The Criterion Collection

[joy-division]

Honest Trailers - Every Wes Anderson Movie - YouTube

[20th Century Boy]

Did CC Orange & Teal Anderson's movies or have they always been that way?

[20th Century Boy]

Initially I loved Anderson because he resurrected Bill Murray, but tapped out by Darleeng.

I get it. Quirk.

Dude is the Rivers Cuomo of film.

[MifuneFan]

[The Sovereign]

Originally Posted by mja345

I'm pretty neutral on Anderson. I haven't seen a film of his that I loved and I haven't seen one that I really disliked. For being a filmmaker that is unique stylistically, I find his films to be inoffensively bland to be honest.

I think Anderson has gained quite a bit of credibility due to the current state of filmmaking, where the entire concept of "autuers" has been completely thrown out the window, particularly in America, with some notable exceptions. Anderson's films are undeniably a product of his own sensibilities and imagination, and have been for almost 20 years, and that's enough to elevate him to a form of reverence in today's current climate. His films certainly aren't remarkable in any substantive way, but the fact that they're his own creation over a sustained period of time makes him stand out.

If Wes Anderson was in his prime in the 60s or 70s, would anyone give a shit about his films? I don't know. He would certainly be further down the ladder than he is in 2018. Scorsese was in his prime from the mid 70s to mid 90s and, still, his current work blows away Wes Anderson's. Take a filmmaker like Paul Schrader, who is considered a good, if flawed, director whose prime was from the late 70s to mid 90s. Schrader's best work is significantly better than Wes Anderson's best IMO. Is Wes Anderson a product of his time? Is he a guy, to use a baseball analogy, who hits 20 homers during a deadball era? That's how I think of him.

You’re right, I don’t think Anderson would have fared well in the 70’s, but he might have been quite popular in the 30s, while Scorsese could have been viewed as vile and pornographic. Both to some extent are products of their time.

As for which is the better director overall, there’s no debate for me – it’s Scorsese. I would say that if we compared him to a lot of successful directors – it’s no sin being worse than Scorsese. Still, I’d take any of Anderson’s films over any of Scorsese’s in this millennium. I completely disagree that Scorsese’s current work is better. With the exception of Hugo, his films in this century have been an escalation in excess that I find banal. The artistic edge that he possessed in the 70s, 80s & 90s is almost completely missing. To each their own – I love both guy’s work.

[mja345]

Originally Posted by The Sovereign

You’re right, I don’t think Anderson would have fared well in the 70’s, but he might have been quite popular in the 30s, while Scorsese could have been viewed as vile and pornographic. Both to some extent are products of their time.

As for which is the better director overall, there’s no debate for me – it’s Scorsese. I would say that if we compared him to a lot of successful directors – it’s no sin being worse than Scorsese. Still, I’d take any of Anderson’s films over any of Scorsese’s in this millennium. I completely disagree that Scorsese’s current work is better. With the exception of Hugo, his films in this century have been an escalation in excess that I find banal. The artistic edge that he possessed in the 70s, 80s & 90s is almost completely missing. To each their own – I love both guy’s work.

I wasn't saying to compare Anderson to Scorsese. I was just thinking of a director who was prolific in a different era of filmmaking who is still working today.

My issue with Anderson's films is that I just find them somewhat boring beneath the stylistic touches. I do think he's viewed as better than he is because he doesn't really have a lot of current competition among American filmmakers who make movies that are very much their own stylistically.

[The Sovereign]

^ Fair enough. I don't think Anderson is trying to do anything all that deep to begin with. His films have a universe of their own - the style and the mood that they create are far more important than any kind of message. I get those who don't buy in. I don't get anime and I rarely get musicals. That's not to say that there aren't some brilliant ones out there. Just not my bag.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by mja345

I think Anderson has gained quite a bit of credibility due to the current state of filmmaking, where the entire concept of "autuers" has been completely thrown out the window, particularly in America, with some notable exceptions. Anderson's films are undeniably a product of his own sensibilities and imagination, and have been for almost 20 years, and that's enough to elevate him to a form of reverence in today's current climate.

I think that, in general, if you are trying to understand why people like something and your theory boils down to "it's because they don't know enough, if they knew more they wouldn't like it as much", there's a flaw in the theory.

But, more specifically, I think that the fact that Todd Solondz has been making movies longer than Wes Anderson, has consistently followed his own unique vision and made 8 films that reflect his sensibilities and imagination (same # as Wes, until Dogs comes out), and has never had anywhere near the level of support from critics or audiences... well, I just think that's a counter-point to your theory. (Not the only one, but the easiest one to point to.)

[Marshall Crist]

Originally Posted by joy-division

Honest Trailers - Every Wes Anderson Movie - YouTube

^This was annoying at first but utterly won me over with its insight by the end. I'm sure you've all seen this:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-li...r/n42349?snl=1

[mja345]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I think that, in general, if you are trying to understand why people like something and your theory boils down to "it's because they don't know enough, if they knew more they wouldn't like it as much", there's a flaw in the theory.

But, more specifically, I think that the fact that Todd Solondz has been making movies longer than Wes Anderson, has consistently followed his own unique vision and made 8 films that reflect his sensibilities and imagination (same # as Wes, until Dogs comes out), and has never had anywhere near the level of support from critics or audiences... well, I just think that's a counter-point to your theory. (Not the only one, but the easiest one to point to.)

Solondz is a completely different kind of director than Anderson though. Both are similar in that their work tends not to have a ton of variation, but Anderson's work goes down easy while Solondz's films deal with subjects that are deliberately off-putting. It's not surprising that Solondz's films haven't achieved the same level of notoriety or success. His films are not easy to like for the most part, and I think that's been reflected in critical and commercial reaction relative to Anderson.

Anderson is a good filmmaker, not denying that. I understand why some people love his films. I just find them uninteresting at times.

[thatguamguy]

Originally Posted by mja345

Solondz is a completely different kind of director than Anderson though. Both are similar in that their work tends not to have a ton of variation, but Anderson's work goes down easy while Solondz's films deals with subjects that are deliberately off-putting. It's not surprising that Solondz's films haven't achieved the same level of notoriety or success. His films are not easy to like, and I think that's been reflected in critical and commercial reaction.

I agree [I never thought about it quite like this before, but Rushmore is about a kid who wants to have sex with an adult, Happiness is about an adult who wants to have sex with a kid], but if it were *just* a question of "there aren't enough auteurs, so people will embrace whatever auteurs we get", Solondz would have a comprable response to Anderson, that's all I mean.

[moviflicilm]

Originally Posted by thatguamguy

I think that, in general, if you are trying to understand why people like something and your theory boils down to "it's because they don't know enough, if they knew more they wouldn't like it as much", there's a flaw in the theory.

But, more specifically, I think that the fact that Todd Solondz has been making movies longer than Wes Anderson, has consistently followed his own unique vision and made 8 films that reflect his sensibilities and imagination (same # as Wes, until Dogs comes out), and has never had anywhere near the level of support from critics or audiences... well, I just think that's a counter-point to your theory. (Not the only one, but the easiest one to point to.)

Solondz has always been too much of a provocative artist to gain a substantial level of support from critics or audiences. Wes, for all the tweeness, is more middle-brow in style as many cinemagoers can latch onto his style admittedly if that's their cup of mocha. Wes works on a larger scale, with his films usually released in multiplexes along with traditional arthouse rollouts. Solondz has never gotten that level of support from indie distributors because of the controversial stylization of his films would offend many people with mainstream sensibilities.

I do like mja baseball analogy of contemporary American cinema as being the equivalent of the pre-twenties deadball era. Take the seventies, one of the great eras for American cinema. Many of the era's signature films would be indie products if they have been made today.

[20th Century Boy]

Originally Posted by Jexes23

You would weed out a lot of people.

It's amazing how many people will not watch a film that is in Black and White.

For reals.

I've had people tell me they don't like B&W films (as if it was an entire genre unto itself).

[20th Century Boy]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

How about the twee version of Tarantino, then?

[20th Century Boy]

I should say I respect Anderson in certain ways, but his schitck just had no staying power with me. He certainly isn't a "bad" filmmaker and I understand his fandom.

Just too much cotton candy for me. Gives me a stomachache.

[moviflicilm]

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

How about the hipster version of Tarantino, then?

I thought those Brooklyn dweebs like both filmmakers? This list for reference.

[English Patient]

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

I should say I respect Anderson in certain ways, but his schitck just had no staying power with me. He certainly isn't a "bad" filmmaker and I understand his fandom.

Agreed. I liked (but did not love) Rushmore, liked the deadpan quirkiness, but it seems like in later movies he really overdoes it to the point where the characters and their struggles have very little realism, and it becomes hard to care much about what's happening. Anderson seems to get too caught up in superficial bells and whistles, like framing devices, overly intricate plots, etc. It's like watching a very clever, precocious kid's puppet show.

[bradnoyes]

Wes Anderson was my favorite director in college, and in a lot of ways he was like a gateway drug for me. In fact, it was buying his films that first introduced me to the Criterion Collection. I grew up very sheltered and fairly privileged, so looking back now I can understand why I liked his movies.

I still have a soft spot for most of his older films and I am looking forward to Isle of Dogs, but I have also moved on. I appreciate his style, but for me his movies have no real substance. His stories and characters just don't resonate with me now that I am an adult. His movies have their place, though, and I think there's plenty to appreciate in most of his films.

[billy pilgrim]

They are both auteurs, however, for me, Todd Solondz is one of very few filmmakers who has the ability to love his characters for all their flaws while unsparingly detailing the helplessness and frustration in their consistently futile attempts to achieve any real change in their unhappy lives. I would say that for a lot of people, Solondz's work reflects a realistic depiction of the life of the outsider in our society. His characters are not so much good and bad as they are just sad people trying to find love and acceptance in this ridiculous world. I think a lot of people may find him off putting because he may reflect a bit too accurately the ugliness, ignorance, and desperation that surrounds and affects us all.

Not trying to be overly dramatic, however IMHO Solondz is vastly underappreciated and rarely gets any love. I would rank him in the top ten of writer/director/auteurs, although I might be in the minority.

Huge fan of this gentleman's work. I wish more of his films were available on Blu Ray.

[moviflicilm]

Originally Posted by 20th Century Boy

For reals.

I've had people tell me they don't like B&W films (as if it was an entire genre unto itself).

People will have an aversion to anything before the time of birth. A teenager cousin of mine told me movies from the 90's were old when we were chatting at a Christmas party. Many viewers are so used to sugar-loaded CGI that it's sad many can't appreciate the beauty of quality B&W cinematography.