Wes Anderson (Part 2 of 3)

twee/twē/

Adjective:

Excessively or affectedly quaint, pretty, or sentimental.

In Part 1 of this second installment of Filmmaker of the Week, I began studying writer and director Wes Anderson by taking a good look at his first two films, BOTTLE ROCKET and RUSHMORE. Here in Part 2, I will be discussing THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS and THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU, both of which I have had the good fortune to see multiple times over the years. I will then finish up in Part 3 with his most recent efforts, THE DARJEELING LIMITED and FANTASTIC MR. FOX.

Royal Tenenbaum (Gene Hackman) and his wife Etheline Tenenbaum (Anjelica Huston) agreed to separate when their children were very young and, after Royal proved time and again that his parenting skills were mediocre at best, Etheline was forced to raise the kids alone, though all three of them seemed to flourish under her care. Chas Tenenbaum (Ben Stiller), the oldest of the three children, was considered a genius in international finance before he had even graduated high school, and he later sued Royal for stealing bonds from him when he was a minor. Margot Tenenbaum (Gwyneth Paltrow), the adopted daughter, would go on to become a famous playwright after being awarded a grant for a play that she wrote in the ninth grade. Richie Tenenbaum (Luke Wilson), the youngest of the group, was a tennis prodigy whose accomplishments in the sport earned him worldwide fame and the affectionate nickname "Baumer." But time has not been kind to the Tenenbaums despite their childhood accolades, with Chas turning into an obsessive and overprotective father after the death of his wife in a plane crash, Margot becoming a depressed and secretive loner despite her marriage to renowned neurologist Raleigh St. Clair (Bill Murray), and Richie forced into a premature exit from the sport of tennis after suffering a nervous breakdown during an important match. But these wayward siblings soon find themselves under one dysfunctional roof again when Royal returns with the news that he has been diagnosed with cancer and now wants to spend more time with his children before his impending demise.

THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS is considered by quite a few people to be the best film that Wes Anderson has done and I'm inclined to agree with them. It boasts an all-star cast and, on top of that, Anderson makes use of all of them, with particular acclaim being attributed to Gene Hackman in his role as the absent patriarch of the Tenenbaums. Royal Tenenbaum is a despicable and insensitive man child who was never meant to be a father, unable to grasp the radical notion that he is supposed to put the well-being of his children (or anyone else, for that matter) before his own self interests. But because it's Gene Hackman, we're inclined to give him a chance, especially in contrast to his morose and melancholic children, who now all seem so stiff as adults compared to their father's unrefined and unpredictable behavior. Aside from the stalwart performances, what makes this movie work is how Anderson manages to deftly intertwine these different personalities into a living and breathing family that the audience can invest in and laugh at as their dysfunctions become more and more profound. This is also the first time where I believe Anderson was able to fully the realize his trademark visual style, which is where the word twee, as defined above, comes in, because everything about THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS (the characters, the setting, the narrative style, the costumes, etc.) can be summed up with that one little word, to great effect.

It is no secret that I love THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS. Its unique characters are all as memorable as the outstanding performances from the actors bringing them to life, the humor is subtle and often deadpan, and it has an emotional core that never quits. If you're only going to see one movie from the mind of Wes Anderson, I recommend that you make it this one. You won't regret it.

Steve Zissou (Bill Murray) is a famed oceanographer and documentarian whose career is on a downhill slope when his best friend and longtime business partner is eaten by a "Jaguar Shark," an underwater creature that he intends to hunt down and kill as a part of his next film. Just before he is to set sail with his team, Steve receives an unexpected visit from an airline pilot, Ned Plimpton (Owen Wilson), whose recently deceased mother let slip that Steve was his biological father, a claim that Steve neither confirms nor denies. Regardless, Steve welcomes Ned aboard his research vessel Belafonte and even invites him to be a part of the hunt for the Jaguar Shark, despite the misgivings of his resentful first mate Klaus Daimler (Willem Dafoe). With pregnant reporter Jane Winslett-Richardson (Cate Blanchett) also taking part in the voyage in hopes of writing an article on Steve, Team Zissou departs in search of the Jaguar Shark, but find themselves forced to overcome a number of obstacles preventing them from capturing their intended target, and Steve is forced to consider what price he is willing to pay in his desperate search for revenge.

To be honest, I struggled writing that synopsis for THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU. The plot is a convoluted one and I'm not sure how best to summarize it, because the movie seems to have a bad habit of getting lost at sea amidst its various subplots and character developments. It is with this film that the question of style over substance arises, because here Anderson seems to spend too much of his time focusing on the look of the film, where there is an expected abundance of twee, and not enough time working on a cohesive plot. I love the characters and Bill Murray, whose self-absorbed Steve Zissou is cut from the same cloth as Royal Tenenbaum, almost succeeds in carrying the film on his performance alone, but the actors can only do so much when hampered by a script that seems unsure of where it wants to go or what it wants to be. Everything feels as if it should revolve around Steve seeking revenge against the Jaguar Shark and his burgeoning father-son relationship with Ned, but the film seems to get bogged down in abrupt plot twists and an excess of supporting characters who don't seem to contribute much to the bigger picture, and the meandering plot can be frustratingly dull at times. It has everything going for it, from a top-notch cast to an impeccable visual style to an amazing soundtrack, but the whole never exceeds the sum of the parts, and the movie suffers as a result.

I love the idea behind THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU and the odd look and feel that Anderson was going for, but the film can't seem to balance its characters and deliver a focused narrative. With that said, Bill Murray gives one of the best performances of his career and I can't recommend this enough if you're a fan of his work. He does not disappoint.

I hope you'll check back later for Part 3!

Wes Anderson (Part 1 of 3)

"I want to try not to repeat myself. But then I seem to do it continuously in my films. It's not something I make any effort to do. I just want to make films that are personal, but interesting to an audience. I feel I get criticized for style over substance, and for details that get in the way of the characters. But every decision I make is how to bring those characters forward." - Wes Anderson

When I first discovered Wes Anderson, I had no idea I had even discovered him at all. When I was a kid, my dad was obsessed with THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS and we would watch it again and again, despite the fact that he would often fall asleep after the first half hour. Nevertheless, I too became smitten with the film and it got to the point where I could almost follow along with each line of dialogue as if I was reading from a book. It had this distinct sense of style that was both modern and old-fashioned at the same time and the characters fit right in, each of them representing this idealistic nostalgia that seemed to have been pulled apart by the cold and uncaring arms of a harsh modern world. It was unlike anything I had ever seen before and I kept coming back to it because it was hilarious and, more than anything, I loved the characters. I think people are drawn to films like THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS because almost everyone considers their own family to be dysfunctional and it is both comforting and heartwarming to know that you're not alone and to be able to find humor in these familial struggles that we all seem to face at one time or another.

Here, in Part 1, we will be talking about BOTTLE ROCKET and RUSHMORE, the first two films to be written and directed by Wes Anderson. In Part 2, we will take a closer look at the aforementioned THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS and also THE LIFE AQUATIC WITH STEVE ZISSOU. We will then finish up with a discussion of THE DARJEELING LIMITED and FANTASTIC MR. FOX in Part 3. I was hoping to be able to talk a little bit about MOONRISE KINGDOM, his most recent film that opened in select theaters last Friday, but it isn't showing anywhere in my area. Oh, well.

Based upon a short film of the same name (also by directed by Anderson), BOTTLE ROCKET is an unusual little movie, especially when compared to the films that came afterwards. It was released in 1996 and, despite a fair amount of critical acclaim, was a box office failure, and part of that can be attributed to the fact that both Owen Wilson and Luke Wilson were considered unknowns at the time. Anthony (Luke Wilson) checks himself out of a mental hospital, where he had been self-admitted due to supposed exhaustion, at the behest of his best friend Dignan (Owen Wilson). Since being fired off from his landscaping job, Dignan has been working on an elaborate plan for them to pull off a heist that would impress Mr. Henry (James Caan), his former employer and a part-time criminal. Recruiting their slow-witted friend Bob (Robert Musgrave) as the getaway driver simply because he is the only one who owns a car, Anthony and Dignan rob a book store and decide to lay low for a while at a motel in the middle of nowhere. But Anthony, who up to this point has been willing to go along with Dignan and his plan, experiences a change of heart when he falls in love with the beautiful hotel maid Inez (Lumi Cavazos), much to the irritation of Dignan.

BOTTLE ROCKET was not at all what I had come to expect from Wes Anderson, although, as his first film, that is to be expected, since he might not have developed his signature style until later in his career. Regardless, there is a lot to like about BOTTLE ROCKET. One of the highlights of the films is to watch real-life brothers Luke and Owen Wilson work off of each other, with Luke playing the logical and reserved friend and Owen playing the intense and common sense-challenged firecracker. Their interactions provide much of the humor throughout and it is refreshing to see Luke in a lead role, since he seems to have been relegated to portraying small supporting characters as of late. With that said, I will admit that the movie seems somewhat insignificant when compared to some of Anderson's other more ambitious films and this seems to lack the polish and precision that he would become known for in the years to come. One thing I did appreciate about BOTTLE ROCKET was its use of the two lead characters to illustrate two contrasting ideologies of how to achieve success in life, with Dignan possessed by delusions of grandeur that he attempts to seize by carefully mapping out the next several decades of his life, while Anthony appears more inclined to sit back and let life come to him at its own pace, seemingly content with relishing the smaller day-to-day treasures of life and the overpowering love that he comes to feel for Inez.

I liked BOTTLE ROCKET and I think that, even if it pales in comparison to something like THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS, it has its own merits, like the subtle humor throughout and the performances of the two Wilsons. Not the best of Wes Anderson, but still better than your average crime caper.

RUSHMORE is credited with putting Wes Anderson on the map, giving Jason Schwartzman his first and most memorable role, and reviving the career of Bill Murray as a serious actor. It circulated through various film festivals before receiving a limited release in New York and Los Angeles, where it was the recipient of much critical acclaim, but was a financial failure at the box office. Max Fischer (Jason Schwartzman) is a scholarship student at Rushmore Academy who, despite being involved in over a dozen extra curricular activities, gives little to no effort in the classroom, with the headmaster even going so far as to deem him the worst student in the school. He spends his days writing and directing school plays, presiding over the various clubs in which he is the president or founding member, and telling people that his father is a neurosurgeon when, in truth, he is a barber. Harold Blume (Bill Murray), a bored and self-loathing local industrialist whose twin adolescent sons attend Rushmore, comes to admire Max for his unabashed confidence and zeal and strikes up an unlikely friendship with him. But their friendship is tested when both men develop feelings for Rosemary Cross (Olivia Williams), a new school teacher at Rushmore, and the two of them engage in a childish game of one-upmanship in a desperate bid to win her affections.

I was taken aback when I first discovered that this marked the acting debut of Jason Schwartzman, because his performance as Max Fischer is not what you'd expect to see from an actor stepping in front of the camera for the first time. He imbues Max with a sort of cock-eyed innocence that makes him relatable and sympathetic, keeping the audience from resenting his self-assured and often times snot-nosed attitude that we all remember from the grade school brown noser way back when. Max is obsessed with how others perceive him and his desperate attempts to win the favor of those around him all seem to fall flat, with Rosemary in particular. He believes that he is in love with her, but has no idea what love is nor what it means to be in a relationship, because all he has to work from is the idealistic hyper-reality that exists solely in his head telling him what happiness looks like rather than what it feels like. He wants to be treated like an adult without having to do any actual growing up, which I think encapsulates the thinking of a lot of young adults and I applaud Anderson for being able to tap into that pubescent struggle. But none of this would have been as poignant if not for Bill Murray and his perfect portrayal of a man who has become disillusioned with life and longs to re-capture the enthusiasm that he sees in Max. Max has the ambition, Harold has the means, and together they each help the other reach a new understanding of life and love.

RUSHMORE represents Wes Anderson coming into his own and tapping into the unique style of storytelling that has defined him over the course of his career. This one of the most unusual tales of romance that you'll ever see, but one that more is interested in focusing on the struggles of being an adult and knowing what you want in life than whether or not the boy gets the girl.

Don't forget to come back for Part 2!

In Appreciation of FRINGE

For the longest time, I never gave television much attention, certain that the highest levels of entertainment could instead be found on the big screen. That all changed on September 22, 2004, when the pilot episode of a little show called LOST premiered on ABC to the tune of eighteen million viewers. I was one of those eighteen million viewers and, for the next six seasons, I never missed an episode, often re-watching them over and over again to find things I missed or try to figure out what unexpected twists and turns the show would take next. For the first time, I had found a television show that felt like it was written for me and me alone, so much so that the wait between episodes seemed almost unbearable. It was by no means a perfect show and it had its share of ups and downs, and I know there a lot of scorned viewers out there who have nothing but contempt for LOST after its controversial final season, but I loved every minute of it, warts and all.

But we're not here to talk about LOST. I could talk about LOST until the sun goes down, and I'm sure I will devote more than a few future blog posts to discussing it, but this post is meant for FRINGE. Premiering on FOX during the fall of 2008, FRINGE was created by J.J. Abrams, the same brilliant mind who co-wrote the pilot for LOST, which was then in its fifth season. By this time, executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse had negotiated with ABC to end LOST with a final season to air in the spring of 2010, so a popular topic of conversation was to debate what show would take up the mantle of the weird and unexplained when LOST ended its run, with FRINGE being the clear frontrunner. Described as a cross between THE TWILIGHT ZONE and THE X-FILES, it centered around FBI Agent Olivia Dunham (Anna Torv) and her investigation into The Pattern, bizzare and unexplained scientific phenomena wreaking havoc around the world. Olivia comes to believe that Walter Bishop (John Noble), a brilliant scientist who has been in a mental institution for over a decade, could hold the key to understanding these events, but she must first convince his estranged son Peter Bishop (Joshua Jackson) to help secure his release. Together, along with Special Agent-In-Charge Phillip Broyles (Lance Reddick) and Junior FBI Agent Astrid Farnsworth (Jasika Nicole), these three form Fringe Division, a special branch of the Federal Bureau of Investigation tasked with investigating cases involving elements of fringe science.

Season 1 was something of a mixed bag and it seemed like the writers weren't quite sure what kind of show they wanted to make, struggling to find that elusive balance between standalone episodes with a more procedural approach and episodes designed to further the larger mythology that would drive the show forward. But FRINGE kicked into high gear in the latter half of the season, positioning the enigmatic biological terrorist David Robert Jones (Jared Harris) as the season's chief antagonist and giving Fringe Division a clear threat to focus on as the characters began to come into their own. FRINGE also discovered its heart, focusing more on the family dynamic of the show and developing the relationships between Olivia, Peter, and Walter. FRINGE is at its best when its examining what makes its lead characters tick, whether that is exploring Olivia and her traumatic childhood, Peter and his resentment for the father who spent more time in the lab than at home, or Walter and his struggle to cope with the fact that his brilliant mind is a now a shadow of its former greatness. Speaking of Walter, I must emphasize the fact that it is ridiculous that John Noble hasn't received an Emmy for his work as everyone's favorite dysfunctional scientist. It takes a special kind of actor to get the audience to fall in love with a man who, no matter how sweet and benevolent he might now be in his old age, was once willing to do unspeakable and immoral things in the name of science. We shouldn't sympathize at all with Walter, but we do because of Noble.

But there was another element of Season 1 that helped FRINGE become the show that it is now, and it was the introduction of the alternate universe. In the world of FRINGE, there exists another world, a lot like ours, where people made different choices and, as a result, different events took place. These two worlds interacting is responsible for much of the unexplained phenomena that Fringe Division investigates and the war that begins to brew between them during Season 2 is the catalyst for a number of intriguing storylines. While the Olivia over here in our universe is a reserved introvert who keeps everyone at a safe distance, the Olivia in the other universe is a maverick with a cavalier attitude and a bit of a wild streak. While the Walter over here is a senile former genius handicapped by mental deficiencies, the Walter in the other universe is a cold and calculated man who also happens to be the U.S. Secretary of Defense. It was a bold and precarious move for FRINGE to introduce this entire new world of characters, but one that has come to define the show and take it down paths that have made for some riveting and unique television. FRINGE is a show about family, identity, and the evil that men do, and the introduction of this alternate universe provided an exceptional framework to explore those themes.

Four seasons in and FRINGE has dealt with shapeshifting soldiers from another universe, experiments on children to produce enhanced abilities, a corporation with aims at testing and breaking the laws of physics, a machine capable of annihilating an entire world, and countless other imaginative elements of science fiction. I'd love to go more in-depth about specific episodes that I found to be both entertaining and thought-provoking, such as Season 2's "Momentum Deferred" and Season 3's "The Firefly," but I want you to experience them for yourself. Next season, which will be the last for FRINGE, begins in the fall, so you have more than enough time to find DVDs of the first four seasons and get caught up before the premiere of Season 5. There isn't a show on television that is more imaginative or creative than FRINGE and the actors, in particular Anna Torv and John Noble, are some of the most underrated performers that you'll ever see, and it be won't be long before you've fallen in love with their characters. I love FRINGE because, like LOST, it places an emphasis on creating broken and flawed characters with whom the audience can relate and places them in extraordinary and challenging situations that often have life-or-death stakes.

And you have to love any show that gets Leonard Nimoy back on television!

3-D Or Not 3-D? That Is Not Even A Question.

I thought AVATAR was okay. Just okay, though. Nothing more. Should it have been nominated for Best Picture? I believe that is debatable. I don't think it should've been, but I'm not a member of the Academy, so my opinion doesn't have a lot of weight. I will admit, James Cameron is a master filmmaker when it comes to the visual aspect of storytelling, and all you have to do is look to AVATAR or TITANIC or THE ABYSS for evidence that he knows how to wow an audience. Screenwriting, on the other hand, is not something that Cameron excels at, with AVATAR being the most glaring example of this. As I'm sure you've heard before, AVATAR owes a lot of its basic plot to POCAHONTAS and DANCES WITH WOLVES and, for a film in 3-D, none of its characters seem interested in being more than two-dimensional archetypes. Cameron deserves some credit for giving life to a rich and imaginative new world like Pandora, with all of its intricacies, but the plot itself is thin and has been done before with much more nuance and substance.

But everyone is allowed an opinion and it seems quite a few people fell in love with AVATAR, seeing as how it is now the highest grossing film of all time and won the Golden Globe for Best Motion Picture - Drama (which I thought should've gone to INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, but I digress). I'd like to emphasize the part about it being the highest grossing film of all time, because that small feat alone has altered the landscape of Hollywood and not for the better. It is no secret that AVATAR pulled in bookoo bucks because it costs more to see a movie in 3-D than it does to see it in 2-D and studio executives everywhere did not miss that memo. All of the sudden, everything from CLASH OF THE TITANS to MY BLOODY VALENTINE to THE GREAT GATSBY is in 3-D and all because studio execs want to make a little extra cash. Make no mistake, converting a film to 3-D adds nothing to the storytelling of the movie and, for some, it is an annoying distraction, even causing nausea and headaches for some members of the viewing audience.

There is one important difference between AVATAR and the onslaught of 3-D movies that have assaulted the box office over the last couple years, and its that AVATAR was filmed for 3-D while the others, with few exceptions, were all converted to 3-D in post-production. This is a technical difference that very few people are aware of, but should be, because the quality of 3-D has a huge effect on your overall viewing experience, especially if it is a post-production conversion. Post-production conversions are a perfect example of a studio adding 3-D for the sake of adding 3-D and thinking with their wallets rather than thinking through the artistic value of such an egregious move. Christopher Nolan, writer and director of MEMENTO, INCEPTION, and the upcoming THE DARK KNIGHT RISES, refused to do 3-D for both INCEPTION and THE DARK KNIGHT RISES for creative reasons and has championed filming in IMAX, not 3-D, as the future of filmmaking because it allows for more detail on the screen. I'm a huge fan of Nolan and his work, and it is refreshing to see one director with the clout to stand up to the studio and refuse to participate in this growing fad.

So the next time you're at the movie theater and you find yourself having to choose between 2-D or 3-D, I urge you to go with 2-D and never look back. You don't need that third dimension and it isn't worth sacrificing your moviegoing experience just to line the pockets of some wealthy exec trying to cash in on a cheap trend, and I fear that MADEA GOES TO SPACE 3-D isn't far off...

Paul Thomas Anderson (Final Thoughts)

I wanted to conclude this first installment of Filmmaker of the Week by closing the book on Paul Thomas Anderson with a short post summarizing my thoughts and insights into this man and his films, and perhaps lead into the next filmmaker that I intend to talk about with this blog.

First of all, I am now a huge fan of Paul Thomas Anderson. All of his films are thoughtful, affecting, and ambitious, and these are the kinds of movies that make me want to be a screenwriter. People go to the movie theater for a number of different reasons and that is what makes it such a universal experience, because there is something out there for everyone. People go because they want to get something out of it and, especially with the rising ticket prices, they want it to be worth the price of admission. I want to write movies that force people to think about themselves and the rest of the world from a different perspective and to be thinking about the movie hours after they've left the theater. I want to make them laugh, cry, and smile, because that is what storytelling is all about.

Paul Thomas Anderson does not create perfect characters with no flaws, because those kind of people don't exist and no one in the audience is going to be able to relate to that person. There are a million Barry Egans in the world struggling with loneliness and the inability to express and/or control their emotions. There are even more Eddie Adams out there who are searching for a purpose in life but can't seem to find one because they're looking for all the wrong things. I'm sure there are several people out there who can relate to Frank T.J. Mackey and the anger he feels towards his father for abandoning him and his mother in the time when they needed him most. There are no superheroes when it comes to P.T. Anderson. Only real people with real problems.

I know a lot of people will watch BOOGIE NIGHTS or MAGNOLIA or THERE WILL BE BLOOD and dismiss them as long, boring, and pretentious, but if I were you, I'd give them a chance. There is nothing wrong with watching a mindless action movie or a sappy romantic comedy or a cheap slasher flick, but if you want to be challenged, give Paul Thomas Anderson a chance. You won't be disappointed. And another fun aspect of watching all of these movies is recognizing which actors are "regulars" like Philip Seymour Hoffman, John C. Reilly, and Philip Baker Hall, all of whom appear in at least three of his films. If the interesting characters don't do it for you, maybe you'll find his visual style appealing, because dagumit if P.T. Anderson doesn't know how to work that camera, especially in some of the wide shots you'll see quite a bit in THERE WILL BE BLOOD.

Paul Thomas Anderson is a writer and a director who cares about his characters and wants you to care about them too, so you'll become invested as an audience member and feel involved even as the end credits begin to roll. I haven't decided who will be next for Filmmaker of the Week, but I'm debating between Quentin Tarantino and Wes Anderson, with Anderson holding a slight lead due to the fact that his latest film MOONRISE KINGDOM receives a limited theatrical release this weekend.

'Til next time, thanks for reading! I thought this went well.

Paul Thomas Anderson (Part 3 of 3)

In this post, we will finish up with Paul Thomas Anderson and talk about PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD, two of his most recent releases. Thus far, we have discussed HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, and MAGNOLIA, noting some of the themes that are most popular with P.T. Anderson and how he likes to use ensemble casts to keep the audience invested. Both of these next films represent Anderson stepping outside his comfort zone and taking risks with his creative endeavors, while also staying true to the themes and ideas he has built his career around.

PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE is a peculiar little film, a far cry from the ambitious and emotional melodrama from MAGNOLIA, but you can't blame Anderson for taking a bit of a breather after finishing what some believe to be his masterpiece. Barry Egan (Adam Sandler) is a quiet introvert who, after a childhood of being emasculated by his seven sisters, has become a man of repressed emotions, prone to outbursts of rage and inexplicable bouts of depression. But his life begins to take a promising turn when he meets Lena Leonard (Emily Watson), a co-worker of one of his sisters who seems to have developed a crush on Barry and arranges for them to go out on a date. Despite his initial hesitation, Barry begins to believe that he has found a kindred spirit in Lena, both of them struggling with the loneliness that comes from feeling like an outsider to the rest of the world. Their newfound happiness is threatened when Barry, in a moment of weakness, calls up a phone sex line operator for some casual conversation, unaware that he is put himself in the crosshairs of a group of scam artists led by mattress store owner Dean Trumbell (Philip Seymour Hoffman).

For the first time in his career, Adam Sandler will keep you riveted to the screen, and it isn't because his character of Barry Egan is all that different from the goofball roles that have made him famous. Here, Sandler is a man who never grew up, handicapped by a childhood of torment that stunted his growth and kept him from developing healthy relationships with other people outside of his family life. Anderson takes the man child archetype that Sandler has made his own and transplants it to the real world, where he is a character with real flaws and real problems who finds strength through love. He is a character that audiences can root for and his journey towards self-respect is a poignant one, with a layer of dark humor thrown in to keep things from getting too serious. The somewhat bizarre subplot involving the phone sex line scam is used to help illustrate the change that Lena inspires in Barry over the course of the film, and Philip Seymour Hoffman makes for an excellent foil to his unlikely hero despite limited screen time.

PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE is not your typical romantic comedy, and nor should it be. With his unique talent for creating fascinating and flawed characters, Paul Thomas Anderson gives this movie heart, which is an uncommon trait in today's world of commercialized and cliched romantic comedies. And I guarantee you'll find yourself laughing on more than a few occasions.

In the early 1900's, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a mineral prospector who, whilst digging for gold, ends up striking oil, prompting him to set up his own oil drilling business. When an accident at a drilling site kills one of his workers, Daniel discovers that the man left behind an infant son and decides to raise him as his own, re-naming him H.W. Plainview (Dillon Freasier). For the next nine years, with his adopted son at his side, Daniel uses his talents of persuasion to coerce the private owners of small-town properties into allowing him to drill their land - for a bargain price, of course. But Daniel appears to have met his match when Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), the son of one of these unsuspecting land owners, recognizes the true value of his family's land and attempts to take full advantage, brokering a deal with Daniel that will help pay for the construction of a new church where he will be the pastor. Daniel is forced to endure Eli and his religious aims in order to continue his work unabated, but it isn't long before the two men find themselves locked in a struggle for power that can only end when both of their lives are in shambles.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD is one of the most visually stunning films that I've ever seen, and the musical score creates a sense of dread and foreboding that works well with the visual stylings of P.T. Anderson. But the most memorable part of THERE WILL BE BLOOD is, without a doubt, the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis, who continues to lend credence to the growing belief that he is the best modern actor working in Hollywood. Notorious for his rigorous and unparalleled method acting techniques, Day-Lewis is one of those actors who doesn't pretend to be his characters, he becomes them, and his performances are spellbinding as a result. His work here, as man so obsessed with power that he is willing to destroy anything and anyone around him to ensure he never loses it, is remarkable, and his best scenes are with Paul Dano, who manages to hold his own as Eli Sunday, the ambitious young preacher who wishes to have an empire of his own, but one built on faith rather than oil. It is the escalating conflict between these two men that provides the framework for THERE WILL BE BLOOD, and their final scene together is one that you'll be thinking about long after the end credits have rolled.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD is a riveting film about greed, power, family, religion, and oil, and ranks right up there with MAGNOLIA as some of the best work that Paul Thomas Anderson has ever done. This isn't one of those movies that leaves you feeling all warm and fuzzy, but it is certainly thought-provoking and the performances alone are worth the price of admission.

The Master

Paul Thomas Anderson has released a teaser trailer for his latest film THE MASTER, which stars Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Laura Dern and is set for a limited theatrical release on October 12, 2012. The teaser, which you can view below, doesn't offer much insight into the actual plot, but instead focuses on both setting the tone for the film and introducing us to Freddie Sutton, the drifter portrayed by Phoenix who becomes the right hand man to Lancaster Dodd, a controversial religious leader portrayed by Hoffman. Take a look...

Paul Thomas Anderson (Part 2 of 3)

"I have a feeling - one of those gut feelings - that I'll make pretty good movies the rest of my life. But I guess the way that I really feel is that MAGNOLIA is, for better or worse, the best movie I'll ever make." - Paul Thomas Anderson

With this post, I will be continuing the inaugural installment of Filmmaker of the Week, with the focus being on writer and director Paul Thomas Anderson. In my last post, I talked about his first two films, HARD EIGHT  and BOOGIE NIGHTS, and will be taking at a look at his third, MAGNOLIA, in today's post. As you read in the above quote, Anderson himself considers this to be his greatest achievement, so you'll understand why I've devoted an entire post to discussing it.

"We may be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us." - Narrator

Paul Thomas Anderson was in a position that very few film directors find themselves in when, after the surprising critical and commercial success of BOOGIE NIGHTS, New Line Cinema offered to back whatever film he wanted to do next, without even hearing a pitch. Seizing this rare opportunity, Anderson set out to make MAGNOLIA, an idea that started out as small and simple but expanded and blossomed into something much more substantial in scope during the writing process.

What is MAGNOLIA about? This is a hard question to answer, because it is about a lot of things. Earl Partridge (Jason Robards) is a television producer who, on his deathbed, asks his hospice nurse Phil Parma (Philip Seymour Hoffman) to get in contact with his estranged son from his first marriage. His son turns out to be famous self-help guru Frank T.J. Mackey (Tom Cruise), the larger-than-life spokesperson for a program called "Seduce And Destroy" that teaches men how to pick up women through coercion and deceit. Frank wants nothing to do with his father and has particular contempt for Linda Partridge (Julianne Moore), his father's second wife, who is consumed with guilt over her past indiscretions and appears on the verge of a nervous breakdown.

What Do Kids Know? is a famous game show that Earl Partridge produces and its longtime host is Jimmy Gator (Philip Baker Ball), who has a strained relationship with his drug addict daughter Claudia Wilson Gator (Melora Walters) made all the more complicated by the recent news that he has been diagnosed with cancer. Claudia receives a visit from police officer Jim Kurring (John C. Reilly) when her neighbors file a noise complaint and, after failing to notice that she exhibits obvious signs of substance abuse, he decides to ask her out on a date after sharing a cup of coffee in her apartment. Stanley Spector (Jeremy Blackman) is a child contestant on What Do Kids Know? and he is on the verge of breaking the show's record for consecutive victories, much to the delight of his selfish and overbearing father. As the pressure begins to take a toll on Stanley, he seems destined to follow in the footsteps of Donnie Smith (William H. Macy), a former child contestant made famous by the show who is now broke, unemployed, and alone.

All of these storylines intertwine to form the complex narrative of MAGNOLIA. Anderson has created a beautiful mosaic of characters whose lives are connected through both coincidence and the flaws that each of them share. Earl is a dying man filled with regret, hopeful that in the final hours of his life he can make amends with a bitter and cynical son who has spent the past few decades hating him. Jimmy is a man of fame reduced to a man of sorrow by the two things eating away inside of him, one of them cancer and the other the knowledge that his relationship with his daughter might be beyond repair. Rick Spector (Michael Bowen), the other father character of MAGNOLIA, is a struggling wannabe actor who views his son more as a wallet than a child, seemingly oblivious to the fact that all Stanley wants is the unconditional love of his father.

Anderson offers us the three damaged children - Frank, Claudia, and Donnie - who grew into adulthood carrying the burden of what their parents did to them, unable to forgive their wrongdoers because they chose to bury their past deep inside themselves rather than confront it. MAGNOLIA is about the feelings of sadness, regret, and isolation that we all feel at some point in life, and how we must draw strength from the regrets of the past and move forward towards a hopeful future. Sometimes we have make that choice for ourselves and other times it can be forced upon us, either by sheer happenstance or by forces beyond our control or understanding.

MAGNOLIA is an ambitious film and it is fascinating to observe the precision with which P.T. Anderson weaves together all these different characters into a cohesive final product. Just short of three hours, MAGNOLIA is a bit long in tooth, but the mesmerizing performances manage to hold your attention the entire time, with special attention going to the breathtaking work of Tom Cruise. This is a movie that is well worth your time and demands to be watched more than once.

Check back again later for Part 3!

Paul Thomas Anderson (Part 1 of 3)

"When people ask me if I went to film school, I tell them, 'No, I went to films.'" - Quentin Tarantino

Something I've decided to undertake this summer is a little concept I refer to as Filmmaker of the Week, in which I select one writer or director and watch of all from their films, from first to last. If I want to write for film and television as a future career, I need to learn from the best and I figured that this, my last summer as a college student, was the perfect chance to devote some time to the study of some of the most renowned filmmakers to come out of Hollywood.

First up, writer and director Paul Thomas Anderson, whose works include HARD EIGHT, BOOGIE NIGHTS, MAGNOLIA, PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE, THERE WILL BE BLOOD, and the upcoming THE MASTER, which will receive a limited theatrical release on October 12, 2012. I will be discussing HARD EIGHT and BOOGIE NIGHTS right here in Part 1, MAGNOLIA in Part 2, and then finish up with PUNCH-DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD in Part 3.

I first came to know about P.T. Anderson after watching THERE WILL BE BLOOD, but my interest in him really wasn't piqued until I heard about his latest film called THE MASTER, which takes place in the 1950's and follows a young drifter (Joaquin Phoenix) who comes to work for the charismatic leader (Philip Seymour Hoffman) of a faith-based organization that becomes a sensation in America - an organization that shares more than a few similarities with the modern Church of Scientology. I am both fascinated and appalled by Scientology and can't wait to see what Anderson has in store, but let us first go back to where it all began with HARD EIGHT.

Before I began this project, I had never heard of HARD EIGHT, and I'd be shocked if anyone reading this has heard of it either. It debuted at the Sundance Film Festival in 1996 and was the recipient of much critical praise, though it never seemed to catch on with mainstream audiences. Sydney (Philip Baker Hall) is a veteran gambler who pulls the wayward John (John C. Reilly) under his wing and takes him to a casino in Reno to teach him a few tricks of the trade. It is unclear why Sydney reaches out to John, but the two become close friends over the next couple years, with Sydney becoming something of a father figure to John. But soon everything begins to unravel and their friendship is put to the test when John falls for Clementine (Gwyneth Paltrow), a slow-witted cocktail waitress who works in the casino lounge and moonlights as a prostitute.

HARD EIGHT is about characters, not plot, which is something you'll come to notice about Paul Thomas Anderson. Using character actors like Philip Baker Hall and John C. Reilly, he is able to give these characters life and get the audience to invest in them. Anderson is interested in making these characters as human as possible, with very obvious human flaws, and allowing them to dictate where the story goes, rather than using them to service the plot. Sydney is a man with a troubled past, haunted by a mistake that he can never undo nor forgive himself for, and the plot swivels around his desire to do good by John in hopes of attaining some form of redemption. These themes of regret and forgiveness are ones that Anderson weaves throughout several of his films, and it is hard not to view HARD EIGHT as a launching pad for everything that comes next.

HARD EIGHT is a small feat compared to some of his other films, but one that features strong performances, fascinating characters, and powerful explorations of the things that make us human, all of which you'll recognize as recurring themes throughout the career of P.T. Anderson.

As opposed to the lesser-known HARD EIGHT, I had heard quite a bit about BOOGIE NIGHTS before I actually got around to watching it, with most people proclaiming it as the movie that first put Paul Thomas Anderson on the map and paved the road for MAGNOLIA. BOOGIE NIGHTS premiered at the Toronto International Film Festival, where it received almost universal critical acclaim, before making its theatrical debut in 1997 and becoming a box office success. Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) is a dishwasher at a popular night club during the late 1970's who drops out of high school and is kicked out the house by his alcoholic mother. Famous adult film director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds) takes notice of Eddie one night at the club and offers him a role in one of his films, an offer that Eddie eagerly accepts. Adopting the name Dirk Diggler, Eddie becomes a sensation in the pornography business and achieves celebrity status, believing himself to be a true movie star and a pop culture icon. But as the times begin to change in the early 80's, so does the culture of the porn business, and Eddie is forced to watch as his world crumbles around him.

It would be easy for people to dismiss BOOGIE NIGHTS, without taking the time to watch it, as garbage because of the nature of the topic that it covers, but that would be missing out on all that it has to offer. Anderson doesn't glamorize the porn business, but instead uses it to highlight the shallow and decadent nature of the 70's and how it all came crashing down on the people who thrived during that era. People were having sex with reckless abandon and doing enough drugs to kill a horse, never once considering what was to come when the music stopped and the party came to a screeching halt. Anderson uses an ensemble cast here made up of Wahlberg, Reynolds, Julianne Moore, Reilly, Heather Graham, Hoffman, Don Cheadle, Luis Guzman, and William H. Macy to create a blend of different characters who each have something to contribute to the story when all is said and done. BOOGIE NIGHTS is very much about the human desire to achieve success in life and love, and how our repeated failure to invest in the people we love rather than materialistic pleasures is what robs us of that chance to achieve true happiness.

BOOGIE NIGHTS is not a film for everyone, but one that, if given the chance, will surprise you with its endearingly human characters and fascinating re-creation of the zeitgeist of the late 1970's. More than anything, P.T. Anderson continues to display a unique understanding of what makes people tick and how to tell a compelling story through the human emotions of his characters.

Be sure to check back for Part 2!

I Left My Heart In San Fran Cheesy

First things first, you're probably wondering why the web address for this blog is I Left My Heart In San Fran Cheesy. To be honest, I struggled for a while trying to come up with a clever URL. But then it hit me like a bolt of lightning, and a scene from GROSSE POINTE BLANK began playing out in my head...

I love this movie and, in particular, this scene. Very few people have seen this movie, let alone heard of it, but it's one very close to my heart. I've watched it at least a dozen times and it never gets old. No one does neurotic better than John Cusack, whose career highs I consider to be this movie and HIGH FIDELITY. Anyway, back to the scene in question. All of the best dialogue scenes take place in diners, have you ever noticed that? Something about two people sitting at a table in the middle of a public restaurant (in the world of cinema, at least) seems bring out the most honest and intimate of conversations between characters. But something about this throwaway line from a nameless waitress stuck with me and I'm not sure that I can explain why.

This tends to be the case with a lot of things that I like, whether it be film, television, or even books. One of the goals of this blog is to figure why I like the things that I do. What makes one movie memorable and another unwatchable? Why are some television shows compelling and engrossing but others dull and uninvolving? Great films and television shows are meant to create conversation and be talked about, and I intend to do that here. I hope you'll be along for the ride.