Posted by Kevin at spider-te031.proxy.aol.com on January 17, 2000 at 21:27:02:
In Reply to: Qestion for Kevin : Why do you make movies? posted by jughead55 on January 17, 2000 at 19:50:19:
: i'm not trying to dis you here,
Here we go...
: but i'm really curious. your movies don't seem to have any sort of visual style.
Amy Taubin, writing in the Village Voice, summed it up best when she penned the very first 'Clerks' piece ever. This isn't verbatim, but she said that my style was that I had no style. I've always liked that. I think it's pretty on-the-money.
: and your scripts always seem to read a lot better than they end up on screen.
It's an arbitrary point, but I'll go with you on it.
: the emphasis always seems like it's on the lines themselves instead of their delivery.
Bingo... sort of. Delivery is important too.
: you seem like a really cool guys and you've obviously got a lot of great ideas.
Many thanks.
: it just seems like your talents would be better served if you were a novelist or something.
Another arbitrary call that I've gotta split with you on. I'd be a lousy novelist. My books would be very non-descriptive and too dialogue heavy.
Like my movies.
: what made you want to make movies?
It just seemed to make sense. I wanted to write, but I didn't want someone else pooching the delivery of the dialogue. I wanted to tell stories, but I wasn't a very visual person. I wanted a baby, but I didn't want to give some man legal rights to my body (that made a 'Sexual Suspect'). And when I saw what folks were doing in the indie field - making films that didn't have to be visually stunning (Richard Linklater and 'Slacker'), I wanted to be a part of that.
And while I'll never... NEVER... be much better at crafting the images that convey the ideas and dialogue in whatever scripts I write, I can't say I'm bothered by that notion. I've carved out a niche for myself in the cinematic landscape. It's not a massive one, but it's nothing to scoff at either. Folks that like what I do really like it. Folks that don't like what I do never need watch another one of my efforts.
And at the end of the day, the films I make please me. They're economic in means and presentation, but they're packed full of ideas and humor. They're somewhat easy watches that audiences mostly enjoy. And they're smart investments. We do them fairly inexpensively, so we always profit (even 'Mallrats' eventually profited, thanks to the popularity it found on video). And since I don't see my budgets ever climbing that much, I'll probably be allowed to make movies for as long as I want.
So if I'm happy with what I do, the audience seems largely happy with what I do, and the financiers are happy with what I do...
Well, where's the harm?
: 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. If he was, 'Magnolia' (Good Lord, I know I'm just asking for it now; but since nobody else will let it die...) would've been a far trimmer film. The story (such as it was) could've been told in a third less time than he took. Even the most dedicated fan can concede that.
For me, part of the charm of 'Boogie Nights' (and, indeed, Paul himself as the filmmaker then) was that he treated it as a massive and important undertaking. I remember chuckling because the man had the balls to include an overture over black at the head of an already legendarily lengthy film about difficult subject matter (which I never quite saw as difficult; hell - who doesn't like porn?). 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).
But my perception of the length (and utter vapidity) of 'Magnolia' is that the charming but insolent brat who tossed an overture at the head of his chunky but funky porn flick had been replaced by someone who believed the good reviews a bit too much, and felt himself a cinematic maestro with something extremely important to say. By the end of 'Magnolia', the filmmaker didn't seem bratty anymore; he seemed deluded.
But for the love of all that's holy - I don't begrudge the man the right to make whatever the fuck flick he pleases. There's always going to be an audience for any flick anyone does - whether it be a film full of crappy shots and dick jokes, or one comprised of wall-to-wall diva-like cineamatography and a senseless collection of scenes that add up to very little (for me, anyway). I support anyone's right to make any movie they want (so long as they don't physically hurt or kill someone in the process)...
But I don't have to LIKE them all.
And since when was my opinion important anyway? It seems we've had a lot of traffic on this board from angry, vehement 'Magnolia' fans who feel I've no right to not like the movie. People - take it easy. You remind me of the angry sanctimonious fucks we had to deal with a few months back who thought I was a threat to their faith. Hey - if you're secure that 'Magnolia' is such a brilliant film, then what the fuck does it matter what I think? The flick obvious worked for you guys. Great. Didn't work for me. The difference is I'm not making a pilgrimage to wherever it is you 'Magnoli-ites' gather and demanding satisfaction you can never give.
The only positive thing I can say about this whole experience is that I feel secure if this country ever goes to war again. All we need to do is recruit you guys and tell you the enemy hated 'Magnolia'. I'm convinced we'd have the fucker won in under a week.
And to the original poster - this is not all addressed to you. You merely provided the venue. I hope I answered your questions well enough, though.