Showing posts with label Paul Thomas Anderson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Paul Thomas Anderson. Show all posts

Friday, September 20, 2013

The Dellies - 2012 Best Director

And now we've reached the last award. Sort of. As I've said before, I will do a best and worst movie list, both this weekend. For now, we'll tackle the people who have painstakingly brought their vision to life in the form of these pictures. Click on the titles of my nominees to read my full reviews.

2012 - Best Director

The Real Nominees: Michael Haneke (Amour), Ang Lee (Life of Pi), David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook), Steven Spielberg (Lincoln), Benh Zeitlin (Beasts of the Southern Wild)

My Nominees:

Ben Affleck, Argo
It’s a masterwork crafted by Affleck, the director. For me, each of his three efforts from the special chair has been brilliant. He may have made his name as an actor and dater of starlets, but it seems his true calling is behind the camera.


Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master
Paul Thomas Anderson directs his movie in a manner that makes it difficult to look away from. The shots are beautiful and Hoffman and Phoenix command the screen. Many of their scenes together are scintillating. The director brings this out with excellent story-telling skills.

Ang Lee, Life of Pi
Including this one, I've only seen five of the twelve full-length features directed by Ang Lee. Until now, I’ve only liked one, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. If you shared my point of view, you’d understand why I wasn't really buying into the hype surrounding Life of Pi. However, I’ll admit that Mr. Lee has crafted a winner with this one.


Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained
Nothing is so effective in the movie than at several points when we merely think something heinous is about to happen. This is when we’re intrinsically drawn to the edge of our seat while simultaneously trying to sink backwards into the thing. It is at these moments when Django is at its best.


Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild
By the end, we've been through more than enough ups and downs with this family to become fully vested in them. When life throws yet another thing at them, we duck. Beasts of the Southern Wild is just a wonderfully done film.


Honorable Mention:
Kathryn Bigelow, Zero Dark Thirty
Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Ben Lewin, The Sessions
Sam Mendes, Skyfall
Steven Spielberg, Lincoln
David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook


The Real Winner: Ang Lee, Life of Pi


And My Winner Is...


Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained
Taking another cue from the Blaxploitation era, director Quentin Tarantino wraps this tale about the barbaric ways of slavery in spaghetti western garb. To drive it forward, we get a screenplay chock full of sharp, often funny, often stinging dialogue. Django Unchained continues the director’s tradition of creating great tension through words. This one has more action between conversations than his normal fare, but the relationship between the two dynamics remains the same. Dialogue, complete with dramatic pauses, creates tension, action releases it.


Monday, July 22, 2013

The Master

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.
2012. Rated R, 143 minutes.
Cast:
Joaquin Phoenix
Ambyr Childers
Jesse Plemons
Rami Malek
Madisen Beaty
Lena Endre
Kevin J. O’Connor
Amy Ferguson
Joshua Close
Patty McCormack


Right away we come to understand that Freddie Quell  (Phoenix) is a tad off. After serving in World War II, reintegrating into normal society has been an issue for him. Our natural inclination to sympathize with veterans is tested because we get the sense he wasn't wrapped too tight even before the war. And he’s overly obsessed with two things: getting drunk and getting laid. He manages the former practically every night; the latter, not at all.

One drunken night, Freddie wanders into the circle of Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman), AKA The Master to his followers. He’s written a book, teaches cryptic lessons and performs strange rituals to enlighten us all. In effect, he’s started his own religion which many would call a cult. From everything I've read, the guy is based on Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Makes sense. Anyhoo, he takes a shine to Freddie and begins “processing,” or indoctrinating him into “The Cause.” We spend the rest of the movie watching The Master try to tame this particularly wild beast.

Charges of fraud and other improprieties against Dodd happen from time to time. We also wonder how much control over The Master his wife Peggy (Adams) has. These things are interesting, but neither holds our attention like the battle of wills waged by The Master and Freddie. Therefore, our enjoyment of this film is derived almost entirely from the dynamics between the two men. The only other thing that really perks us up is the same battle of wills Freddie is fighting with himself. If he simply can’t control himself, how does Dodd ever hope to?

Facilitating our intrigue, we get a pair of wonderful performances from Hoffman and Phoenix. Hoffman is perfectly charismatic as the leader of a budding way of thought, no matter how out there it may be. In an exemplary manner, he pulls off his character’s ability to instantly adapt his explanations to most lines of questioning and knack for shouting down anyone not persuaded by his answers. The work Phoenix turns in is flat amazing. From the start, he fully embodies this raging man-child who is understanding of little more than pleasure and pain. In any year in which Daniel Day-Lewis hadn't convinced people he was actually Abraham Lincoln, Phoenix may very well have walked off with the Oscar that he was nominated for.


Unfortunately, deciphering what we’re supposed to take from this movie is no easy task. As it rolls along, it seems to be peeling back Dodd’s many fraudulent layers, but it never follows through in any tangible way. Most notably, Dodd’s own son is presented as a non-believer, but nothing is ever done with this once we learn it. The young man just keeps going along with the program while wearing a pissed off look on his face. It might also be an examination of Freddie’s sanity, or lack thereof. Much of the film at least hints at that idea, while two scenes in particular intently focus on it. Well, maybe. The first includes a party where many of the followers are happily playing music, clapping and dancing while the very drunk Dodd sings a tune. It so happens that all the women are standing around naked. It’s shown as if this may only be Freddie’s perspective on things. However, it’s also followed by a rather strange moment between Dodd and Peggy that suggests otherwise. Later, the rather lengthy “window to the wall” scene shows that poor sap Freddie cracking up while made to walk repeatedly from one end of a room to the other. Then again, it’s more likely this is just to showcase Dodd trying to break him as he attempts on numerous occasions. It’s also entirely possible that, as the ending suggests, this is all about Freddie’s quest to get a woman into bed and just how intricately tied to his happiness the success of this mission is. Therefore, when The Master ends we may be hit by a wave of confusion as we wonder what we just watched. In this case, that’s a good thing. We have much to talk about.

Whatever it is, Paul Thomas Anderson directs it in a manner that makes it difficult to look away from. The shots are beautiful and, as stated, Hoffman and Phoenix command the screen. Many of their scenes together are scintillating. The director brings this out with excellent story-telling skills. Some people will take issue with the story he’s telling, or more specifically, they’ll wonder what the story is about.

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

There Will Be Blood


Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.
2007. Rated R, 158 minutes.
Cast:
Daniel Day-Lewis
Paul Dano
Dillon Freasier
Ciaran Hinds


Plot: Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) is an oil tycoon who gets alerted to a small town that has a veritable ocean of oil flowing beneath its grounds. He sets out to purchase as much land in the area and begins drilling to get the oil out.

The Good: The first thing that jumps out at you is the look of the movie. The cinematography is top-notch. The wide panoramic shots give us some really nice images that don’t seem forced while the tight or in-close shots always come at the appropriate time to crank up the tension. Story-wise, it tactfully avoids giving us a hero and villain by substituting people with two opposing viewpoints. That, along with the ample symbolism helps the movie work in multiple layers. It’s fine on the surface level. Watched that way, it’s a decent but slow movie about a crusty old man dealing with some local yokels and has a peculiar ending. Dig a little deeper and that ending becomes an extremely powerful and ambiguous result of the conflict. That conflict appeared to me to represent the current war in Iraq this country is embroiled in. To clarify my thoughts for you, Daniel represents the United States, Eli and the townspeople represent the religious extremists and other natives of the Middle East. Of course, that makes the land so rich in oil as Iraq itself. Now back to that ending. The way the movie struck me as a whole its an ending that’s very fact of the matter without judging which side is right or wrong. Though, it could be seen as siding with Lewis. Then think about what has happened to the town and what will likely happen to it after the credits have rolled. Without giving too much away, I’m reminded of a quote from Gen. Colin Powell speaking about our going into Iraq: “If we break it, it’s ours.”

The Bad: For some viewers, it will move a little slow. For those that don’t make the same connections to current events that I make, the ending will just remain odd, over the top and lack meaning. The biggest problem is the character Paul who’s played by the same person that plays Eli, Paul Dano. Paul is never sufficiently explained and we only see him once. Still, he’s referenced constantly throughout the movie. I’m just smart enough that it took me ¾ of the movie to decide that Paul was definitely maybe not the same person as Eli. It’s an odd distraction to have watching a movie not based on whether he is or isn’t. Luckily, there’s symbolism to be had there as well. I see him as those natives who actually asked the U.S. to help them.

The Ugly: We get to see how one of Daniel’s guys gets killed while he’s down in the well. Ouch.

Recommendation: For me, it’s an absolutely great movie. However, I have to be careful making a recommendation for it. Like I felt with 2006’s Children of Men and ‘07’s No Country for Old Men the more you get into the symbolism and metaphors the better it gets. If watched just on a surface level, you’ll probably just wonder what the big deal is and have a little less trust in my judgment.


MY SCORE: 10/10