Paul Thomas Anderson is the Anderson filmmaker who I like, as compared to Wes Anderson who is the Anderson filmmaker who I've very cool towards (although my students love the latter). I think that Wes Anderson is a brilliant technical filmmaker, but he's definitely one who is simply satisfied with his films being clever and quirky and nothing more. It's not that I don't love quirky and clever, because, well, my love for Hal Hartley is well-documented, but the difference is that there are characters in Hartley films who, amidst the hurricane of quirkiness, I care about deeply, whereas I never care about any character in a Wes Anderson movie. Obviously, I guess that's OK, because I don't think you're supposed to care about the characters in a Wes Anderson movie, but rather just be impressed by the wizardry of the director. There are many directors (and writers and painters and singers and musicians, etc.) who are very generous, but I just don't think that's anything that interests Wes Anderson. On the other hand, there's Paul Thomas Anderson, who is also a very successful and well-respected director, but it's difficult to not feel the pain and victories (often small) of his characters. Last night I watched his Boogie Nights for the first time in forever, and it was better than I remembered (and I remembered it being good). Once I think I described it as It's a Wonderful Life in the Porn Industry, not because it's great to work in the porn industry, obviously, but that the end was oddly life-affirming. In the increasingly cold and hateful Reagan universe, which has reached its horrible nadir today, you can find family in strange places. Highly recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment