|
I'm sure CD is familiar with Paul-Thomas Anderson, but for those of you who aren't, he's one of today's most acclaimed off-beat and dramatic filmmakers. He directed Boogie Nights (1997), Magnolia (1999), Punch-Drunk Love (2004), and There Will Be Blood (2007), which was nominated for eight Academy Awards, and won for Cinematography and Best Actor (Daniel Day-Lewis' powerhouse performance). His films tend to follow off-kilter/intense/fascinating characters, and his use of music and cinematography and colors is something to admire. Some examples of his filmmaking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9pZpcxodf4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gC96_vph-oI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVLWYckzw5s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_hFTR6qyEo As you can see, his films are pretty unique, beating, dramatic, funny, all that stuff. Even now, typing this, since it's been five years since his last movie I'm not sounding as excited as I'm gonna be sitting in theaters to see his latest movie, but Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love are two of my five or six favorite movies and I cannot wait to see his next. His next, you ask? After going through several delays with studio problems, his next film is set to hit US theaters on October 12, 2012. It's entitled "The Master." It starts Philip Seymour Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix, and Amy Adams. Essentially, it's supposed to be an unoffical story of L. Ron Hubbard and the emergence of Scientology, but PT has refused to make that connection. Here is the plot outline: Plot posted:Scheduled to hi theaters on October 12, the film is set in America in the years following World War II. A charismatic intellectual (Philip Seymour Hoffman) launches a faith-based organization and taps a young drifter (Joaquin Phoenix) as his right-hand man. But as the faith begins to gain a fervent following, the onetime vagabond finds himself questioning the belief system he has embraced, and his mentor. Sounds like it to me. Anyhow, four minutes of the film were shown to an audience at Cannes this week and earned a lot of chatter, although not much is known about what the footage is yet. There is, however, a released trailer, and watching it, I immediately got DDL vibes from There Will Be Blood. Go to http://www.themasterfilm.com/ to check out the teaser trailer (it's the site's only content right now) and use this thread to discuss not only the upcoming film, but PT Anderson in general, because I'm sure he's a favorite of a lot of you in here. 
i am not so sure fucked around with this message at May 22, 2012 around 16:25 |
| # ? May 22, 2012 16:13 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 18:36 |
|
|
Don't forget he also directed a movie called Hard Eight. It's very good.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 16:20 |
|
|
I thought Hard Eight was great for a first film but I don't think it's even close to his others. Suppose I should have mentioned it though.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 16:37 |
|
|
Agreed, Hard Eight is a good film, but compared to any of his other work, it's not great at all. Anderson directing Hoffman in a lead role is going to be amazing.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 16:47 |
|
|
I'm so loving jazzed for this, I've been in love with Anderson since I was like fifteen and I made my mom blind-buy Magnolia, which blew my mind. It'll be really cool to see a modern 70mm film in the theater (the last was Branagh's Hamlet), and to see what Anderson does with the format. There's more info on the footage shown here at Cigarettes & Red Vines, the unofficial Anderson blog (official enough, though, that Anderson frequently messages them).
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 18:27 |
|
|
Oh, I didn't know it was shot on 70mm. Very interesting... Finally got around to checking out the teaser for this, and then I checked it out again, and again, and again. That is a goddamn chilling teaser. Tells you nothing at all, but yet, there's sooo much there. Goddamn I can't wait for this.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 21:37 |
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I'm so loving jazzed for this, I've been in love with Anderson since I was like fifteen and I made my mom blind-buy Magnolia, which blew my mind. It'll be really cool to see a modern 70mm film in the theater (the last was Branagh's Hamlet), and to see what Anderson does with the format. There's more info on the footage shown here at Cigarettes & Red Vines, the unofficial Anderson blog (official enough, though, that Anderson frequently messages them). Drew from Hitfix has a writeup here too, with a look at David O Russel's latest and also Django Unchained.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 21:43 |
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:I'm so loving jazzed for this, I've been in love with Anderson since I was like fifteen and I made my mom blind-buy Magnolia, which blew my mind. It'll be really cool to see a modern 70mm film in the theater (the last was Branagh's Hamlet), and to see what Anderson does with the format. There's more info on the footage shown here at Cigarettes & Red Vines, the unofficial Anderson blog (official enough, though, that Anderson frequently messages them). As someone who has never picked up a camera, and knows virtually nothing about the technical aspects of film, can you offer up a good place to go learn about things like aspect ratio and film gauge? I'm tired of not knowing why I should care about stuff like this.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 21:52 |
|
|
Man, I immediately recognized Jonny Greenwood's style. His score for There Will Be Blood was incredible, and I have no doubt that this one will be as good.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 21:53 |
|
|
Pretty terrific trailer. Also I quite like that the poster and film title seems to indicate that it's the Phillip Seymour Hoffman show, but so far all the preview material - the trailer and the writeups on Cigarettes & Red Vines - indicate that it's Joaquin Phoenix all the way.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 22:28 |
|
|
^ That poster is just a photo from Capote, y'know.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 22:30 |
|
|
I am friggin mesmerized by Phoenix in that teaser. Seat, prepare thyself for my rear end.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 22:51 |
|
|
Jewmanji posted:As someone who has never picked up a camera, and knows virtually nothing about the technical aspects of film, can you offer up a good place to go learn about things like aspect ratio and film gauge? I'm tired of not knowing why I should care about stuff like this. Wikipedia's got some good information but here's a basic rundown. Aspect ratios run a fairly small gamut that you're probably familiar with: 1.33:1 - This is known as "Academy" ratio. It's the squarish shape of older televisions and when you take a photo with a drugstore camera, you get prints in this ratio. When television came around everyone switched to widescreen to differentiate and attract audiences, and thus 1.33:1 became perceived as cheap-looking. Recently there has been a revival of interest in it now that most television productions are in widescreen. Meek's Cutoff and Fish Tank are two recent demonstrations of the qualities of this ratio. 1.66:1 - Often referred to as "European" widescreen, this ratio came about with Vistavision. Not really in use anymore, I think. Most pre-2000 European widescreen films were in this ratio (as well as many American films, such as Barry Lyndon). 1.78:1 - This is the ratio of widescreen televisions. It's very similar to 1.85:1 - This is the ratio of most films. It's a big fat rectangle and it's very versatile - if you shoot it handheld you can get a documentary look, and if you compose well you can get a solid, painterly quality, and you can do dozens of things with it. 2.35:1 - This is often referred to as "scope", in reference to Cinemascope, who created the original "anamorphic" lenses that produced this wide frame (however, Cinemascope lenses actually produced an even wider frame of 2.55:1). This is used often nowadays as well, often to differentiate from modern widescreen television. 2.35:1 (or 2.39:1, as it usually is these days) was originally used to film Big Epic Films and Fancy Musicals and Luxurious Fantasies and everything else that wasn't kitchen-sink dramas or boxing thrillers or whatever else. This was for Big Big Films. Nicholas Ray, however, broke this tradition with films like Rebel Without A Cause, and then Jean-Luc Godard, of the French New Wave (who idolized Ray) ran with it and shot a good portion of his films in 2.35:1, as did Truffaut. Nowadays 2.35:1 is fair game for any subject. A note on "anamorphic" - this is a technique using a lens that vertically squeezes the image to fill a full film frame, thus making better use of grain and space. Shooting a 2.35:1 film with a true anamorphic lens produces a distinctly distorted image - see Star Wars, for example - in which the sides of the frame are horizontally compressed and often fuzzy. Modern anamorphic lenses are often "cleaner", as in the case of Paul Thomas Anderson, who strives constantly for the cleanest, most grain-free image possible. Anamorphic lenses are also very, very good at catching lens flares - see Punch-Drunk Love for about a jillion examples of this. There are a handful of formats in use. 8mm - Very small film, you know how this looks if you've ever seen old home movies or the Zapruder footage. Sometimes used to artistic effect. 16mm - Double the size of 8mm, still fairly grainy. This was the go-to for student films and very low-budget indie films for a long, long time, as well as documentaries and TV films (Gimme Shelter and Scenes From A Marriage, for example). 35mm - Your basic all-use format, you've probably seen or even held strips of it. 70/65mm - Used for the Big Big Budget films of the 50s and 60s. West Side Story, 2001, Ben Hur all share this format. IMAX uses it as well in a slightly altered way (most films passes vertically behind the lens, IMAX film passes sideways). There are lots and lots of little different versions, usually due to sound strips (which is why 1.37 became 1.33). What's interesting here is that Anderson is shooting 65mm, but the native aspect ratio for 65mm is 2.20:1 and up, but what we see in the trailer is 1.85:1 (or something like it). What's double-interesting is that Anderson loves 2.35:1, so I'm wondering what his decision was here.
|
| # ? May 22, 2012 23:46 |
|
|
Shooting on 65/70 mm owns. Can't wait to see this.
|
| # ? May 23, 2012 00:16 |
|
|
It's shot on a mix of 35mm and 70mm. Not all 70mm.
|
| # ? May 23, 2012 01:02 |
|
|
As a budding film nerd, I fell in love with P.T Anderson aping an over caffeinated Scorsese with BOOGIE NIGHTS and his hyper kinetic take on Robert Altman in MAGNOLIA. He's really matured over the years, and while I grew to love PUNCH DRUNK LOVE, I was at first taken aback with lack of emphasis on SUPER DUPER LOOK AT ME CAMERA MOVES (which I loved)! I can see that he started with a very slow style with HARD EIGHT, which he took again in THERE WILL BE BLOOD, but I'm looking forward to THE MASTER as (hopefully) another mixture of all the techniques he's used over time.
|
| # ? May 23, 2012 01:44 |
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:There are lots and lots of little different versions, usually due to sound strips (which is why 1.37 became 1.33). What's interesting here is that Anderson is shooting 65mm, but the native aspect ratio for 65mm is 2.20:1 and up, but what we see in the trailer is 1.85:1 (or something like it). What's double-interesting is that Anderson loves 2.35:1, so I'm wondering what his decision was here. I've read elsewhere that the ratio will be 2.20:1, and the images of the negative from a while back were in that ratio (Found here: http://www.awardsdaily.com/2012/05/...ter-well-kinda/). I'm not sure why the teaser is in 1:85:1... NeuroticErotica, where's your source on the 35mm inclusion? I believe you, because Kodak and Panavision would be hyping this project a lot more if it really was an exclusively 65mm shoot, but I haven't seen anything official either way. Just lots of word of mouth, and people on both sides are certain they're right.
|
| # ? May 23, 2012 02:28 |
|
|
Bugblatter posted:NeuroticErotica, where's your source on the 35mm inclusion? I believe you, because Kodak and Panavision would be hyping this project a lot more if it really was an exclusively 65mm shoot, but I haven't seen anything official either way. Just lots of word of mouth, and people on both sides are certain they're right. The Cigarettes and Red vines people seem convinced it's a mix, which helps. There's also just what a pin in the rear end it would be to shoot 65/70 in a lot of situations. Look at the torpedo sequence in the trailer. Unless that's a really convincing set, it's going to be hard to squeeze a 65mm package into there. They're bulkier, larger, and louder - which makes dialogue a real problem. It's mostly just not really practical to shoot in such a way, and really expensive. As he struggled to get $35m for it, it's hard to believe that he'd have such an inflated cost over the duration of the shoot.
|
| # ? May 23, 2012 02:38 |
|
|
I have fond memories of Magnolia, even though I did have some intense hand cramps for 30 minutes during the middle for no real discernible reason. There Will Be Blood was the single best film I had ever seen in theatres, and had some of the most intense atmosphere and depersonalizing cinematography I've ever seen. I sometimes felt like I was looking at a "wrong" seeming Nat Geo special. PTA's sometimes emphasis on weird nature is very arresting to me, it was so especially in Boogie Nights (internal) and obviously TWBB (external). The trailer was mind-blowing. Phoenix looks like he might be pulling a Daniel Day and Hoffman is never bad, never.
|
| # ? May 23, 2012 07:55 |
|
|
I gotta say I'm surprised to see that this movie seems to be coming from a similar emotional and aesthetic place as There Will Be Blood. I couldn't help but draw comparisons to it as soon as the first beach shot with the Jonny Greenwood piece, and then later on with the shot of Joaquin working with a flashlight. Finally, the end laughter with the creeping horror movie strings is basically the same way TWBB's trailer ended. Kinda has me expecting another 20 minute dialogue free sequence of showing us the intricacies of torpedo storage and fueling. That's something I really like about PTA's films. He is so interested in the obscure little mechanics and workings of things, be it the camera/porn filming sequence in Boogie Nights, the extended introduction to TWBB, or the way Philip Baker Hall deconstructs the workings of the casino in Hard Eight...and even in a different sense, the "looking inside" of lines of work that don't get much exposure in movies. One of the joys of Punch-Drunk Love is all the small details of Barry's workplace, and Hoffman's "business". Or the What Do Kid's Know set in Magnolia. I love all these little glimpses into obscure/overlooked corners of society. Even when the camera is simply following various characters around the TV studio, it is still so gripping.
|
| # ? May 23, 2012 21:15 |
|
|
the Bunt posted:Kinda has me expecting another 20 minute dialogue free sequence of showing us the intricacies of torpedo storage and fueling. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torpedo_juice
|
| # ? May 23, 2012 21:30 |
|
|
JebanyPedal posted:Hoffman is never bad, never. Twister
|
| # ? May 24, 2012 13:17 |
|
|
I, Butthole posted:Twister He's the best thing about that movie 
|
| # ? May 24, 2012 14:12 |
|
|
Nothing like 180 Proof Grain Alcohol to get a party started 
|
| # ? May 24, 2012 14:36 |
|
|
the Bunt posted:I gotta say I'm surprised to see that this movie seems to be coming from a similar emotional and aesthetic place as There Will Be Blood. I couldn't help but draw comparisons to it as soon as the first beach shot with the Jonny Greenwood piece, and then later on with the shot of Joaquin working with a flashlight. Finally, the end laughter with the creeping horror movie strings is basically the same way TWBB's trailer ended. The intro to Boogie Nights is a great example of this. He not only introduces the environment of 70's night clubs, but all the characters in the ensemble as well. In three uncut minutes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wv_jwC3D3BI i am not so sure fucked around with this message at May 24, 2012 around 16:53 |
| # ? May 24, 2012 16:35 |
|
|
I really cant get over how good the acting is in that teaser. Joaquin looks genuinely scary crazy
|
| # ? May 24, 2012 17:25 |
|
|
The way a corner of his mouth lilts as though he has a permanent disfigurement is beautiful.
|
| # ? May 24, 2012 17:28 |
|
|
the_american_dream posted:I really cant get over how good the acting is in that teaser. Joaquin looks genuinely scary crazy I don't know anything about the movie but Phoenix gave off a brutish, yet charismatic vibe in that teaser, and by the end of it I found myself siding with him over the army officer. Maybe it's a bad sign that he didn't frighten me.
|
| # ? May 24, 2012 18:06 |
|
|
exquisite tea posted:I don't know anything about the movie but Phoenix gave off a brutish, yet charismatic vibe in that teaser, and by the end of it I found myself siding with him over the army officer. Maybe it's a bad sign that he didn't frighten me. I felt this way too, he seemed crazy, but not threatening. Mostly just disoriented.
|
| # ? May 24, 2012 18:46 |
|
|
I'm getting a very heavy Taxi Driver vibe from the teaser. I LOVE IT!
|
| # ? May 24, 2012 20:43 |
|
|
I loved the trailer and I can't wait to see the movie. I unfortunately have not seen magnolia yet, time to watch?
|
| # ? May 25, 2012 00:39 |
|
|
bows1 posted:I loved the trailer and I can't wait to see the movie. I unfortunately have not seen magnolia yet, time to watch? Dude Magnolia is unnnnnnnbelievable. It was my favorite movie in the world for a really long time. Probably until I saw Synecdoche, New York.
|
| # ? May 25, 2012 00:47 |
|
|
Anyone else getting a Jack Nicholson vibe from Phoenix's trailer performance? Obviously he's doing his own thing and it's much cooler and more complex than just aping Nicholson's style, but the friendly, somewhat unhinged, slightly menacing charisma that he exudes reminds me a lot of early Nicholson. This is gonna be one amazing performance.
|
| # ? May 25, 2012 00:52 |
|
|
I honestly thought he was Michael Shannon for a second. loving great performance
|
| # ? May 25, 2012 02:04 |
|
|
bows1 posted:I loved the trailer and I can't wait to see the movie. I unfortunately have not seen magnolia yet, time to watch? I don't think any other movie will ever hit all the exact right emotional and sylistic notes for me the way Magnolia did and continues to do so. I'm honestly baffled that the movie isn't brought up more often because it just leaves me completely gobsmacked every time. TWBB came close, but Magnolia is still PT Anderson's masterpiece. In short, yes, it's time to watch Magnolia! the Bunt fucked around with this message at May 25, 2012 around 02:30 |
| # ? May 25, 2012 02:11 |
|
|
Yeah Magnolia is not talked about enough now, it has all the makings of being a classic film down the road.
|
| # ? May 25, 2012 02:27 |
|
|
Ok great, time to watch magnolia. Last pT Anderson film I haven't seen!
|
| # ? May 25, 2012 02:53 |
|
|
Holy poo poo that was an awesome trailer. Joaquin Phoenix absolutely nailed it there...chilling. Hell yeah.
|
| # ? May 25, 2012 02:59 |
|
|
All y'all watching Magnolia should give Short Cuts a watch, too. Way too many people try to claim one's better than the other and the arguments are always retarded - I think they're both excellent. If I prefer Short Cuts it's only because I'm a huge fan of Raymond Carver.
|
| # ? May 25, 2012 03:56 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2013 18:36 |
|
|
I don't give a fig about The Master but finally finally PT Anderson can begin work on Inherent Vice, surely to be the world's greatest film.Magic Hate Ball posted:All y'all watching Magnolia should give Short Cuts a watch, too. Way too many people try to claim one's better than the other and the arguments are always retarded - I think they're both excellent. If I prefer Short Cuts it's only because I'm a huge fan of Raymond Carver. For movies with a vaguely similar plot structure the two films couldn't be more different, especially in regard to how they treat random chance. (Short Cuts is better cause of tom waits)
|
| # ? May 25, 2012 04:27 |
|
