Posted by jughead55 at abe26505.ipt.aol.com on January 17, 2000 at 22:16:19:
In Reply to: A definitive answer to an age-old query posted by Kevin on January 17, 2000 at 21:27:02:
: : paul thomas anderson's movies have an enthusiasm for moviemaking as an artform that most modern movies (including kevin's) lack.
: Ah, but my enthusiasm is for my material and for the audience as well. And while I'd never deny Paul has an enthusiasm for his material, he doesn't seem too concerned with the audience.
i can definitely see you point. pta has said in the past that he makes his movies for himself first, because he's gonna have to see them more than anyone else. (i'm paraphrasing him there) but at the same time, i don't think his films are necessarily aimed at the same audience as yours. c'mon, if you really look at it, you and pta have very very different approaches to filmmaking. in the end it's like trying to compare usagi yojimbo and silver age superman.
: It was like the man was saying "I know this film is really long, but fuck you - I want it long." It takes stones to tell the audience that you're in charge, and fuck anyone who doesn't like it. It was bratty (in a good way), and I dug that (and the movie).
hell yeah. that's why i like his movies so much. i found magnolia to have just as much of that "fuck you" attitude as boogie nights. the length, the intro, the musical sequence, and the frogs.
i guess what i'm trying to say here is that your movies and paul thomas anderson's are so different in style and approach that it should be no surprise that so many of your fans hated it. i'll admit, that i'm not a huge fan of yours but i admire you for not being a bullshitter. and you love comics. that's great.
-greg