MZS on PTA
Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Thomas Anderson on the set of There Will Be Blood
Upon the occasion of a Paul Thomas Anderson retrospective this weekend at the Museum of the Moving Image in Queens, New York, Matt Zoller Seitz takes a look at the director’s first four films in the pages of Friday’s New York Times.
I like Matt and his House Next Door is one of the smarter movie sites on the Internet, but sometimes it’s a little too smart. Seitz himself sometimes comes across like he needs to be smarter than the movies he’s talking about.
About Hard Eight, he’s content to merely name check the artists Anderson is borrowing from in his first film: Mamet, Ashby, Cassavetes, Scorsese, check.
The name checking continues with Boogie Nights but this time Seitz offers some commentary: “Some of these elements were undeniably spectacular… Others were the auteur equivalent of chewing with one’s mouth open.” Ouch.
He only mentions Robert Altman in connection with Magnolia, but as far as his opinion goes, he wants to have it both ways: cringing at the film’s miscalculations, but admiring their sincerity.
Finally, with Punch-Drunk Love we’re on the same page. Zeitz rightfully sees this underloved little gem of a film as a step forward and something of a bridge between Anderson’s latest film There Will Be Blood and what came before. He calls it “a truly strange movie” but “Anderson’s most tender and self-revealing work, arguably one of American cinema’s most un-self-conscious love letters to romantic eccentricity since Mr. Ashby’s Harold and Maude.” Check.
If you live in the New York area, don’t take Matt’s word for it, head over to the Museum of the Moving Image Saturday and Sunday and see for yourself. Also don’t forget that There Will Be Blood is opening today in many major cities across the country.
Filed under: Miscellaneous
Related Posts: - More Critical Bloodlust
- Film Critics Ring In: LA, NY Online, Boston, and D.C.
- London Critics Drop Crumpets, Grab Cattle Guns
- Scott Foundas Interviews Paul Thomas Anderson
- National Society of Film Critics Honors ‘Blood’
Damn it. Whenever I’m in danger of thinking I have a good idea, someone beats me to the punch. Zeitz is obviously a sharp guy, but I think he’s stretching a bit with the Ashby references, particularly with Hard Eight.
Anderson has clearly seen some movies, and he clearly likes certain guys, but the difference between him and some other acclaimed filmmakers of the 1990s is that he’s able to imbue these references with something raw and personal. Every movie he’s made is about broken family, and he’s found a different way to do it every time.
Boogie Nights is one my favorite movies of the 1990s.
I’ll read this a little later and get back with my comments but I think it will be a huge disappointment if Seitz doesn’t actually have anything to say about Anderson’s first three movies.
On a sidenote, maybe it’s the holidays, maybe it’s just that I can’t stand a couple of the writers there, but HNS really seems to have slipped in the last few months. Kinda been a big disappointment to visit for a while now.
Disappointly dismissive without really offering much reasons for being so beyond the standard holier-than-thou attitude of a film critic with better things to do. After MZS’ amazing deconstruction of the Coens and No Country earlier in the season, I was expecting something more from him on a topic so rich and controversial as PTA. I guess I should have expected nothing less after reading some of the dismissive review at HNS this fall.
Oh well. Wish I was in New York for the retro though. It would be fun to see those first three on the big screen.
http://www.thereeler.com/features/spending_the_day_with_pta.php
@#$%&*…there was just too much constant, potentially spoilery TWBB commentary in that reeler retro for me to continue. I had to stop.
Sorry about that Joel. It does have some nice insight on the other films too. I Should’ve said something about the TWBB stuff though.
That’s OK. It happens.
The Reeler offered a much better retrospective than the flaccid one served up by MZS.
You should still do yours Chuck.
I don’t share the apparently popular scorn of Magnolia. I see a guy reaching for something big and if he sometimes gets a ittle ahead of himself…well so be it.
I’m a little shocked and glad to see people coming out of the woodwork for Punch-Drunk Love though.
Ebert’s review of TWBB is up. It’s a bit…lackluster. He even seems lackluster about DDL winning the Oscar.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080103/REVIEWS/801030301
Or, to clarify, he seems unenthusiastic about DDL winning the Oscar. I sense that the John Huston thing bothered him - obviously he had a bad experience when he interviewed him.
And the lack of women in the film seems to really have upset him. But that’s no surprise.
Maybe there are some closet Sandler fans out there that are pleased to have something of his to feel comfortable about professing love for? It does seem odd considering how dismissive he is of the other films.
He writes as a man who admired it, but didn’t love it. I’m with him the whole way (not agreeing, but understanding) until he writes off DDL as an immitation of John Huston. Huston is there on the surface, and DDL has even said as much, but there’s more to it than that. I think.
I’d also argue with his point that Plainview doesn’t have a Rosebud. It’s never spoken of directly and we never know exactly what it is, but there’s something missing inside of Plainview.
I don’t get the complaints about the lack of women. Does every movie have to be about men and women?
As for PDL, I’m wondering if its reputation is better than I thought it was. I love it, but I don’t run into people who agree with me very often. Sandler fans seem disappointed it wasn’t a Sandler movie and a lot of the people to whom it should’ve appealed stayed away because he was in it.
On second thought, PDL doesn’t have some of the visual tics that people usually knock PTA for cribbing. I just don’t get all the hate for his stuff, but then I also don’t get the hate for Soderbergh, Wes Anderson, or the Coens either.
Even though it’s odd, PDL is much more direct and focused. Less grandly show-offy.
I don’t understand what the problem is of no women. Maybe balance? It sounded to me like he appreciated the film but didn’t love it also, Craig. Which is fine. But reading the review left me with a bad feeling. I usually respect Ebert, even if I don’t agree with his assessment of a film, but this review left me with a bad taste. First of all, I think he doesn’t particularly like DDL; he seems to prefer other actors (Ellen Page and Helena Bonham-Carter, for example). DDL’s performance was excellent. A character that could have been one-note and over-the-top had complexity and depth. For Ebert to write it off merely as an impression of John Huston is just very shallow, in my opinion. Also he’s comparing the film to Citizen Kane, which is a mistake. It has similar themes, but it isn’t Citizen Kane, and people are shooting themselves in the foot by going in expecting it to be.
And there were women in the film; the characters were less prevalent and pivotal than the men. Except one. See my take below.
**Spoiler warning for those who haven’t seen it**
If I were to venture a guess at what Daniel Plainview is missing, or his “Rosebud” for the people who are insisting that there has to be one, it’s this: in the end, H.W. has a friend in the little Sunday girl, who cares about him enough to learn sign language in order to communicate with him - something Plainview did NOT bother to do. The scene that transitions from her as a little girl doing sign language with H.W. and his teacher into their wedding scene where she’s signing vows with him was KNOCKOUT to me. That is very much what DP is missing in my opinion - not only that he didn’t have love, but that he didn’t know how to even want it, yet alone reach out and look for it.
I love that scene and people who say the movie was depressing and empty are totally overlooking it.
Timothy Noah at Slate repeats the total BS about how it’s only half of a good movie: http://www.slate.com/id/2181270
First he misses the point of it, then seems to dismiss it for not having a point.
I think something about the movie bothered Ebert and he willfully missed the point. This, from an objective standpoint, is one of Ebert’s lesser reviews in some time, rote summary for the majority followed by brief, unelaborated on analysis.
The high rating he gives the film seems to be begrudging. And I say this as someone who respects Ebert’s work.
Alison-we’re simpatico on the Rosebud issue.
Yes, Chuck, I was very surprised at the ***1/2 star rating given his review. But then again, his star ratings mean nothing. If the movie entertains him enough he gives it four stars.
I went back and looked at his reviews for other DDL movies - he really has very little to say about the man. Even his review of My Left Foot doesn’t say very much about him, and that performance was undeniably phenomenal. This is one instance where I really need to slap Ebert.
Ahahahhaha. I can picture you grabbing him by the collar and shaking him.
Tangientially, my netflix queue is locked and loaded with DDL movies. First up: My Beautiful Laundrette and Last of the Mohicans. Don’t ask me why LotM came before the others. Whatever. Chronology is overrated.
What about Age of Innocence? Or have you seen that one already? I know a bunch of us had a discussion about it over at AD.
I’m watching them all…at least all the ones Netflix has. The whole thing was inspired by that AD conversation.
***spoilerage***
Interestingly Alison, I think in an earlier draft of the TWBB script…not the final one that’s up on the Paramount Vantage website…a scene with HW and Mary, I think it’s their wedding or the reception afterward, is intercut throughout the final bowling alley scene and the movie ends not on “I’m finished” but on a speech HW gives Mary. It bolsters your rosebud argument, but I think PTA was wise to make it more subtle. Plus the ending is perfect the way it is.
That jarred me too Craig. The ending of the script seemed to be a little more on the win some lose some side, but Anderson just went for it in the actual movie. A few other scenes, such as the one where Plainview slaps Eli around, are notably crazier too.
Did you see the final version of the script Chuck? It was closer to the movie, but still had some differences.
http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/FinalScript_TWBB.pdf
Goddamnit, I want to see the movie again this weekend.
I haven’t. Thanks!
Ebert’s review is posted on AD. Many of us have commented about it and Sasha has snarked us all right back. Boy, she really hated the film and Danield Day-Lewis in it. Just warning you guys what to expect should you decide to pay a visit.
As I wrote at Awards-Daily, I think Ebert’s review–while at times borderline solipsistic in its simple-mindedness–was understandable given where he’s coming from with it. He thinks it’s flawed and he goes after the flaws a bit. I interpret those “flaws” quite differently. I also think, along with MZS, that Anderson’s previous films–while all entertaining and interesting–were lesser works compared to his newest because the homages were so frequently blatant and excessive and the material of the films seemed outside of Anderson’s grasp (the very thing Ebert claims to be true about There Will Be Blood, which I disagree with, thinking this is where Anderson finally nailed it out of the park and “grasped” what he had to grasp).
MZS has, over the course of the last two years and two weeks or so, become my favorite critic. Sometimes he does go too far in his criticisms and his taste can be jarring (his love of Miami Vice and The Black Dahlia and his rabid disdain for The Departed comes to mind instantly) but he usually backs up his claims in a way that is pretty darned hard to combat against. And I end up agreeing with him a lot more often than not despite his eccentricities. He’s kind of like a saner, more rational Armond White in that he’s clearly a champion of certain filmmakers (namely, Malick, Mann, Spielberg and others) and those he doesn’t like have to really jump through hoops to get a pass from him (and, for a variety of reasons, Andeson falls into the latter category; I was glad to see MZS come out earlier this year and say flatly that he has serious, unplacable problems with Tarantino because he was being honest even if I’m a Tarantino fan).
What really bugged me most about the review was when he wrote what DDL should say in his Oscar acceptance speech if he won. That was just unnecessary and in very bad taste. Who the hell is he to tell anyone what they should say in their Oscar acceptance speech if they win? Why bring the Oscars up at all?
Yeah, I already pointed out the two things I strenuously disagree with about the Ebert review. His overall response is perfectly reasonable and I don’t take issue with it, it’s some of his logic I disagree with.
MZS is also one critic I really like to read, which is why I was so disappointed with his PTA blurbs. Not because I disagreed with him…but I don’t know. The Reeler was harsher, but he didn’t bother me.
I agree. I suspect Ebert didn’t mean it to sound so crass and demeaning but it does come off that way nevertheless.
Jeez, Sasha sure lit everybody at A-D up over this, eh? I’m sorry, but Day-Lewis was better in Gangs of New York than There Will Be Blood? *That* was his one-note performance by comparison to There Will Be Blood. I understand that for Sasha the sun rises and sets on Scorsese’s considerable eyebrows but give me a break.
Just the fact that Day-Lewis borrowed Huston’s voice doesn’t mean he gives a one-note performance. That doesn’t compute.
Craig, I see you call this a “cold war” at A-D.
I’m not so sure, it looks like Sasha’s shootnig her nuclear missiles in every direction over there!
Yeah, I was getting a little scared over at AD, which is why I tried to be as tactful as possible while still standing my ground when I answered her reply.
Alexander, you may be right that Ebert didn’t mean for it to come off that way, but it sure did seem demeaning. And yeah, I didn’t get the DDL was better in Gangs than in TWBB. If there was any *one-note* performance, that was it.
You’re right Alexander, the gloves keep coming off. ‘Cold War’ is a bad comparison.
Anyway, I’m Switzerland. I’m staying out of it.
Definitely not a ‘Cold War’. Every minute things are heating up more and more there.
Between the truly horrendous, nasty weather here in the San Francisco Bay Area and the dread Sasha inspires for those who like There Will Be Blood at A-D, I feel like one of those two little punks in The Village, scared to death because I’ve been brainwashed into thinking some monster is going to get me in the woods.
I just want to drink hot chocolate and crawl into bed under my blanket. ;-)
Ahahahhah. You’re safe here Alexander. Ya’ll can even talk about how awesome Juno was if you want. I’m not afraid.
I also am a big MZS fan. He’s smart without being showoffy, clever without being snarky. You can tell that there’s a real guy in there with passion for cinema and not just a jaded poseur, like so many of his peers. And that means that his site is open for discussion and devoid of petty bickering and name-calling in a way that few places on the internet are.
I agree that Magnolia is sprawling and messy, but I would never ‘cringe’ at anything in it. The bigheartedness of the movie overwhelm, for me, all of its flaws.
Well, I commented that I sensed that Ebert had a personal reaction of some sort and Sasha took it as me deconstructing his personality. That’s quite a bit of an exaggeration. He does get awfully snarky in his remarks about DDL. Awfully snarky.
Thanks, Craig. Though I think I’ll take a pass as far as Juno goes, haha.
Jeff, you’re completely right about House Next Door. It’s one of my first stops every day. Like I say, of all the pro critics, I find myself always reading MZS and taking his recommendations to heart every time.
As perhaps hinted at in my previous post about him, I particularly love MZS when he’s writing about his favorites like Spielberg, DePalma, Coppola or Malick. His positions on these guys fundamentally bolsters the auteur theory in a less obdurate way than what is common these days.
I thought I might take some crap for being critical of MZS, but you guys are being to nice to me.
Alison, I’ve started typing TWBB comments like 7 times and then I just delete it. Here and at AD. I commented on Jodie Foster instead.
Just wanted to link everyone to an insightful and well-written year-in-review article by Nathaniel at the film experience.
http://filmexperience.blogspot.com/2008/01/year-in-review-its-gusher.html
Thanks A, that was much more interesting than looking for whatever it was Mr. Holt was saying at AD.
Definitely more interesting and well-written. I’m looking forward to his list of most underrated and overlooked films of 2007. :-)
Holt commented on the BAFTA long list announcement twice. The 2nd comment was where he went off, but fortunately no one took the bait. Yet.
I certainly won’t.
A made it half way through his first comment before my eyelids started to get heavy.
“most un-self-conscious love letters to romantic eccentricity since Mr. Ashby’s Harold and Maude.”
Sorry to crash the party — And where’s the shrimp? Who put on this conga music? Here, drop this shit, some dope beats from Digital Underground. And smoke this. Now it’s a party — but I really disliked PDL. I found it insufferable the moment the pump organ landed in the street. It’s SO self-conscious there’s not a genuinely whimsical moment. It was trying too hard to legitimize Adam Sandler. As if we need that.
That said, I think TWBB is probably his best film. Last night at the Egyptian PTA did describe two deleted scenes that included women, and he should definitely have left the one in with the female teacher from San Francisco. It would have given the movie a feminine balance it’s missing.
My friend thinks the scene with Plainview touching the daughter and subtly warning the father not to beat her anymore is a sign of Plainview’s repression. I disagree but the scene is somewhat uncomfortable…
Hey CJ, where’s the go-go girls you promised?
I think we’ve agreed to disagree on PDL before Christian. That’s not to say I can’t see where you’re coming from on it. For me I didn’t see it so much as trying to legitimize Sandler, a character I haven’t been able to stand since SNL, as it was channeling Sandler’s essential discomfort for PTA’s own perfect purposes.
As a guy who has spent a large portion of his life sort of uncomfortable in his own skin, I respond personally to Barry Egin. He’s an extreme and I never had the same rage he has because of it, but I can identify. I don’t have sister issues either, but you get my point perhaps.
Also, it scores 14 bonus points for using “He Needs Me” from Popeye.
As for TWBB…glad you survived the massive hype and still managed to dig it. I have to admit my first viewing I was more stunned than anything else. It was like a cattle gun to the noggin. I’ve given much thought to Mr. Daniel Plainview upon subsequent viewings.
I didn’t get a creepy feeling with the daughter scene. I saw him as a guy who was expert at identifying people’s weakness and using it as a weapon against them. He was able to wrestle the daughter from her father because of the beatings and his reasons for doing it were twofold: 1) to show Abel who is really in charge and 2) to form a stronger connection to the community as a sort of surrogate father to one of their own. He’s a ‘family man’ after all. You might even be able to add 3) he was doing it for HW.
A feminine balance would’ve made it a more palatable movie to a bigger audience, but would it have made for a better movie? I’m not sure.
I agree about the daughter. He’s just asserting himself. But showing Plainview in confrontation with a woman would be a nice important shade to the characer, especially since PTA says the scene basically shows a woman telling him no. PTA also said that in the scene, Plainview is proud his son can’t read or write, which is a nice touch.
And I think the film will be viewed as a borderline absurdist character study in years to come.
Oh, and SKIDOO was not shown widescreen on TCM.
My mission continues.
Were you suprised at how funny TWBB was at times? Or was I the only one laughing…?
Who has the video/TV distribution rights to Skidoo?
You were not the only one laughing, Craig. There are a lot of funny moments, and the audience laughed a lot when I saw it. Particularly in the scenes where Plainview meets Ely Sunday for the first time and pins down exactly where he’s coming from.
***spoilers***
Yes! And the scene where Eli wants to bless the well and you can totally tell Plainview is humoring him, and he’s doing it sarcastically like “Whatever you say Eli, you’re in charge here.”, and then of course he pointedly leaves him dangling the next day.
I love their back and forth competition.
I even laughed during the baptism sequence once he recomposed himself and retook the advantage.
great stuff.
I thought the end scene was hilarious as well, especially how ridiculous and Three Stooges-y it gets.
Some people were troubled by that aspect you refer to Jeff. I’m not one of them. I thought it was a brilliant and shocking bit of sleight of hand when you consider how the scene plays out.
I’m a little soft on the bowling alley confrontation and this whole last section is where the film slightly diverts.
- If it’s 15 years later, Paul Dano hasn’t aged a day. It’s so obvious I can’t believe it’s not intentional.
- HW speaking was easy to see coming, but I’m not sure if the implication was that he could already speak or this was the first time.
- Once I saw the bowling pin, I knew there would be blood.
But here’s my Sweeny Todd revised ending:
16 years later and the Standard OIl guy wakes up to see Plainview over him, blade in hand. Cut to black.