If we’re talking about a sub which fans of movies/cinema frequent then people who more than likely know PTA more.īut i want to clarify I’m not trying to discredit Maya Rudolph or downplay her success, since it’s hardly a competition within their marriage for who is the most famous. Paul Thomas Anderson on the other hand is one of the most critically acclaimed directors of the last 25 years with a filmography which, I agree doesn’t exactly include mainstream blockbusters or films that are household names but does include movies like Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love, There Will be Blood & Phantom Thread. She’s not really had any/many lead roles in popular movies that r/movies would know her for. Why? Maya is mostly known for supporting roles in things like SNL (which is only shown in the US), some Sandler comedies with Grown Ups being the most famous, Bridesmaids, 50 First Dates, Idiocracy, Popstar Never Stop Stopping and an assortment of voice acting roles too. Sorry for the rant, I'm just sick of seeing thumbnails pop up in my youtube algorithm along the lines of "why _ is an OBJECTIVE cinematic failure". Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert are considered the best in their fields for a reason. It's precisely their points of view and personalities that make their readers or viewers curious to seek out their opinions on whatever new film is out. Film critics don't cultivate their audiences because they can divorce themselves and score films from an impersonal place. Rather than viewing the percentage number as an aggregation of critics who gave the film an overall positive review, the RT score is treated as an "objective" measure of quality, which is just a counterproductive way of evaluating what is supposed to be your own personal reaction.Īnd the ironic part of course is that objectivity in film (or any art) criticism is an inherently oxymoronic concept. I think a generation of people grew up to view RT scores similar to how they were graded in school, where anything less than say 80% is a negative reflection on the film itself, like getting a C on a math test. I don't entirely blame Rotten Tomatoes, but imo I think they played a big hand in this recent-ish (like last decade or so) trend of trying to evaluate movies from an "objective" stance. And ever since then, I’ve never said that I hate a movie. He’s so good that maybe you project onto him that he’s allowed to be snarky, but he’s the exact opposite: He wants to love everything because that’s why he got into moviemaking. If you put it out there that the movie’s not good, they won’t let us make more movies like that.” Dude, Paul Thomas Anderson is out there on the wall for us! He’s defending the value of the artistic experience. If it wasn’t for you, that’s fine, but in our business, we’ve all got to support each other.” The movie was very artsy, and he said, “You’ve got to support the big swing. I said to him over a drink, “It’s not a good movie,” and he so sweetly took me aside and said very quietly, “Don’t say that. Paul was over at my house, I think it was my 30th birthday party, and I had just seen a movie I didn’t love. What I love most about Paul is that he loves movies. One of my favorite PTA stories is from John Krasinski’s NY Times profile.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |