I watched the film. Just WTF :shock: :lol:

[kid-glove]

The universe is tinted for we are looking through filmmaker's pov. When we say it's light or dark, be sure it's through HIS glass.
Why is that important?

Filmmaker's dramatization and stylization at service of the story and theme. The physics of frog falling down as rain could be governed by the universal laws. But its very existence has different connotations. What sum effect it has on the characters. When substituted with larger objects like cats & dogs, it fails to bridge what is decidedly real and what is Fortean (Fort is credited and referred at multiple places). The biblical allusions are the sleight of hand. It's within filmmaker's realm to do this.

OTOH, Taste of Cherry is bookended by documentary footage. That's something different. To break the darkness of the screen by showing him up as actor has entirely different connotation. I didn't think on lines of cop-out (I didn't fully get it then). But 'shaking out of reality' (with reality) and so on, reminds a Sensesofcinema article. It's worth a read.

Whether it's books/films, they conjure up the imagery in such a way that we find it to be immersive experience & sustain our interest. One way to get around it is by making it extremely 'realistic'. You find that a challenge. In some cases perhaps, but never laudable as it is.

[kid-glove]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECqIRXA-0uM

[P_R]

Whether it's books/films, they conjure up the imagery in such a way that we find it to be immersive experience & sustain our interest. One way to get around it is by making it extremely 'realistic'. You find that a challenge. In some cases perhaps, but never laudable as it is. Yes, the challenge is to make it appear real and interesting. Not easily done at all.

[kid-glove]

"Herr Freud had his chance, & contributed some very workable data but in the end he failed." - The Master

[kid-glove]

Jonny Greenwood to do the score for 'The Master'. Good news.

[Arvind Srinivasan]

liked his 'There will be blood" a lot....and looking forward to his "the master'...

[kid-glove]

Pristine images from the sets:
http://cigsandredvines.blogspot.com/2011/12/backstage-photos-from-master-emerge.html

[kid-glove]

Sfeelberg

Move to 9:00


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGldz_zRLU8&t=9m0s

[kid-glove]

22 year old PTA

http://cigsandredvines.blogspot.com/2012/01/drivers-unsung-heroes-of-hollywood.html

Meanwhile great news on TM being shot in 65mm/2.2:1 (Brad Bird confirms, and PTA nearly lost a camera shooting the bay sequence)

http://cigsandredvines.blogspot.com/2012/01/pixars-finest-talk-master.html

[kid-glove]

http://www.themasterfilm.com/

[ajithfederer]

Creepyy

[kid-glove]

Cannes also witnessed a special 4 minute edition which features The Master himself, Phil Seymour Hoffman and his wife Amy Adams.

7 min of Django unchained had also blown people's mind.

[kid-glove]

Hopelessly inquisitive about the film. Pliss to release soon, Master.

[kid-glove]

http://cinephilearchive.tumblr.com/post/26906417461/john-milius-master-of-flash-the-weekly-news-los

Although he admires a few scripts from modern-day Hollywood — such as P.T. Anderson’s “Boogie Nights,” “Hard Eight” and “There Will Be Blood” — most Hollywood scripts that get made today are “garbage,” Milius said, written by “broken writers” with no “shame.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JZswrVALi2M

[kid-glove]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJ1O1vb9AUU&feature=player_embedded

[kid-glove]

Someone got me this. On one hand, I'm amused. Oh the other hand, I'm worried about 'symbol/similarity hunters' like Welles was in 'This is Orson Welles'.

http://s1-04.twitpicproxy.com/photos/large/630620063.jpg?key=807480

[kid-glove]

The Master's also a hack. Learn from the best, KG!

[kid-glove]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/inside-the-master-paul-thomas-anderson-s-supposed-scientology-movie.html

[kid-glove]

Kg

Yeah, another for you simpletons (though this one might be more closer thematically)

https://p.twimg.com/A0Q0pCvCcAAK9yD.jpg

[kid-glove]

PTA on The Master, Venice press conference


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr7NnYjWL_g

[kid-glove]

PTA says he's trying to complete writing 'IV' and get it going soon. Let's hope 'soon' doesn't mean another 5-6 years. :twisted:

[groucho070]

The KG monologue. Intha levelukku vanthutarA...:sad:

Anyway, Joaquin aged well.

[kid-glove]

It's called catalogue, for myself first and foremost, but also for others.

[kid-glove]

Phoenix vs Ddl urudhi


Also the closest semblance to Jack Nicholson ATM, except Phoenix couldn't make it through charade of being a celebrity.

[groucho070]

In fact some scenes he reminds me of DDL, etho oru resemblance.

[kid-glove]

Forehead, ears and PTA-framing of the face at its best possible perimeter, impactful?

[groucho070]

Could be the framing, yeah.

[kid-glove]

The Master wins best actor for both Hoffman and Phoenix.

It wins best director and not the Golden Lion because of some stupid rule.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/venice-2012-master-paul-thomas-anderson-michael-mann-368917

"The rules are very specific,” Mann said. “A film may only win one award. The exception is actors. A film could win for actor and one of the other awards, but a film can’t win for actor and Golden Lion."

"[The Master] was awarded best director because we really thought Paul Thomas Anderson's directing was fantastic,” Mann said. “And it allowed us to award the actors. Nobody else could have played these roles. It’s a three-handed triumph."

[kid-glove]

OST just as sparse & sinister as TWBB..

http://www.factmag.com/2012/09/12/stream-the-soundtrack-to-paul-thomas-andersons-the-master-composed-by-radioheads-jonny-greenwood/

[kid-glove]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSjcDcpSOG4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SK_SVAXdf8

[kid-glove]

90/100 based on 25 Critical reviews

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/the-master

Unfortunately, as a 70mm film, even in US, it's releasing in its original format only in select few cities and screens.

[kid-glove]

PTA commentary tracks on Boogie Nights

He swears an awful lot. I miss that side of him now. Obviously matured a lot..

http://www.philonfilm.net/2012/09/commentary-tracks-boogie-nights.html

[geno]

http://www.mayyam.com/talk/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Kaufman

Of all things, why frogs?
Oh, the frogs falling from the sky! The question of the ages! [Laughs] Well, I just liked the idea. I read about it. It really happens! So that was the initial reason; it just seemed cool, but then as I thought about it, I realized how to fit it into my story. Because it’s like, if it’s raining frogs, then there’s no sense to anything. Nothing you believed to be true holds. And I wanted to look at that and, more importantly, force the audience to sit with that thought: that there is an irrationality to all of our lives and until something so out of the norm happens, we can’t see that. I want people to see it and think about it. And frogs are green, which is the color of nature. So in a way frogs represent the natural world and I’m saying, “Look, the natural world is falling the fuck on top of you. Look up, gaddamn it, and take notice.”

What made you decide to use sequences of weird historical coincidences as a framing device for the film?
It’s a promise. A promise to my audience. I’m saying, look at these stories. They’re all weird and bizarre and maybe true or maybe not, but, hey, if you give me four hours, I will give you a story just as weird and wonderful and amazing as these stories, because this stuff does happen in the world. Y’know? The world is bigger than we think.

Is the end of the film cathartic or unresolved? Is there some hope at the end of the day? Or will the sadness just go on and on?
For me it’s totally cathartic! It’s hope and wonderful and I cry whenever I see the movie for that reason. But of course it’s sad, too. And I cry about that as well. For Mercedes and me it’s important to look at the whole spectrum of feelings that any situation creates. Love is great, but it’s also hard as shit. It’s a lot of work and sweaty and embarrassing. But the surrender to it is so beautiful. What else is there, really?

The problem with traditional movies is they usually have to have it one way or the other: happy or sad. For those people who need it, we have a happy ending, but for people who want to look deeper, the movie is saying, yes, love is real, but the road to it is complicated and you’re going to make terrible messes along the way and you need to go on anyway.

My goal in my work is to show that motherfucking paradox, because I believe that it is in this paradix that you find life. That is what my work, at least at this point, is really all about. It’s complicated, y’know? Life is fucking complicated. Too many filmmakers don’t want to deal with that. They want to dumb down their vision for mass consumption. Listen, I don’t think it’s an accident that film is an art form that utilizes a lens. Filmmakers are the eyes of a society. We see and we reflect. We need to show what is wrong and painful. But a true lens is all encompassing; it also shows all the motherfucking hope and beauty in the world.



:rotfl:

Kid-glove must have the record number of enlightening words used in the hub! I see many "F" and whoa..."M..F" words too, a lot for one post. hm.
He must be real good chums with the Mods eh?

[kid-glove]

I only have enemies. But one with brains to know which posts are mine, which are quotations.

Hope the mods would lighten up, they should let us use unabbreviated form of swearing.

[geno]

:rotfl:


I only have enemies. But one with brains to know which posts are mine, which are quotations.

Hope the mods would lighten up, they should let us use unabbreviated form of swearing.

:clap: :goodidea: