Jack Henry's Year in Film - Week 12
As a filmmaker, I don’t know of anyone that has inspired me quite like the master filmmaker, Paul Thomas Anderson. Now, perhaps stylistically I have tried to emulate directors like Terrence Malick or Wong Kar-Wai, or the writing styles of David Mamet or the Coen Brothers, even delving into the philosophy of film with the likes of Tarkovsky or Kieslowski, but Paul Thomas Anderson inspires me at a base level: I want to make movies because of the movies Paul Thomas Anderson makes. Perhaps it’s the way he reveres the art in his filmmaking. I’ve always said that the art of filmmaking feels like a culmination of all other arts; first and foremost it is, and should be considered, a visual art, but it takes components of literature, theatre, music, and philosophy. Anderson tenderly nurtures each of these equally though, almost obsessively, and it is reflected in his masterful body of work. Perhaps it’s the thematic language he uses in his films; themes of obsession, family, mentors, all things I myself am drawn to, both the positive and negative. Or perhaps, it’s the characters that I can’t help but connect with; characters so real it’s as if I know them personally. It’s probably all of these and more. So, I hope you’ll join me as I spend a week with my favorite filmmaker and some of my favorite of his films.
Enjoy:
WEEK 12 - A Week With Paul Thomas Anderson
MONDAY (3/19) - The Master
Now, The Master isn’t my favorite PTA film but it might be the one I enjoy watching the most. The film is about the relationship between Freddie Quell, a WWII veteran suffering from wartime trauma, and Lancaster Dodd, the leader of a philosophical movement called “The Cause”. Joaquin Phoenix plays Quell, the animalistic, alcoholic, sexual deviant, veteran, masterfully. Phoenix is like a stray dog, moving from place to place, prone to erratic behavior. He doesn’t play nice with other dogs. One night he sneaks onto a private yacht and after drunkenly passing out is introduced to Lancaster Dodd, the Master, the boy that wants a dog. In his best role, and, dammit, I mean his best role, Philip Seymour Hoffman plays Dodd, the charismatic leader of an occult philosophical group. Hoffman, an Anderson regular (and I’ll probably talk about him a lot since he’s in 4/5 films I’m watching this week), is incredible and I would probably put his as one of the best acting performances in the last decade. Quell and Dodd form a bond not unlike that between Man’s best friend, that is if you like to perform psychological processing on your dog. Although this film is more than transparent about its influences from Scientology (Dodd playing a fictionalized L. Ron Hubbard) it doesn’t focus on the backstory of Dodd’s cultish proceedings, and I think this is a good thing. The film is about the unorthodox relationship between Quell and Dodd. While on early viewings of the film their relationship to me seemed somewhat disturbing, in recent viewings it has become more and more endearing to me. Don’t get me wrong, their relationship is strange, and both, at least in the beginning, want what the other man has: Quell wants the status, the power, that Dodd has, and Dodd wants the freedom that Quell has. Both men have their vices; Quell is animalistic and Dodd is proud. But there is something deeply sweet about their friendship. There is almost sort of a subtle forbidden romance between them. “You can do whatever you want as long as I don’t find out,” says Dodd’s subtly jealous and overbearing wife, played by the excellent Amy Adams. Dodd can neither tame Quell nor join him in freedom, and thus they must part ways. Dodd tells him, tenderly, “If we meet again in the next life, you will be my sworn enemy and I will show you no mercy”, then proceeds to serenade him passionately (I tear up at this scene every time). I think the question I ponder at the end of the film is “Who is the Master?” A man trapped by his own power or the master less dog, free to go wherever he pleases?
MY RATING: 9.5/10
TUESDAY (3/20) - Punch-Drunk Love
Speaking of unconventional romance, Punch-Drunk Love is a little more traditional in its telling, but not by much. Now, I will say, I am not a huge fan of Adam Sandler in general but he’s really quite good in this film. Sandler plays Barry Egan, a man suffering from severe anxiety and fits of rage. What’s really great about this film is how Anderson puts us into Barry’s position through sight and sound technique. The excellent score, by Jon Brion, is among Anderson’s best simply because of its effect on the audience. It’s quick and chaotic, lots of synthetic drum beats, and it builds an incredible amount of tension in scenes that are already tense in dialogue. Visually, there is a lot of sporadic camera motion, twisting and turning, following the characters which adds to this tension as well. PTA is know for utilizing tracking shots in all of his films, and he takes full advantage of camera motion in this one. Now, while during the first half, the film’s score and cinematography really encapsulates Barry’s anxiety, there is a shift in the second half when Barry meets and begins to fall in love with a woman named Lena, played by Emily Watson. The once heavily chaotic score, turns into a pleasant waltz and it’s a nice tension breaker but it also serves the movie thematically. Lena becomes a calming presence for Barry, who's surrounded by the stresses of work, his seven overbearing sisters, and a malignant phone-sex operator. The camerawork seems to slow down, using more fixed shots, and the colors even become more vibrant. It’s a beautiful way of visually portraying Barry falling in love. The rest of the cast is great. Philip Seymour Hoffman plays a small role as a furniture salesman that becomes the sub-antagonist of the film (I would argue that Barry is his own antagonist) and he is explosively hilarious. Really, this movie is a tension-filled stroll though the park.
MY RATING: 8.5/10
WEDNESDAY (3/21) - Magnolia
Just after the critical success of Boogie Nights, Paul wanted to make something small and personal but ended up making, arguably, his most ambitious film. Magnolia, featuring eight (or so) interconnecting stories, serves as Anderson’s most personal and artistically experimental film. Just to give you a loose idea of the main characters and the story, the film stars John C. Reilly as a good natured cop, Tom Cruise as a despicable motivational speaker for men trying to seduce women, Jason Robards plays Cruise’s estranged father who’s dying of cancer, Philip Seymour Hoffman plays his kind nurse with Julianne Moore as his distraught trophy wife, Philip Baker Hall is a quiz-show host who is also dying of cancer and Jeremy Blackman plays the quiz-show’s child prodigy, William H. Macy plays a former champion of the quiz-show, and Melora Walters plays Hall’s estranged daughter. WOW! First off, if you haven’t picked this up yet Magnolia has a very complicated plot, and second, Man! what a cast! As noted before, this serves as Anderson’s most personal film. It almost seems to be a culmination of all the themes Anderson is know for, themes of love and death (Anderson’s own father had passed away from cancer before the writing of this film), father figures and mentors, betrayal and its effects, regret and loneliness, judgement and forgiveness. Anderson strives to make movies that connect on a personal level with their audiences and I think Magnolia to be the best example of that. Characters deal with similar things, Jason Robards and Philip Baker Hall are both dying of cancer, Tom Cruise and Melora Walters are both estranged from their fathers, John C. Reilly and William H. Macy are both suffering from loneliness and are in search of love. There’s a scene where each of the characters sing along to Wise Up by Aimee Mann and it’s a beautiful way of showing the characters connection to each other. Magnolia is long. At just over three hours it feels like a biblical epic, and the climax of the film adds even more meaning to that (though if you haven’t seen it I won’t spoil it). Really, this film is something special. Sure, it’s definitely not a perfect film but there is a lot of genuine love behind it.
MY RATING: 9/10
THURSDAY (3/22) - Boogie Nights
I tend to have trouble recommending Boogie Nights to people, mainly because it’s set in the 70’s porn industry, but regardless of its subject matter it is a well crafted film. I think the thing people need to understand is that this film does not glorify porn. Anderson loves to write about people dealing with brokenness and the depression, violence, and drug filled world of the California porn industry is a ripe setting. Mark Wahlberg stars as Eddie Adams, a high school dropout looking to prove himself. When Eddie meets the adult filmmaker, Jack Horner, played by Burt Reynolds, his life is changed forever. Jack introduces Eddie to a world that, from the outside, looks like money, pool parties, and casual sex, and in this world, well mannered, innocent Eddie becomes Dirk Diggler. With its fame and fortune seeking plot and stylish camera work this film feels very much like the classic Hollywood everyman epics of the 70’s. Alongside Wahlberg and Reynolds, the film stars Julianne Moore, John C. Reilly, Don Cheadle, William H. Macy, Heather Grahm, Ricky Jay, Luis Guzman, and (my forever favorite) Philip Seymour Hoffman, many of these actors in their pre-fame days. Anderson is known for his excellent casting but Boogie Nights might just be his best. There are some great performances from the cast, who are able to mix comedy with the sad brokenness of their characters excellently. Like most that seek fame and fortune, there is downfall. At the turn of the decade things begin to change for the characters. Porn isn’t “fun” anymore, drugs take their hold, families are broken, people succumb to their depression, disgusting secrets are brought to light. Anderson crafts a story that doesn’t praise the characters actions but still treats them as humans and gives them chances at redemption. Like most of Anderson’s films, it’s a successful mix of comedy and drama and I would recommend it to those that can handle the subject matter.
MY RATING: 9/10
FRIDAY (3/23) - There Will Be Blood
I saved the best for last with There Will Be Blood. Blood takes on different forms in Anderson’s magnum opus: it flows thick from the oil wells, salvation in the blood of Lamb, and most obvious, the actual, physical blood. Loosely based on Oil! by Upton Sinclair, Anderson crafts a story of obsession and greed. Daniel Plainview is an oil man, a family man, a man that will do whatever it takes to get what he wants. Daniel finds oil on a small ranch, owned by the Sunday family, in California. Eli Sunday, the preacher at the local Church of the Third Revelation, becomes Daniel’s main adversary as he tries to force his authority in the wake of Daniel’s success. In a way Daniel and Eli are brothers, two sides of the same coin. Both are obsessed with power and greed: Daniel the economical, Eli the religious. This connection is highlighted in their parallel “baptism” scenes where they declare their sins to the others’ objective. Unlike Anderson’s previous films There Will Be Blood feels less like a long cohesive narrative and more like a group of interconnected short stories. Plainview is played by the ultimate method actor, Daniel Day-Lewis, and it happens to be one of the greatest acting performances of all time. Day-Lewis is astounding as the oil man, taking on the thick gravelly accent, the limp that gets progressively worse, all the facial ticks, and that beautiful mustache; his performance is masterful. Paul Dano plays Eli Sunday (and his twin brother Paul) and he is also excellent as the erratic preacher. The score by Jonny Greenwood is perfection and it really adds to the incredible mounting tension of the film only to release at the end with the third movement of Brahm’s Violin Concerto. The last time I watched this film was about three years ago. Even though it’s my favorite of his films it’s honestly hard for me to watch because of its intensity (the “Milkshake” scene still makes my hair stand on end). It’s a film that I don’t want to saturate myself with; I need time away to build up longing, to build up the excitement for watching it again. This film is truly a modern cinematic masterpiece showcasing the incredible directoral and writing talents of Paul Thomas Anderson, one of our greatest contemporary filmmakers.
MY RATING - 10/10
If anyone is interested here is how I line up Anderson’s work from best to worst (and when I say “worst”, I mean “still a really great movie”.
1. There Will Be Blood
2. The Master
3. Magnolia
4. Boogie Nights
5. Phantom Thread
6. Punch-Drunk Love
7. Inherent Vice
8. Sydney (Hard Eight)
I’m finished.
As I will have to watch a little over 250 movies this year I would greatly appreciate some suggestions. Feel free to leave some in the comment section. Or if you want a recommendation don’t hesitate to ask.