why i think the films of wes anderson aren't as good as the films of p.t. anderson

[trotchky]

(a multi-part narrative essay on the films of p.t. anderson)

a recent thread asked us to list our least favorite films from our favorite directors. in that thread, i listed wes anderson, along with a slew of others, as one of mine. thing is though, three names stood near the top of that list, and only one of them really matters at the moment: pt. anderson's.

i used to be a fan of wes anderson. then i wasn't. then i was, again. i think i still am, but the facts, as far as i see 'em, are thus: wes anderson (as well as most of the other names on my list in that thread) isn't as good a filmmaker as p.t. anderson. why? because wes' films, at least the ones after rushmore, present characters who are fully delineated.

this is a problem, because most of us ("us" meaning the human race) hardly know ourselves, much less each other. that isn't to say there is no value in the royal tenenbaums or the darjeeling limited; they're both very entertaining and masterfully-crafted movies. part of that master-craftsmanship includes total profiling of each character's psyche. there's nothing inherently wrong with this, as the successes of royal and darjeeling prove, and even when it's done cloyingly, as in the life aquatic with steve zissou, it can still be fun, to an extent.

but wait, that doesn't really matter, the quality of the films. it's really tangential, but i figure i'll get it out of the way out of necessity. what matters is, wes anderson's pictures, even when they aren't, are fairytale-esque; p.t. anderson's pictures, even when they are, aren't.

the characters in p.t. anderson's movies (why is it worth focusing on the characters? because both wes' and p.t.'s filmographies are character-driven, duh) are enigmas; we glean things from watching their behavior, from the subtle mannerisms to the insane outbursts. their histories are always hinted at, but never fully divulged. in every one of p.t. anderson's movies, his characters are ciphers as much as they are syphers: the bold emotional strokes that nonetheless leave conspicuous white spots all over the canvas render the characters instantly, achingly recognizable while inviting us to bring our own experiences to the proceedings.

audience participation (emotional and/or otherwise) is the necessary component in all of p.t. anderson's movies. when they/we work, we recognize something about ourselves in them in the best possible way: because, see, they don't work unless we do. the amazing part is, what allows this whole meta(physical) system to function is, the delineations strike just the right balance between bold and vague so that it's highly unlikely the active viewer won't be moved in some this-is-why-art-exists way by something.

p.t. anderson's films are what some people call "challenging."

if you've read this far and still have no clue what i'm on about, come, let us watch p.t. anderson's films together.

[B-side]

Does anyone actually disagree with you?

[soitgoes...]

Does anyone actually disagree with you?
I think a number of people on this site do.

[B-side]

I think a number of people on this site do.

I thought that was just a horrible thought I had in passing. Surely these people reside in asylums?

[soitgoes...]

I thought that was just a horrible thought I had in passing. Surely these people reside in asylums?

A strong case could be made that they do. There's an awful lot of crazy on this site.

[B-side]

A strong case could be made that they do. There's an awful lot of crazy on this site.

True. Case in point: That 3.5 at the bottom of your sig.;)

[ledfloyd]

i personally don't think either filmmaker is deserving of the amount of praise they receive.

[Dukefrukem]

i personally don't think either filmmaker is deserving of the amount of praise they receive.

This i completely disagree with. Rushmore, Life Aquatic and Royal Tenenbaums would all be on my top 100 list for sure. I feel Wes's films are getting progressively better!! I feel the opposite is happening for TP. Boogie Nights >> There Will Be Blood >> Punch-Drunk Love >> Magnolia.

They both have talent. I love Wes's style a lot more.

[Amnesiac]

the characters in p.t. anderson's movies (why is it worth focusing on the characters? because both wes' and p.t.'s filmographies are character-driven, duh) are enigmas; we glean things from watching their behavior, from the subtle mannerisms to the insane outbursts. their histories are always hinted at, but never fully divulged. in every one of p.t. anderson's movies, his characters are ciphers as much as they are syphers: the bold emotional strokes that nonetheless leave conspicuous white spots all over the canvas render the characters instantly, achingly recognizable while inviting us to bring our own experiences to the proceedings.

audience participation (emotional and/or otherwise) is the necessary component in all of p.t. anderson's movies. when they/we work, we recognize something about ourselves in them in the best possible way: because, see, they don't work unless we do. the amazing part is, what allows this whole meta(physical) system to function is, the delineations strike just the right balance between bold and vague so that it's highly unlikely the active viewer won't be moved in some this-is-why-art-exists way by something.


PTA is definitely one of my favorite filmmakers and I've similarly praised There Will Be Blood's careful, economical, assured handling of Daniel Plainview (like Barry Egan, I feel he is one of PTA's most wonderfully enigmatic characters) and the way it forgoes any excessive exposition and back history in the interest of offering something much more authentic, ambiguous and moving. I agree that it encourages the audience to work, as well. And I can see how this method, for the most part, extends to his other films as well.

Good write-up.

[Sycophant]

On the whole, I like Wes Anderson's film more than P.T. Anderson's film, and pose a threat to society as I am still allowed to roam free.

[Sycophant]

No intention of devaluing the other position here, though. I'm looking forward to where this thread goes. Both thirty-something Andersons are valuable American filmmakers.

In truth, I need to revisit most of PTA's films.

[Amnesiac]

I definitely prefer PTA to Wes Anderson but I don't mind the latter as much as others do. I also haven't explored his filmography as thoroughly (I've only seen Bottle Rocket, The Royal Tenenbaums, and The Darjeeling Limited), whereas I've seen all of PTA's films. As a side note, I think there was a good debate between Duncan and Israfel a while back on the merits of Wes Anderson that I didn't really fully attend to at the time.

Incidentally, I watched Bottle Rocket last night for the first time. Strange and intermittently hilarious (both robberies were a riot, especially the final one) but I wasn't really floored by it or anything. A really good first effort, I'd say. James Caan was hilarious, and there was a certain authenticity to all the inane and trivial arguments the characters got into that I appreciated, but other aspects didn't strike me as being all that interesting. The love story with Inez, for instance, was kind of moving and touching... but it didn't quite reach any truly resonating heights for me.

Dignan, however, was an interesting and strange character, and possibly one of the more memorable Owen Wilson performances I've seen just due to its nuanced eccentricity.

[number8]

Which one of them directed Event Horizon? That was cool.

[baby doll]

Comparing the two makes about as much sense as comparing Nicholas and Satyajit Ray, but whatever.

I had to look up "delineated" in the online dictionary, and the definition I found was:

1. To indicate or represent by drawn or painted lines; to mark the outline of. (Lights delineating the narrow street.)
2. To describe, portray, or set fourth with accuracy or in detail. (Delineate a character in the story.)

The latter, being probably the most relevant, sounds to me like what all narrative films strive to do. You say that people don't know themselves, much less each other, which strikes me as a very dubious claim to begin with. But even if, in the films of Paul Thomas Anderson, the characters' histories aren't revealed to us, presumably the characters know their own lives. Nevermind that we learn a great deal about the character's pasts in Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and Punch-Drunk Love. In Magnolia, they even say in the film several times, "We may be done with the past. But the past ain't done with us." The whole point of the film is that the characters' pasts have shaped who they are in the present. And in There Will Be Blood, we learn pretty much all we need to know about the guy in the first five seconds: he's greedy. Sure, he adopts the boy, but as a prop in his business. He's capitalism personified--not exactly a rounded figure.

[trotchky]

Comparing the two makes about as much sense as comparing Nicholas and Satyajit Ray, but whatever.

i don't know who satyajit ray is, but i don't give a shit. this is an essay, bro, so go easy on the dismissive reductionism until i at least get all my words out.

part two (hard eight) coming up soon.

[baby doll]

i don't know who satyajit ray is, but i don't give a shit.What a wonderful attitude for some one who considers themself a cinephile.

[trotchky]

i'm sorry. i should have just let that go. the last thing i want is to turn this thread into another thread about baby doll, especially because i'm actually trying to do something here.

go wild, baby doll, and i'll just leave you alone. you are not relevant to what i want to say.

[Sycophant]

Actually, both are contemporary American filmmakers, similar in age, producing films approximately every 3 years, each possessing a healthy dose of indie cred, and whose freshman feature films debuted in 1996.

So a little more in common than Satyajit Ray (incidentally, music from Satyajit Ray films was used in The Darjeeling Limited) and Nicholas Ray. In fact, I might even say it's a worthwhile comparative examination, regardless of their names.

[baby doll]

do you hear that? baby doll thinks i have a bad attitude for a cinephile.

take a seat, pal. i'm tired of your sanctimonious bullshit (thanks, number8).I know, but I couldn't resist. Typically, I tend to think of cinephiles as a curious bunch. So my expected reaction for some one on this site, coming across the name of Satyajit Ray for the first time, would be one of curiosity: do some web surfing (both the Apu trilogy and The Music Room are in Ebert's Great Movies canon), and then maybe check out his work for yourself. I was kind of taken aback that your first reaction was, "I don't give a shit." Then again, I suppose that's not really the issue; I implied that it made little sense to compare two filmmakers with very different styles on the basis of their last names, and now you appear to be having a hissyfit.

[baby doll]

Actually, both are contemporary American filmmakers, similar in age, producing films approximately every 3 years, each possessing a healthy dose of indie cred, and whose freshman feature films debuted in 1996.

So a little more in common than Satyajit Ray (incidentally, music from Satyajit Ray films was used in The Darjeeling Limited) and Nicholas Ray. In fact, I might even say it's a worthwhile comparative examination, regardless of their names.Fair points.

[Boner M]

why i think acapelli should be the only one allowed to write in all small caps

[Sycophant]

No. If we had to pare it down to just one poster who had the privelege of using small caps, lovejuice would have to be the one. Everyone else would have to learn to capitalize.

[Boner M]

No. If we had to pare it down to just one poster who had the privelege of using small caps, lovejuice would have to be the one. Everyone else would have to learn to capitalize.
I stand corrected.

[baby doll]

Everyone else would have to learn to capitalize.I'd rather die.

[Qrazy]

CAN I BEE TEH WON TO RITE IN ALL CAPS GUYZ!?? LOLWUT?? !

[Raiders]

I have read the first post and I feel dumber for it. I don't really mean that negatively... well, I guess I do, but I mean to say I understood less at the end than I did at the beginning for why you feel the way you do.


but wait, that doesn't really matter, the quality of the films. it's really tangential, but i figure i'll get it out of the way out of necessity. what matters is, wes anderson's pictures, even when they aren't, are fairytale-esque; p.t. anderson's pictures, even when they are, aren't.

I mean really, what the hell is that?

I also don't agree at all that Wes Anderson presents characters who have little mystery left in them. In fact, I find it odd you state "after Rushmore" since I would say Max is probably the most delineated character I can think of from a Wes Anderson film.

[baby doll]

Neg repping, trotchky? How mature.

[ledfloyd]

there is almost no mystery to daniel plainview. he exists more as an archetype than a character.

[baby doll]

there is almost no mystery to daniel plainview. he exists more as an archetype than a character.Word. That's pretty much what I wanted to say above, but much shorter.

[Amnesiac]

I only attended to trotchky's comments about PTA, as I'm not really an expert on Wes Anderson's films. I'm less enthusiastic about them but I also haven't really given them enough thought or revisited them recently or seen enough of them. Either way, I believe trotchky's account of PTA's characters held some truth and validity. Whether or not his account of how delineated the characters are can be spread to PTA's entirely filmography, I'm less sure... I did mention in my first reply that this works only for the most part and thinking on it, there are notable exceptions but there are also examples that uphold his observations.

In other words...


there is almost no mystery to daniel plainview.

I disagree with this. The fact that we learn all we need to learn about the character quickly is only a testament to Anderson's decidedly economical methods I mentioned earlier but it does not preclude a sense of mystery to the character. Of course, people can (and judging by the folks that have turned up in this thread, will) disregard the more ambiguous or enigmatic shades of the character or consider them to be nonexistent or superfluous or simply regard him as a potent archetype... and that's fine. I just don't agree with simplistic approximations of Plainview. At the same time, I don't necessarily disagree about the archetype comment (to an extent) and how that is a facet to his character, but I also appreciate other things about the portrait Anderson offers. But that's merely a difference of opinion and not worth erupting this thread into yet another pedantic, overwrought and bitter argument. Just, you know, on the off chance that one of those is coming up. :)

[D_Davis]

Paul WS Anderson FTW.

[BuffaloWilder]

Wes Anderson's films are just - annoying. As is the man himself.

[Amnesiac]

As is the man himself.

I don't know if this is true or untrue, but could you elaborate on this point? And the former one, while you're at it.

[Ivan Drago]

Wes Anderson's films are just - annoying. As is the man himself.

I'm not the only one that thinks this! I'm not insane! :pritch:

[BuffaloWilder]

I don't know if this is true or untrue, but could you elaborate on this point? And the former one, while you're at it.

His films seem to epitomize what would happen if the stereotypical film school student got his chance to direct a movie - quirky, quirky, quirky! - and, in interviews, he is that film school student.

I did enjoy the second half of The Darjeeling Limited, and Bottle Rocket, though.

[MacGuffin]

His films seem to epitomize what would happen if the stereotypical film school student got his chance to direct a movie - quirky, quirky, quirky! - and, in interviews, he is that film school student.

Yeah, but example of the so-called quirkiness in his movies (I may agree that he overuses music, although I find it used fittingly in Rushmore)? Also, examples of interviews? I could go call Stanley Kubrick an asshole right now, but without an interview to give some sort of evidence to support this, the statement means nothing.

[BuffaloWilder]

Paul WS Anderson FTW.

http://www.esquire.com/media/cm/esquire/images/high-five-0808-lg-76258126.jpg

[BuffaloWilder]

Yeah, but example of the so-called quirkiness in his movies (I may agree that he overuses music, although I find it used fittingly in Rushmore)?

The first half of Darjeeling. Hell, the weird startling zoom-in's he seems to like to incorporate, even in the better second half - although, I don't know if I'd necessarily call those quirky.


Also, examples of interviews? I could go call Stanley Kubrick an asshole right now, but without an interview to give some sort of evidence to support this, the statement means nothing.

Kubrick was an asshole, and you'd be right. But, just for the hell of it -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zK3G5MAsKwg

Of course, this won't lead anywhere.

[Derek]

Resident Evil was pretty good, but c'mon people.

[Winston*]

Wes Anderson only has two tits in his ouvre whereas PT Anderson has at least eight. On a numbers basis PT Anderson has this shit won hands down.

[baby doll]

His films seem to epitomize what would happen if the stereotypical film school student got his chance to direct a movie - quirky, quirky, quirky! - and, in interviews, he is that film school student.I like a bit of whimsy in the cinema. Not everything has to be kitchen sink realism.

[BuffaloWilder]

I like a bit of whimsy in the cinema. Not everything has to be kitchen sink realism.

Hey, I agree. I'm not decrying whimsy. I loves me some of that thar whimsy.

[baby doll]

Hey, I agree. I'm not decrying whimsy. I loves me some of that thar whimsy.But there's obviously a difference between good whimsy--for instance, the films of Wes Anderson--and a film school cliché. Furthermore, I'm getting mighty sick of everyone around here likening certain filmmakers to film students when they don't like their work. Some people even do good work as students; look at Eraserhead or Killer of Sheep.

[Dukefrukem]

Okay, so trotchky has neg-repped me a second time, which I mention only as an excuse to post what he wrote.

The first time he wrote: "how's this for a hissy fit. if you would give me a chance, you'd see that this is far more than a comparison 'on the basis of their last names.' in fact, it's hardly a comparison at all."

In my defense, the title of the thread is "why i think the films of wes anderson aren't as good as the films of p.t. anderson," which makes it sound like he's comparing them. Syco outlined some reasons why a comparison of their work might be useful, but all trotchky did in his first post (which I erroneously believed to be all he wanted to say on the matter, and not the first part of some massive, staggering, multi-part epic of film criticism) was to contrast them without first comparing them.

Anyway, after I outed him for neg-repping, Sarah Palin fired back, writing: "using functions on internet forums--indications of maturity!"

CAlling out other members FTL. This post is failure and I will be neg repping you for it.

[baby doll]

CAlling out other members FTL. This post is failure and I will be neg repping you for it.Shouldn't we strive for a relaxed, friendly discussion? With neg-repping, the implication isn't that you want to debate something intelligently, but that you want to inflict damage on the other person. The neg-repping isn't what bothers me (how could it? If I lose so many do I have to pay a fine?), but the attitude and intent behind it. I suppose outing a neg-repper is no better, so maybe I shouldn't have brought it up at all.

Also, what's FTL?

[Dukefrukem]

Shouldn't we strive for a relaxed, friendly discussion? With neg-repping, the implication isn't that you want to debate something intelligently, but that you want to inflict damage on the other person. The neg-repping isn't what bothers me (how could it? If I lose so many do I have to pay a fine?), but the attitude and intent behind it.

Also, what's FTL?

For the Loss. IF you have a problem with a member. PM them. Work it out. Move on. Or put them on Ignore. Sure we're a community. I've fought people in the past. I've made up. I'm over it. But posting neg rep comments is a no-no on forums.

[baby doll]

For the Loss. IF you have a problem with a member. PM them. Work it out. Move on. Or put them on Ignore. Sure we're a community. I've fought people in the past. I've made up. I'm over it. But posting neg rep comments is a no-no on forums.I wasn't aware it was a no-no (I figured anything he had to say to me was fair game), and will make a point not to do it in the future. I think PM-ing him is a helpful suggestion, one I'm ashamed I didn't think of myself. And thank for you the tips on etiquette.

[Dukefrukem]

I wasn't aware it was a no-no (I figured anything he had to say to me was fair game), and will make a point not to do it in the future. I think PM-ing him is a helpful suggestion, one I'm ashamed I didn't think of myself. And thank for you the tips on etiquette.

Possy rep. :pritch: I hope you and trot work it out. You're both valuable posters. You just differ in the way you perceive each other. I don't agree with a lot of your posts, but I'm not gonna get upset about it.

[Sycophant]

No, neg-repping is a no-no in this community.

[baby doll]

No, neg-repping is a no-no in this community.Still, I think the Duke is correct that I should've handled it more discreetly.

[Melville]

Yeah, neg-repping is kind of lame. Posting another user's private message is also kind of lame. Saying that Daniel Plainview is nothing but an embodiment of capitalism is...well, maybe not lame, but completely incorrect, I think. The reason he's such a compelling character is that he's simultaneously an archetype and a very relatable human being with very particular human flaws and contradictions. And he definitely doesn't just use his son in order to make money; plenty of things in the movie refute that overly simple reading. He loves his son even as he uses him to make money; that, I think, exemplifies the kind of internal contradictions and ambiguity that trotchky is talking about.

[baby doll]

Yeah, neg-repping is kind of lame. Posting another user's private message is also kind of lame. Saying that Daniel Plainview is nothing but an embodiment of capitalism is...well, maybe not lame, but completely incorrect, I think. The reason he's such a compelling character is that he's simultaneously an archetype and a very relatable human being with very particular human flaws and contradictions. And he definitely doesn't just use his son in order to make money; plenty of things in the movie refute that overly simple reading. He loves his son even as he uses him to make money; that, I think, exemplifies the kind of internal contradictions and ambiguity that trotchky is talking about.And where is that in the film exactly? I mean, I haven't seen the movie since it came out, so my overall impression that he doesn't love anyone, even himself, may be a simplification, but I don't think it is. Of course, I may have forgotten some relevant piece of information that shows he truly loves his son, or perhaps it was so subtle that I never spotted it in the first place. But I don't think I'm simplifying; I think the character is simply simple. Not simple stupid, just simple greedy.

[Qrazy]

And where is that in the film exactly? I mean, I haven't seen the movie since it came out, so my overall impression that he doesn't love anyone, even himself, may be a simplification, but I don't think it is. Of course, I may have forgotten some relevant piece of information that shows he truly loves his son, or perhaps it was so subtle that I never spotted it in the first place. But I don't think I'm simplifying; I think the character is simply simple. Not simple stupid, just simple greedy.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD SPOILERS

It is there, it's not that subtle and you are simplifying.

Evidence: Running to help him when he has the accident, holding him when he's deafened, different ways he treats him before the accident. And most significantly the line of dialogue: 'I abandoned my son'.

He doesn't just use his son as a means by any means. What happens is initially he uses him to help him make sales. After his son is deafened he feels responsible and cannot handle this guilt. He then pushes his son further away from himself because he cannot handle the guilt and also because he feels like he can't trust anyone anymore (brother character). This is a character that wants companionship and love, but he also wants security, freedom and isolation from the world. He chooses to succeed/win/make money at the expense of others but he still has human needs and desires. At the end of the film he is not shooting guns in his house because he particularly enjoys it. He may have a bowling alley but he has no one to bowl with. He's so terribly alone and full of anger and hatred that he finally kills people in cold blood. He doesn't kill Eli because he meddled in his business affairs, he kills him for making him publicly admit that 'he abandoned his son'.

[Melville]

And where is that in the film exactly? I mean, I haven't seen the movie since it came out, so my overall impression that he doesn't love anyone, even himself, may be a simplification, but I don't think it is. Of course, I may have forgotten some relevant piece of information that shows he truly loves his son, or perhaps it was so subtle that I never spotted it in the first place. But I don't think I'm simplifying; I think the character is simply simple. Not simple stupid, just simple greedy.
Basically, what Qrazy said. The fact that he is so hurt by his son's "betrayal", the fact that he so quickly latches on to his brother, the fact that he is so offended by the businessmen telling him how to raise his son, his overall behavior toward his son, and most especially, the "confession" scene that Qrazy pointed to, all indicate that his feelings toward other people, and particularly his family, are a lot more complex than you suggest.

It's kind of unseemly to be constantly referring to my own reviews, but, anyway, I discuss the character in some length in my review of the film:
http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=42971#post429 71

[baby doll]

It is there, it's not that subtle and you are simplifying.

Evidence: Running to help him when he has the accident, holding him when he's deafened, different ways he treats him before the accident. And most significantly the line of dialogue: 'I abandoned my son'.

He doesn't just use his son as a means by any means. What happens is initially he uses him to help him make sales. After his son is deafened he feels responsible and cannot handle this guilt. He then pushes his son further away from himself because he cannot handle the guilt and also because he feels like he can't trust anyone anymore (brother character). This is a character that wants companionship and love, but he also wants security, freedom and isolation from the world. He chooses to succeed/win/make money at the expense of others but he still has human needs and desires. At the end of the film he is not shooting guns in his house because he particularly enjoys it. He may have a bowling alley but he has no one to bowl with. He's so terribly alone and full of anger and hatred that he finally kills people in cold blood. He doesn't kill Eli because he meddled in his business affairs, he kills him for making him publicly admit that 'he abandoned his son'.You might want to consider some spoiler tags. Anyway, I remembered the accident scene like ten seconds after I posted my last comment, and I guess you're right. If Anderson wanted to show that he just didn't care, he could've shown him hesitating before jumping into action (like Bush on 9/11).

[eternity]

With the exception of Boogie Nights, I kind of think P.T. Anderson sucks.

Wes is a one-trick pony but he's a master of riding that pony.

[baby doll]

Wes is a one-trick pony but he's a master of riding that pony.That sounds dirty, like he's a waiter at Swallows.

"What's the leather pony for?"
"I don't know. We don't have that at lunch."

[transmogrifier]

With the exception of Boogie Nights, I kind of think P.T. Anderson sucks.

Wes is a one-trick pony but he's a master of riding that pony.

Just when I thought your wrongness couldn't get any wronger, you go and do something like this. I'm beginning to think there is no outer limit to the amount of wrongness that can accumulate in a single person. I'm thinking of writing a paper on it. Can I use you as an interview subject?

[eternity]

Just when I thought your wrongness couldn't get any wronger, you go and do something like this. I'm beginning to think there is no outer limit to the amount of wrongness that can accumulate in a single person. I'm thinking of writing a paper on it. Can I use you as an interview subject?You have no material to build off of.

[BuffaloWilder]

You have no material to build off of.

Exhibit A (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1919&page=9)

Exhibit B (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=14&page=1076)

[Qrazy]

Eternity is not Baby Doll homey.

[soitgoes...]

Exhibit A (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1919&page=9)

Exhibit B (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=14&page=1076)

He has no posts on either page you linked.

[BuffaloWilder]

Huh. Must have thought he'd quoted baby doll. My mistake.

[eternity]

I'm a patsy.