Of all the directors out there, I have the hardest time analyzing Paul Thomas Anderson films objectively. I look at each Martin Scorsese picture realizing I may not like certain elements; I examine Darren Aronofsky and the films he directs with the understanding his next movie may not be as good as his last, and with any auteur out there I am able to view their films from a certain distance, where I can spot flaws. I cannot seem to do that with Paul Thomas Anderson, and for some time now have tried to figure out why.
Finally, I have come to the realization that, in my opinion, Paul Thomas Anderson exists on another level than any other working director. I haven’t been able to criticize his films because I have found no flaws in his work. It isn’t because my own personal adoration for the power in his direction has clouded my critical vision; it is because my love of each and every PTA picture is warranted. In every case, it can be justified. But what makes Anderson a Master? There are a number of things which combine to make him the closest thing to a perfect filmmaker we have seen.
1. A “Full-Vision” Director
For the sake of argument, let us keep Hard Eight on the side as this debut Anderson film was cropped and marginalized to the point of barely counting as a PTA picture. But his five features beyond Hard Eight, despite certain motivations behind them, were written by Anderson. He has had control over the creative process from start to finish. There Will Be Blood may have been inspired by the Upton Sinclair novel Oil!, but I have read the book and there is hardly anything mirroring the film. Each of Anderson’s films has been a creation from his own mind, with sparse amounts of external inspiration. They are full visions from his mind and the creative process functions in such a fluid manner, nothing feels manipulated from outside sources. And this full-vision functionality of PTA’s work speaks to the confidence he has in what he has to say.
We are currently seeking Films contributors on WhatCulture. To find out more about the perks of being a Films contributor, click here.
You Might Also Like...
- Man Of Steel 2: 5 Reasons Standalone Superman Sequel Should Be Next
- 10 Greatest Movie Cops
- WWE RAW Review 6/17/2013: 5 Things We Learned
8 Actresses Who Tricked You Into Thinking You Saw Them Nude
11 Irresistible Movie Moments That Wore Out Your Pause Button
100 Things Wrong With The Dark Knight Rises [Video]
10 Scenes You Won't Believe You Missed in 2012
10 Most Infuriating Movie Cliffhangers
10 Major Plot Holes You Probably Missed
10 Happy Movie Endings That Probably Had Horrific Consequences
12 Ruthless Movie Villains Who Were Defeated By Complete Fools
3 Comments
Paul thomas Anderson is great, but if you are compraing him To MR. Scorsese…..you dont had seen all Scorsese best works or maybe you dont get them!….PAul thomas anderson can match Scorseses carrer in the future, yes, But right now is too early!
THE BEST WORKS OF SCORSESE ARE THE MOST UNDERRATED…BECAUSE PEOPLE IS SO USED TO THE TIPIC HAPPY ENDING STORY OR LOOKING FOR THE CLIMAX IN EVERY SCENE….ETC….SCORSESEs WORKS ARE ABOUT REAL LIFE REFLECTIONS….AND REAL LIFE ISENT THAT CLISHED….
TAXI DRIVER, RAGING BULL, THE LAST THEMPTATION OF CRHIST, GOODFELLAS, THE AGE OF INNOCENCE, THE AVIATOR, THE DEARTED, HUGO, AFTER HOURS, MEAN STREETS…..etc,etc.
Well I wasn’t comparing the two to begind with, I was simply using Scorsese as a good barometer. I was also saying PTA is our best director at curent time, much like Scorsese was in the first half of his career maybe more so than now. Although he does produce work I frequently love as well.
And yes, I “get” them.
Well, you can compare the two since PTA mentions Scorsese as one of his biggest influences with Johnathan Demme, and both are absolutely magnificent film makers, and have not made bad films (even their weakest films, Hard Eight and New York New York respectively) are still good and interesting.