Momentum VI: There Will Be Blood

"I'm finished" an exhausted Daniel Plainview says. Back facing the screen. Sitting in a bowling alley that is Kubrick-like in its symmetry. How did we get to this point is the same question we probably asked ourselves of Magnolia. The difference is the only thing falling from the skies this time is the oil that spews out of a derrick with a towering presence as large as Daniel Plainview's character itself. Right off the bat, the title promises blood. We can sense it in the foreboding air of doom that bubbles from the surface like a pocket of crude oil. & by the end of it all, we get it.

There Will Be Blood is a film that will invoke strong reaction. Considering the pacing, it has more to do with a novel than a film. It falls in the novelistic approach. Loosely based on the Upton Sinclair book Oil!, the director wrote alot of original material for it. It captures a time and place in the American West during the turn of the 20th century. From a photography standpoint, Robert Elswit shoots the panoramas and landscapes with a bold and watchful eye. Helping recreate the sense of ambition amongst dwellers of both oil and religion.

The long takes. The wide shots. Holding a frame. It allows the film space to breathe. You don't need superfluous coverage when one shot will do. Kubrick may no longer be alive but his children are hard at work. In the long run, this is the picture that calls for this type of filming out of all of his films. It's not fast paced and packed with characters like Boogie Nights & Magnolia. In fact, if Boogie Nights was soul, this would be classical. Not the average period piece classical like Beethoven. Alot rougher around the edges ala Penderecki.

These rough edges around this picture are pierced and knotted into a startling tapestry created by Johnny Greenwood's score. A bold and unconventional score at that. Pushing the viewer to uncomfortable places.

The opening 20 minutes of the film set the tone for the story to follow. In it Plainview falls down a mineshaft and injures his leg. Driven with determination, he musters his strength to climb out of the mine. No dialogue need be spoken to tell us the characteristics of this gristled prospector. Who now lay in an assayer's office waiting for his money.



At its core it is a character piece. Plainview is a tricky character to gauge. Full of contradictions. Plainview's quest for fortune soon becomes as vast as the vistas and terrain he crosses with his partner H.W. Taking on and eventually defeating all his rivals. The bond between Daniel & H.W. develops in the 2nd act when he is made deaf from an oil blast. This bond is interrupted by the supposed long lost brother which could have gone in the wrong direction, but here it doesn't. Then there's Eli Sunday. A man of faith who will eventually learn the hard way what happens when you step over the line in a bowling alley. & not in the Walter Sobchek way either.

An argument I've seen against Plainview's character is that he doesn't evolve. He remains the same man as the beginning. What makes him such a fascinating character & one of the best of the last decade is his ongoing competitive streak. We want to feel sympathy for him. And as the H.W. bond dries up and Daniel reduces him to nothing more than a 'bastard in a basket' it is striking. Heart as black as the oil he once drilled.

It is only until the final scenes of him in his mansion made for the wealthiest of men, that we can finally accept the point of no return for this character. The theatrical performance of Daniel Day Lewis is on full display here. When seeing this in the theater, people erupted with cackles and howls at the milkshake scene in the bowling alley. It is a phrase that has since made it on to T-shirts & even parodied on Saturday Night Live. But the thing that silenced the coos of laughter in the theater that day was a vicious blow to Eli's head with a bowling pin. Then another. Everyone remained silent until Plainview uttered those famous last words and the strings came on.

Around the 3rd act, the timeline jumps to Daniel in his mansion. I have no problem with this but I would like to see the missing chapters. This is the kind of story that would be perfectly suited for 3 hours. It just seemed the canvas Anderson was painted on was intended to be even bigger.

If there's anything Anderson's career path has told us it is that his aesthetic refuses to be tied down to a single trait. Mature gets thrown around alot these days. If there's a word to sum up Anderson's aesthetic at this point it would be confidence. He's given us some great cinematic characters in Dirk Diggler, Jim Kurring and Daniel Plainview. I can't wait to see what he'll give us next. Hopefully Inherent Vice or whatever it will become comes out soon. With Smith & Soderbergh supposedly hanging up their director caps in the future, the 'indie generation' of the 90's is certainly going to be smaller.


Oh and one other thing. There will be another one of these director series coming soon.

Momentum V: Punch-Drunk Love

Pop quiz hotshot: How do you follow up a three hour film filled with cancer, grief, outbursts, and frogs? You run as far as you can in the opposite direction.

Now I didn't know who PTA was back in 2002. But I'm sure there were quite alot of fans who must have been shocked to hear he was following up Magnolia with a 90 minute romantic comedy starring Adam Sandler. This is the guy who has since gone onto Don't Mess With the Zohan. The good thing is & I'm not ashamed at all to admit it, I was a fan of his early movies. Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore & even The Wedding Singer. While he has currently milked the Sandler persona to death with some of his recent efforts, he wasn't known for taking on dramatic roles. Then again, neither was Jim Carrey at that time. What's so interesting about seeing comedic actors like these take on these roles is how they are able to maintain their 'funny man' persona while hitting new notes. & unfortunately for Sandler, PDL is a note he is still trying to reach again.

As much of a departure as this film was for Sandler, it was for PT Anderson. Yet is somehow felt like Anderson. The Jon Brion score being a major component. Compared to Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love is very minimal. The ingredients? A good dose of Jacques Tati along with some French New Wave stylings and it's not hard to see why Cannes loved it. That's not to say his Altman influences are not present. The phone sex operator is straight out of Short Cuts & the use of He Needs Me from Altman's Popeye is also an indicator that that director is still one of PTA's primary influences.

Looking at the director's work as a whole, PDL is the one that sticks out the most as the oddball. It has a mysterious aura surrounding it. Not to mention the usual themes one would find in a PTA flick are for the most part, absent. The scenes however show an abrasive edge to them. Take for example the car flipping or the harmonium being dropped off for no rhyme or reason. They are just there.

It is all the more fitting that the film starts off with a shot of Barry Egan in a desk off in a corner. Loneliness and isolation take place of the usual themes found in a PTA film. All of this being expressed in the colors, sounds, music and camera work. Couple this with a staunch sense of insecurity and you pretty much got Barry Egan's world pegged. At least throughout the 1st act of the film. Visual dynamics are key here. From the shots of Barry in his office with the harmonium to him running down a hallway of exit signs. All point to a sense of character entrapment. It's not very often films are able to take you along with a character's discomfort.

The first time I saw this, the thing that caught me off guard the most were the color bars. The grocery store scene itself has the items stacked in such a way that it recalls them. Anderson also employs a type of organization amongst things. Going back to the first shot, the wall is divided up into two colors: blue and white. Lena's red dress complements Barry's blue suit. The colors pop as they would in a Godard picture yet they still carry the scenes along to a harmonious rhythm.

Despite living in a world of loneliness and insecurity, Lena ends up walking into his life. & isn't that what the whole movie about is anyway? Love. The "I wanna bit your cheeks off" type of love. Where PDL ultimately is triumphant is the chemistry and honest performances between Sandler & Watson. They don't have all the right things to say to each other. They get scared. & in Barry's case, fear is coated with rage. Violent elements which stem from the phone sex stint that threaten to cast a shadow over their relationship. Chief among the purveyors is one Philip Seymour Hoffman who should go toe to toe with Don Logan in terms of shouting a single word repeatedly. Though if Kingsley's Logan was bark and bite, then Hoffman's Dean Trumbell is all bark and no bite.

Punch Drunk Love shows the side of Adam Sandler we have not seen before and unfortunately haven't seen since. Sure he's been in a couple of more dramas, but here he nails the role of Barry Egan. The comedies, though nostalgic to some they may be, seemed to be holding him back from reaching notes unheard of before in his career. Barry's world is filled with domineering sisters, insecurity and rage. Order is restored through Lena Leonard. Who in a signature shot of the film runs up to Egan and their silhouettes are shown embracing amongst the business of the passing crowd.

More important than PTA pulling out a great performance out of Sandler is the themes which some people tend to look over. PDL is about Barry's escape from the isolated and boring existance into one of exhilaration. While the oil derricks of There Will Be Blood may have cast a shadow over the harmonium over Punch Drunk Love, this film's vibrant colors and emotional resonance is still able to linger in our minds long after the final color bars fade out.

Momentum IV: Magnolia

Magnolia is a film that means a whole lot to me. Favorite. Yeah. That's the terms they throw around these days. Now I must preface this analysis/review with a word of warning. I went into this film the first time, cold. Not knowing alot about the big events that occur within, I was taken aback but elated that it dodged every way I thought it was going to end. I suggest to those who have not seen the film that they do the same.










A murder. 3 executions. Another murder. A suicide. An attempted suicide turned homicide. & that's before the title even shows up. The terrain this film navigates is vast and its depth expansive. It's a film encompassing 9 lives in a small time frame. It's filled with extremes-- whether it be examples of love or pain. A musical number and an event straight from the Bible even show up. Nothing is played safe. For a film that begins in black and white and ends on a smile it certainly is an exhaustive journey.

There are few films that I have been obssessive over as much as this one. 2001 is one. Apocalypse Now is another. Watching Magnolia for the first time, or any great film for that matter, is a one of a kind experience. You literally have no idea what to expect next. & that's just what this film does-- subvert expectations. With this in mind, Magnolia is the kind of film that divides audiences just as much as critics. Controversy is a vital sign of life, and that's why I love a lightning rod. It was not a film that instantly jumped to my all time favorite list upon first viewing. I would be surprised if it did anyones. Repeat viewings is where a major strength of the film lies. Because there is so much packed in, it allows for it to improve on a 3rd, 4th or even 5th viewing. Even looking at reviews of the film, there is a variety that essentially exist between two poles-- love or hate. It's been called many things: too long, too short, pretentious, perfect or as PT says in the making of "what kind of ending is that? People won't care about her smiling." & for any film to create such passionate reaction amongst viewers, there is at least something happening that's right.

















By now you know the characters. But for those not in the loop (go out and netflix now! or better yet buy it), I'll get into the details. A major string tying this fiesty little yarn down is the broken relationships between fathers & sons and in one case father & daughter. Frank T.J. Mackey is a misogynistic infomercial salesman and head of Seduce & Destroy. His estranged father is Earl Partridge, a cancer ridden, bed stricken old man whose wife goes to get him more medicine. Did I mention guilt ridden? Earl is a man whose cheating on his past wife has forced him to try to come to terms with his son.















In our next corner we have Stanley Specter, a quiz kid constantly under pressure to win from his overbearing father. The head of the game show is Jimmy Gator, another ailing old man dying of cancer. & another man who cheats on his wife. His daughter, Claudia Wilson Gator isn't too good either. She's a cocaine addict who shamelessly sleeps with men just to get by. Donnie Smith, a former quiz kid, is another fractured soul in the midst of this storm. He seeks love and unfortunately in the wrong places.

Seem like a lot? It is. I remember watching this film with a friend and the one thing they said during the whole running time was "This has to be the most dramatic movie I've seen." I really can't help but agree. There's a whole lotta drama. It can be almost too much for some. The thing that helps this ship from flying apart is Anderson's constant rhythm & pacing of scenes. Something that can also be attributed to his editor Dylan Tichenor. The more times you see this, the faster it flies by. At least for me it does. For a film with many characters, it ends up holding together cohesively. Each character weaves their own narrative into a collective whole. What seems to elevate each character is that as inexplicable their behavior may be, it never seems forced.

Among all of these damaged lives exist two sympathetic characters: the nurse, Phil Parma, who takes of Earl Partridge and Jim Kurring, a police officer who falls in love with Claudia Gator. For a film filled with abrasive characters, both Phil & Jim act as the center. If I had to choose one character out of this ensemble as a particular favorite it would have to be Jim. He is a man of routine. Yet he seeks to live a better life. He even monologues to himself in the car. Throughout the entire intro, we are introduced to characters who are busy with their own lives. Whether it be having sex, going to school, going to the dentist, nursing or dying. Even on his date with Claudia, he is taken aback by the use of the terms "piss" and "shit". A simple man just trying to do the right thing.

The major interpretation to the film is that our behavior has a lasting effect on those close to us. It is passed down. Even a small scene between Dixon and Jim Kurring has Kurring writing off Dixon's song that identifies the killer in a case he is investigating. Miscommunication and in some cases mistreatment of children is something that's inherent in most of the adults in the film. Take for instance the story between Frank Mackey & Earl Partridge. We discover that Frank was forced to take care of his dying mother because Earl was never there. This leads him to choosing to go down his own little path. Creating Seduce & Destroy. It's not until a television interviewer uncovers a couple skeletons in the closet that Frank's armor begins to crack and we eventually see him in his most vulnerable state at the film's conclusion. Vulnerability hangs over everyone here. Donnie Smith's own parents exploited him over a game show. He states that he has lots of love to give but it's not until the end that we find out the missing piece of that puzzle: He has lots of love to give, he just doesn't know where to put it. Going back to the theme of adults damaging children, the show What Do Kids Know? pits the adults against the kids. Because the film wears it's heart on its sleeve, it tends to feel grand in theme but at the same time steeped in earnest character. The music may be the same, but what joy it is to watch it play out with different beats and rhythms.

What I find equally fascinating is the inspiration that Anderson drew from to create-- music. A number of my all time favorite films have scenes that rely heavily on music to create that transcendant quality. For this film, Aimmee Mann lent her talents. Why do people sing along to Wise Up? Who cares? It just is. I'll be damned if it's not one of the most moving scenes in the film. Along with Aimmee's music comes Jon Brion's score.

Then there's the frogs. Oh it's that movie where frogs fall out of the sky. Anderson got the idea after reading about a rain of frogs in the works of Charles Fort. PTA didn't even know about the rain of frogs from the Bible until Henry Gibson gave him a copy. Now I'm willing to bet this had to have been at the earliest stages of pre-production. When I first saw the frogs falling out of the sky, I was taken slightly a back by it. & I do mean slightly. Exodus 8:2 is of course the verse which tells about the frogs. "and if you do not let them go, I will smite thy land with frogs." While the frog part is obvious, it's the "if you do not let them go" part that fits into the larger theme of the film. There's nothing I hate more than movies that pound the message into your skull (Crash, anyone?). Thankfully, PTA averts it here. & you can really cling on to whatever message you interpret from the film anyway.


Now I by no means want to sound preachy. But the one character in the film- Jim Kurring- could be viewed as the most devout character in the picture. Yet even he thinks God abandoned him because he lost his gun. Not even a simple man like Jim Kurring is let off the hook. & after going through nearly three hours of cancer, sex, drugs, embarrasment, and adultery, it seems that the choice of frogs should come more as a "Why not?" than a "What for?" But this movie is not lazy by any means. To say that frogs are just there for the sake of being there would be missing a point thematically. I think it's there to create a larger vision than just miscommunication between adults & children. The same way Jupiter & the Beyond the Infinite is in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Without that sequence, the film is basically a metaphor for technology taking over. But with that section, it is able to transcend. It truly is one of the most mystifiying and profound scenes in the history of cinema.

As much as the interpretation of miscommunication between adults & children is sound, to pinpoint Magnolia down to one meaning would be a great disservice. I'm sure there are many more. It's a film that talks more clearly about life than just about any other film I've seen. & when a movie has as many different meanings and feels as personal as this one does, it's easy to see why a person loves it. It is a manic film that arrives with full force and refuses to let you go until its 3+ hour running time ends. Some may hate it. But for the ones who love it, we can't help but resonate with that last simple gesture Claudia gives us at the end. PTA prefaces his script with an introduction. It closes out with: "I set out to write a great movie. I'm not ashamed. I've written from my gut and I will not be ashamed. And one thing I know is this: I'd do it again. So blame me." That's all you could ask from a director. & I'll certainly be standing in line to buy my ticket when he does do it again.

Momentum III: Boogie Nights

Boogie Nights is a film that is bursting with feverish exuberance and takes turns down dimly lit paths. This dynamic is called for by the subject of the movie at hand: porn. But to be more elaborate, a family dynamic of a group of characters in the adult entertainment industry.

Boogie Nights would be the first film of PT Anderson's that I would see. This would be around late 2003. Having been a big Dream Theater fan at the time (my interest in them has since wained), I was apart of the drummer's forum. One of the things the drummer had on there was a list of his top ten films. Boogie Nights would be amongst them. My curiosity peaked. & it only deepened once I found out the band sampled the Frank Mackey/Earl Partridge deathbed scene from Magnolia (my favorite PTA film) in one of their songs (Honor Thy Father). Now at the same time, I had counted GoodFellas near the top of my favorite films of all time. I was always on the lookout for a film that matched the energy that film had. Upon my first viewing of Boogie Nights, I had finally found a film with that type of energy...or at least came very close. Whenever I have the chance to introduce people to PTA's work --which I rarely get the opportunity to-- Boogie Nights is the first film I have them watch. It has everything you could want: great cast, great idea. It's funny, tense and depressing. In addition to all of this, the virtuoso camerawork and themes are all there.

One detraction that I have found amongst people is how the first act is riddled with Scorsese-esque camerawork. The signature tracking shot into the club, the pool scene that's reminiscent of I Am Cuba, etc. While it may bother some, I actually find it visually invigorating. We have GoodFellas in the back of our minds when watching the intro to this film. But what Anderson does is brings that energy to a film based in the 70's about a 'family' of porn stars. I don't think you can do it any other way & if there are people who think they know another way, I'm all ears. To be sure, the first half is not perfect. But that stems from problems of my own. I personally feel that if there was one more celebration scene then it would have thrown the film off kilter.


The subject matter of porn is a tough marketing angle to begin with. The film has such a big canvas because there is such a variety of stories of that industry to draw from. Having already beat out certain story elements with his Dirk Diggler short, PT is better for having fleshed out that material on a bigger scale. Albeit, with a much more mature sense of storytelling. Because, let's be honest, porn can only take you so far. It's when it branches off into it's multiple narratives that it achieves it's greatness.

Tonally, there is a balance between dark comedy and drama. This whole balancing act comes to a head at a key transitional point in the film: the 80's New Years Eve Party. At the party, Horner is confronted by Floyd Gondoli about the advent of video and how the industry is in a period of change. It is this scene, not unlike the Billy Batts beatdown in GoodFellas, where characters end up having a dark cloud hang over their horizons up until the end of the film. & this is only punctuated by Little Bill's murder-suicide. A scene in which PT observes had portions of the audience cheering one moment and a gasp at the next.

What's striking about the characters of the film is just how accepting they are. Amber Waves, Jack Horner & co. are basically a surrogate family to Dirk. As Julianne Moore assesses on the commentary, it's not until they interact with the outside world, that things end up becoming harsh. Everything comes crashing down at once on top of these characters. Adherence to melodramatic scenes is something that will pop up frequently in his next film, Magnolia. In retrospect, the scenes of Rollergirl in the limo that play out at the same time Dirk is getting beat by the band of thugs is needed to balance everything out.

One of the things that makes the film so rewatchable is how it's wallpapered with a soundtrack. It would be the one film of PT's that is like this. There's just too much goodness on this soundtrack: Livin' Thing, God Only Knows, Brand New Key, etc. Then there's the scene we all know and love: the Sister Christian/firecracker scene. Some people know this scene alone from Boogie Nights because it sticks out the most. Admittingly, it is a fascinating stretch of film. & it's unfolding of tension amongst Dirk, Reed & Todd is palpable.














Amongst the joy, depression, coke, porn, and firecrackers, PT paints all of these characters in an honest and humane light. For all their misgivings, they are simply surviving the everyday struggles brought forth. As the ELO song that closes out the film so proudly exclaims: It's a livin' thing and it would be a terrible thing to lose.

Momentum II: Hard Eight

we're back. ready for Round 2.


During the 90's, the independent cinema saw its burgeoning talents create debut films on small budgets. Clerks & Reservoir Dogs gained cult followings amongst fervent film fans. Hard Eight was a film that had flew below the 'cult radar'. Anderson doesn't start off his film with people talking about Like A Virgin. Nor does it start off with a 15 minute opening without dialogue....or a long tracking shot into a club...or an anthology of short stories. No. PT kicks his first film off with John C. Reilly sitting with his back against a restaurant exterior and Philip Baker Hall offering him cigarettes and coffee.




The script for Hard Eight was originally titled Sydney and was written within the span of 2 weeks. The whole notion behind the idea of Sydney was "What if James Cagney hadn't died in White Heat? What if he had something to pay for down the line?" This theme of redemption will come into play several more times in Paul's work but Hard Eight acts as a blueprint for it. The notion of family and the need for belonging is also prevalent in Hard Eight and would be fully fleshed out in the multi storied Boogie Nights.

The inspiration for the film stems from Jean Pierre Melville's sublime noir Bob La Flambeur. Like Melville's film, it is key that we know who these people are in this seedy underbelly of Reno, Nevada. But what's more, how are we going to create the look of Reno. Cinematographer Robert Elswit plays a key role in PTA's films. The gambling casinos in Hard Eight have more in common with what you would expect in Fear and Loathing In Las Vegas than Ocean's Eleven. Now putting faces to the inhabitants of this seedy underworld...that's the tricky part. Tasked with that, it's important to find the right actors who are willing to play out these roles.

Anderson uncovered a lost treasure in Philip Baker Hall's acting. Hall is best known for his role in Robert Altman's one man (!) show Secret Honor as Richard Nixon, a role he had played in the theater several times. Hall has stated that when working with Paul the work is done for you. This allows the actor to bring their A game to the set. Anderson first met Hall at the age of 16. He got a job on a PBS movie about an English professor who was accused of racism. Hall would later land a role in the short Cigarettes and Coffee and get a lead role in Hard Eight.

Another actor in the director's stable is John C. Reilly who makes his first major role in this film. Gwyneth Paltrow plays cocktail waitress Clementine and Sam Jackson playing Jimmy rounds out the cast. His character of Jimmy provides a backbone to the the character arc of Philip Baker Hall and allows for the slowly brewing pot of suspense to simmer. Jackson, being the only bankable actor in terms of marketing, helped obtain the film's financing. PT would go onto state that he had a horrendous time financing the film being that the financier's roots were in television.

The interplay between John C. Reilly and Philip Baker Hall comes off natural and never forced. Even the role of Clementine played by Paltrow called for the actress to shed her habits and inhabit the part. One actor who makes a brief but memorable cameo is Philip Seymour Hoffman. Having caught the director's eye with his role in Scent of A Woman, Hoffman brought a considerable amount of improv to his role. It's a trademark PT character that's in the background of his films, like Henry Gibson's Thurston Howell in Magnolia. The scene is pivotal because it is the first time we see a crack in Sydney's armor. It's when the movie starts becoming a real movie.

From there, the film takes us to a hotel room scene between the three actors Hall, Reilly and Paltrow. This is another key scene of the movie. It's the game changing scene in a sense that each character is allowed for an emotional outburst. PTA wisely holds off on showing what went down in the hotel just long enough. He stated on the DVD commentary that it's fun to watch an audience member go "Show me! Show me!". It's the rules of suspense and in the hands of another director, this whole scene would have flown apart at the seams.


















The original cut of the film came in at 2 1/2 hours. One of the scenes that didn't make the cut was the 'Clementine turd story'. From the interviews I have read, PT said that the footage got lost. At a brisk 101 minutes, I'm glad it got the trimming. Pacing wise, the scenes play out in a mostly ecomonical and unsentimental fashion. Where some scenes could be trimmed because of their length, others, I felt had an appropriate beat to them. In particular the exchange of dialogue between John & Sydney in the car. Jon Brion, another frequent collaborator, scored his first composing gig on the film. Parts of his score for this film would turn up in Boogie Nights.













Hard Eight is a film intent on focusing on interactions between characters, the sudden gestures and the mishaps. Anderson is not so much interested in the crimes taking place but in how the people interact with each other. There's the unease of tension in the scene between Sam Jackson and Philip Baker Hall in the car. Or even focusing on people handing each other money. His knack for capturing people's interesting behavior is on full display here. Of course, we'll see Anderson go "balls in" with an ensemble narrative in his next film, but you can already see the building blocks in place. The script is smart. The acting is great. Robert Elswit's cinematography certainly helps craft a particular vibe, and Jon Brion's score helps cement it. His debut feature shows he has a patience with how things play out naturally. It's the most subtle of his works and as a result, leads to it being the one that is overlooked. In a filmography filled with grand character moments and sweeping narratives, Hard Eight is the calm before the storm.



I'm wondering, what was the first PTA film you saw? What struck you the most about his style? And finally, what are YOUR impressions of Hard Eight?

Momentum: A PT Anderson Retrospective Pt. 1

OK...first off, I was a bit hesitant in even doing a retrospective on PTA. With only 5 films, there are barely any books dedicated to the director's work, which for better or worse is the big reason why I decided to go ahead on doing this retrospective. But perhaps an even bigger obstacle was: How in the blue hell do I even begin on writing about Magnolia or There Will Be Blood. Besides, the website Cigarettes & Red Vines has already done an astonishing job collecting interviews, press junkets, articles, etc. on each film. So I decided to comb through their archives as well as the DVD commentaries and other resources to present an assembled critique/analysis of the films. Hopefully, this masterclass will serve two parties: those who have yet to discover the director's work & those who are already familiar with the films and are looking for tasty little tidbits on them.

Second -- I plan on posting Pts. 1-3 this month and Pts. 4-6 in November. That schedule is subject to change. I'll be doing another Director Retrospective in January.

And finally, I do have to rant a bit. It's bizarre seeing all the comments online calling him the next Kubrick, Altman or Scorsese. I can't help but stop and roll my eyes. His films may have the STYLE of those directors and of course invite the comparison as far as style goes. But the director has written all of his films so he is already different than those directors. If ever there was a more idiotic way to label a filmmaker, it's "THE NEXT" (Fill in the Blank). It's trying to put a familiar name on something new. It's not the way to look at art. PT Anderson is the first PT Anderson. And that's that.

____________________________________________________________________
















BACKGROUND
Paul Thomas Anderson was born June 26 (one day before my birthday), 1970 in Studio City, California to Edwina & Ernie Anderson. His father was a late night horror movie host known as "Ghoulardi". Growing up in the San Fernando Valley, he got into filmmaking at an early age. He attended a number of schools: Berkeley, John Thomas Dye School, Campbell Hall School, Crushing Academy, and Montclair Prep. He briefly attended New York University, but would drop out of it.

Anderson became apart of the VCR generation along with Quentin Tarantino, Kevin Smith and Richard Linklater. These independent mavericks were trained not so much in the classical way but by watching zillions of films. With currently only 5 films under his belt, Anderson has become regarded as one of the great writer/directors of his generation. The fact that he made his first feature at 25 is all the more intimidating. There's a reason why Paul Thomas Anderson has such a small body of work. You have to wait for one of his films because he takes time to craft something like There Will Be Blood. He's not a director who feels the need to put out a movie on a yearly basis (take note, Woody Allen). & I think the body of work speaks for itself. I'd much rather wait till 2011 or even 2012 for The Master or whatever it turns out to be, than for him to rush it.


THEMES & INFLUENCES
His films depict suburban alienation on an intimate level. A theme tackled by Steven Spielberg in Close Encounters & E.T. as well as Tim Burton in Edward Scissorhands. In a response to the question of "Do you think of yourself mainly as a writer, director or filmmaker"? Anderson responded: filmmaker. "Because I think I direct in a way that's technical and show-offy. And that's not generally said about writers that direct. With those sort of writers who direct, like Woody Allen or David Mamet, you don't usually think of them as applying alot of cinema- in the Scorsese or Oliver Stone kind of way- to their movies." Being technical and show-offy is a major criticism the director's detractors love to bring up. This director is of course not going to please everybody with his films. But you would be hard pressed to find a director who finds a better balance of subtelty and audacity in their work.

His primary influences stem from three directors: Robert Altman, Martin Scorsese and Jonathan Demme. What struck me the most was when PT cited Demme as such a major influence on his work. One would not think to look for it to begin with. But what does stick out with this connection is both director's distinct use of music. Demme is known for shooting The Talking Heads 'Stop Making Sense' concert film as well as the 1991 thriller Silence of the Lambs and his follow up film Philadelphia. Both films have distinct sequences in which the music underscores the mood the filmmaker is trying to create -- whether it's Q Lazarus' Goodbye Horses or Bruce Springsteen's Streets of Philadelphia.

Anderson's camera is constantly on the move in a good number of his films. Scorsese, whose been influenced himself by the moving camera of Jean Renior and Max Ophuls, is cited amongst many filmmakers of the 90's as a major influence.

In terms of ensemble narrative, both Boogie Nights and Magnolia owe a lot to the late Robert Altman. Anderson for me became a gateway drug to Altman. It's like going up to a film geek and saying "Wow, how can someone juggle 9 stories so well?" And then their response being "Oh yeah? Wanna see someone juggle 20?" Without films like Nashville and Short Cuts, we would not have a film like Magnolia. But I'm getting ahead of myself. It's time to zip back in time to PT's humble beginnings.



THE DIRK DIGGLER STORY
So it's 1987 and some guy named Paul Thomas Anderson decides to pick up a camera and make a short little 32 minute film. What's so incredible about it? He's 17 years old when he writes it.

Anderson had a connection with the industry from the beginning. His father was Ernie Anderson, who did voice overs for ABC. So it makes sense that he would use an experienced actor like Robert Ridgeley in his short. PT's influence for the whole short fell into two categories. In terms of the format he was looking to do something akin to Woody Allen's Zelig and Spinal Tap -- a mockumentary of sorts. Content wise, it's about the rise and fall of a pornstar named Dirk Diggler. The original approach to Boogie Nights was to expand the mockumentary. It's a good thing his maturity as a filmmaker allowed for him to expand it in many other directions as opposed to strictly the mockumentary format.

Even looking back on the Dirk Diggler Story, it's interesting to see how many things are ported over to Boogie Nights. There's the whole "You Got the Touch" scene of Dirk Diggler massacring the song. The most striking thing is the content that Anderson is tackling as well as the advanced sense of dark humor and sarcastic wit he has at the age of 17. It's important to note -- the visual acrobatics PT's films are known for are obviously not present here.

CIGARETTES & COFFEE
Created at the Sundance Lab, Cigarettes & Coffee is a much more accomplished piece of filmmaking. The narrative weaves around three stories taking place. The first deals with two friends, one in trouble, the other being the wiser (played by Phil Hall); the second: a young couple on their honeymoon; the third: a shady hustler. The way Anderson spins these threads into a collective whole is still rough around the edges. His canvases would become alot more polished and expansive as his career goes on. When screening the short at the Sundance Film Festival, producer Robert Jones approached Anderson about expanding it into a feature.



SO NOW, WHAT THEN?

Right now this artist is more or less dipping his toe in the water. Feeling out certain beats & rhythms to ideas & motifs. What works? What doesn't? He would end up diving straight in with his debut feature. But I'll save that for Pt. 2.

Name That Connection

Name the other film with Tom Cruise and that magical number 82.

Great Poster Art 1

A good movie poster is a rare thing these days. Usually they end up with horrible artwork and showcases who is in it rather than leave an memorable impression on what to expect from the movie.



This one jumps out right at you. The 'Boogie Nights' font and the use of the multiple characters inside of the star give you an idea of what you are in store for.



Out of the three posters I have seen for Magnolia, this is the one that best represents the movie. What makes this poster a rarity is that it's a movie with Tom Cruise where he isn't even on the poster! Though I would usually prefer him not to be on it, in this case it would make sense for him to be there. This is a character driven drama and the subtlety of the images among the flower makes it a haunting image.

The frogs poster is great but someone who hasn't seen the movie and sees the poster will have frogs in the back of their mind when actually watching the film. The other one I have seen is a cool mosaic of the charcters, but the reviews of the film that are present on that poster clutter up the spaces of it.

So now, what then