I return to my series on the Hollywood directors of our generation with Paul Thomas Anderson, a man who has steadily made a name for himself as the ‘next big thing’, or the ‘current big thing’ in Hollywood. Over five films and nearly fifteen years, Anderson’s reputation in the critical filmic world has risen, and his stock continues to rise. Whether this is deserved, though, will be discussed in the following thousand or so words, and I’m not sure that the most dedicated of Paul Thomas Anderson fans will be in total agreeance with my sentiments. Let’s start, like I have done with the other three directors who I have discussed in this series so far (you can find a sort of index at the bottom of this page), with a quick, brief re-cap of PTA’s career.

After a couple of short films (one of which would form the basis for a later feature), PTA’s first full length filmic invention was “Hard Eight” (1996, 2/5), otherwise known as “Sydney”, which starred future PTA-stalwarts John C Reilly and Phillip Baker Hall. The story saw Hall’s aging gambler take Reilly’s young down-and-outer under his wing, teaching him the ropes of how to describe in Reno and helping him to attain enough money to pay for his mother’s funeral. Rickety and uneven, “Hard Eight” is the most disappointing of Anderson’s films, simply because it doesn’t have enough about it to carry it through its average run time of one hundred and two minutes. The plotting is too linear and the final twist is silly and unnecessary. It’s comparable to Nolan’s “Following”, in that it’s a simple tale of deceit amongst friends with a surprise ending. Where it differs to the British film is that, whilst “Following” shows all the hallmarks of Nolan’s later career, Anderson was to turn away from the themes and style of “Hard Eight” and head towards high concept, less linear plotting.

That begun wit “Boogie Nights” (4/5), made in 1997 and based on Anderson’s earlier short, “the Dirk Diggler Story” (1987). Whilst “Hard Eight” stood at 102 minutes and only had four principle cast members (Gwyneth Paltrow, Samuel L Jackson, Reilly and Baker Hall), “Boogie Nights” is an epic 155 minutes ensemble piece, with fifteen principle cast members, including Mark Whalberg, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Julianne Moore, Heather Graham, and Don Cheadle. It shows a huge switch in direction for Anderson, forgetting the simple and restrained shot choices of “Hard Eight” and instead utilizing ambitious tracking shots. It’s also a much better film, and one that sits proudly amongst Anderson’s three supposed classics. Not only does it feel a much more rounded experience, but it also explores themes more universal than “Hard Eight”. In fact, whilst the earlier film didn’t really seem to have a point at all, “Boogie Nights” looked at things like family, wealth, and happiness, whilst also considering pornography as a filmic genre, alongside comedy and action and horror.

It goes without saying that “Boogie Nights” is a film based on the work of Martin Scorsese. “Hard Eight” had one scene, being the one where Baker Hall’s Sydney tells his young protégé about how to get a free room in a casino, that was reminiscent of Scorsese’s work on “Casino”, and “Boogie Nights” only further implied this infatuation with Marty’s work. The tracking shots, particularly the opening one which introduces us to the principle characters, is almost a carbon copy of similar shots in Scorsese’s “Goodfellas”. That’s not a bad thing, because all that “Boogie Nights” lacks is a written declaration in being homage and a tribute to the king of the mob film. And, of course, it’s certainly not a film that relies to heavily on other peoples’ ideas, and Anderson does more than enough to stamp the film with his own personal touch.

PTA would then take two years to bring out his longest film, “Magnolia” (1999, 4/5), which stands at a whopping one hundred and eighty eight minutes long. It’s an ensemble piece that stars a lot of the same actors and actresses as 1997’s “Boogie Nights”, including Moore, Reilly, Seymour Hoffman, Macy, Guzman, and Baker Hall. It’s also possibly my second favourite of Anderson’s work, thanks to its epic scales and its discussion of the most universal of themes. The themes are very similar, in fact, to those of “Boogie Nights”, in that it discusses family, relationships, fate, and chance. These themes are set up in the fantastic opening sequence, which discusses three unlinked stories that rely heavily on ‘co-incidences’. Anderson never really lets up from there, discussing both the subliminal and the obvious links between these peoples’ lives, and how the reaction of one can unintentionally effect another on the opposite side of the web of relationships.

Tom Cruise in one of his best films, "Magnolia" (1999).

I stated that “Magnolia” is possibly my second favourite of PTA’s work, but that wasn’t always the case. In fact, it used to be my very favourite, and it sat proudly amongst my top one hundred films of all-time. And then I saw “Short Cuts”. Now, I’m not one of these people who want Anderson’s head on a stick, and I don’t think that “Magnolia” is a direct rip-off of Altman’s film. In fact, I think both of them explore their own themes, and that there’s certainly differences between the two. However, there’s no denying that amongst these differences there sits a few startling similarities. Both are ensemble pieces. Both explore the effect of one life on unrelated ones. Both star Julianne Moore (okay, so that one’s not that startling). And both feature a freak natural phenomenon in its climax. It slightly dragged my opinion of “Magnolia” down when I noticed just how much Anderson had ‘homaged’ Altman’s work, even though I knew that it was an indirect tribute to him before seeing “Short Cuts”. Again, Anderson has crafted a film with some of his own touches and quirks, but has taken his style whole sale from some one else.

“Punch-Drunk Love” (2002, 4/5) is a much under seen film, and one of my favourite comedies of the twenty first century (in fact, it came it at number five in my list of that theme, which you can find in the lists section of this website). It stars Adam Sandler, but don’t let that put you off, as a small-business owner who finds a harmonium and thus embarks on a romantic journey. After two epic ensemble pieces, “Punch-Drunk Love” is much more manageable Anderson, exploring his quirky side and his ability to mould relationships between characters. You can probably see where this column is going, and if you’ve figured it out you will probably know that I’m going to compare PDL to the work of Howard Hawks. Hawks is the king of screwball comedies, and in trying his own hand in that subgenre Anderson seems unable to stop himself from using some of the hallmarks of Hawks’ work, including the pathetic male lead, the off-kilter relationships, and a lot of the quirky humour.

Moving on from “Punch-Drunk Love”, which sits as a rest point between Anderson’s three most renowned works, we come to the Oscar-winning “There Will Be Blood” (2007, 4/5). Epic in scope and scale, TWBB is probably the film that Anderson will be remembered for in fifty years. It’s the story of Daniel Plainview, an oil prospector who strikes lucky in the American West, and continues his lust for power and his greed for money. Starring Daniel Day Lewis in what is possibly a career defining role, TWBB is a brooding, atmospheric epic that is obviously Anderson’s best film to date. It pushes the boundaries off film, shuns conventional narrative in favour of a character study, and – although at times it feels a little turgid and more than a little hard going – is a very rewarding cinematic experience.

Again, though, I’d be lying if it was a film that defined the PTA style we’ve all been waiting. It is very Kubrickian in more than just aesthetics. Not only does it have the brooding atmosphere that you’d expect in a Kubrickian film, but it explores themes such as greed and human endeavour (any Kubrick fan will recognize those), utilizes largely silent interludes, a slow moving plot, and features the rise and fall of one primary character. Again, Anderson’s film is not a direct rip-off of anything in particular, but its defining factors are more than a little reminiscent of the work of a much better and much more established director, in this case Stanley Kubrick.

And so we come to the present day. Anybody reading through this article will come to two conclusions. The first is that I’ve enjoyed, quite a lot in fact, the last four films of Paul Thomas Anderson. In three cases they are rewarding cinematic experiences, in three cases they are constantly entertaining, and in two cases they are both (I’ll leave that to you to work out which films fall in to which category). He certainly sits amongst the upper echelon of directors, and I’d say he is more deserving of his status as one of the best than Tim Burton and Quentin Tarantino, two much more widely known directors who join him in those upper ranks. I can even declare that I’d be one of the first in the queue to see Anderson’s next film, whenever it finally hits our shores.

But the second conclusion that can be drawn from this article stems from the title. On more than just a few occasions, I’ve heard Paul Thomas Anderson declared as the next great American auteur, and that he will probably sit amongst the ranks of Scorsese, Altman, Hawks and Kubrick in fifty years time. That could be the case, but I’d most certainly argue that we have not seen sufficient evidence to suggest that it’s beyond all doubt, or even that it is likely. Over the last ten years, Anderson has been making very good films, but they’ve all (or all of the good ones) been based on the style of another director. One of the key elements of being an auteur is finding your own personal style, and it’s difficult to say that Anderson has done that. In fact, he most certainly hasn’t.

Maybe over the next few years Anderson will carve out his own image, and create an aesthetic and cinematic style of his own, but it’s just as likely that he won’t. I certainly wouldn’t be unhappy if, in ten years, we see a PTA film that resembles John Ford, and in fifteen we see one that takes its style from Otto Preminger, but – even if they are great films – they will not make Paul Thomas Anderson an auteur, or one of the greatest directors of our generation. Thus far in his career, Anderson has simply reminded me of why I love Martin Scorsese, Stanley Kubrick, and Robert Altman, and until he convinces me that I love Paul Thomas Anderson, I’ll remain only a casual fan.

PREVIOUS EDITIONS OF THIS COLUMN SERIES;
- Episode III: Tim Burton's Mediocre Vision
- Episode II: Christopher Nolan's Career Crossroads
- Epidoe I: A Look at the Career of Sam Mendes
,