Tag: paul-thomas-anderson

  • Why ‘Punch-Drunk Love’ is the Best Romantic Comedy You’ve Never Seen

    For some reason, when the great romantic comedies are discussed, the list is usually small and predictable. There’s usually “When Harry Met Sally,” an early Woody Allen gem (let’s say “Annie Hall“) and maybe something more modern and universally accepted (like “Crazy Stupid Love“). But along the fringes there are all sorts of compelling romantic comedy alternatives, films that will make your heart soar but might have a little bit more flavor, character and texture than your typical meet-cute. And one of the greatest of those films is Paul Thomas Anderson‘s “Punch-Drunk Love.”

    Anderson is, of course, an American auteur whose tastes typically run to Altman-esque character studies like “Boogie Nights” and “Inherent Vice” or sweeping dramas like “There Will Be Blood” or “The Master.” But after the filmmaker had gotten done with “Magnolia,” a sprawling, three-hour-long Oscar-nominated epic, he wanted to do something more streamlined and comedic. So he set his sights on “Punch-Drunk Love,” a nimble romantic comedy that clocked in at 95 minutes and starred one of the biggest draws on the planet at the time, Adam Sandler. To get ready for the movie he directed segments of “Saturday Night Live” and for his troubles he was awarded the Best Director prize at Cannes.

    “Punch-Drunk Love” has a deceptively simple storyline. Sandler plays Barry, a man who manufactures novelty toilet plungers and who is cripplingly lonely. He meets Lena (Emily Watson), who he quickly falls for, while also becoming embroiled in an extortion scheme run by a vindictive band of Mormons (led by a fiery Philip Seymour Hoffman). While the film might seem slight, “Punch-Drunk Love” contains multitudes. Not only are there are all sorts of tangential asides that add richness and dimension to the film (like Barry’s army of cruel sisters or his attempt to exploit a frequent flyer program by buying an excessive amount of pudding cups), but it’s an absolute technical knockout. Frequent Anderson confederate Robert Elswit handled the cinematography and it features graphic interstitials by artist Jeremy Blake (whose mysterious death a few years later is very much worth a Google) that play like the most hypnotic screensaver you’ve ever laid your eyes on.

    But more than that it is an emotional tour de force. This film was made before Sandler branched out to dramatic roles and anything that wasn’t a broad comedy felt positively experimental. It remains his single greatest performance. Barry is bruised and desperate, both angry and deeply romantic, and Sandler is able to portray each shade with an insane amount of nuance. No matter how outlandish the movie becomes (there’s an interlude in Hawaii, bursts of extreme violence, and a song requisitioned from Altman’s problematic live-action “Popeye”), you’re so fully put in Barry’s shoes that it all seems commonplace. What’s more, he’s a character that is so wonderfully wounded that you can’t help but identify with some aspect of him. His relationship with Watson is really affecting and is always sentimental without ever becoming saccharine.

    And it’s this winning combination of sweet and sour that makes it such an unforgettable classic. So many romantic comedies are simply goofy, without any of the darker aspects of love. They’re joyous and celebratory, for sure, with punctuations of heartache, but rarely do they grasp at the slippery weirdness that so many of us find ourselves in while navigating the turbulent seas of romance. “Punch-Drunk Love” never shies away from that strangeness and, in fact, luxuriates in it. It’s where this movie lives. And yes, it will make your heart soar. So the next time you’re in the mood for a romantic comedy, please give “Punch-Drunk Love” a shot. It’s the work of a filmmaker operating at the height of his powers, with many of his closest collaborators (including composer Jon Brion, whose twinkling music is downright magical) and an actor showing early signs of artistic fearlessness. If you’re looking for a version to watch, too, the film was recently released as part of the Criterion Collection, embellished with a number of notable features (including an archival interview with David Phillips, the “pudding guy” who Anderson used as inspiration for Sandler’s character) and anchored by a pristine presentation of the film.

    No matter how you watch “Punch-Drunk Love,” though, be advised that you’ll probably fall in love with it. This isn’t your standard romantic comedy, but it’s an endlessly rewarding and gorgeous one. In short, “Punch-Drunk Love” will make you swoon.

  • 21 Things You Never Knew About ‘Boogie Nights’

    In the age of HBO’s “The Deuce,” “Boogie Nights” looks like a time-honored masterpiece, but when the sprawling period epic about the golden age of porn filmmaking opened 20 years ago this week (on October 10, 1997), moviegoers didn’t exactly embrace it.

    The subject matter was still too skeevy to draw mainstream or even art-house audiences, yet not nearly explicit enough to draw the trench coat crowd. “Most people don’t share my moral sense,” writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson explained in 1999, “which is, ‘I’ll masturbate, but I have to clean it up very quickly afterwards.’” No wonder “Boogie Nights” wasn’t exactly a hit.

    Nonetheless, it earned three Oscar nominations, made a serious leading man out of Mark Wahlberg, gave Burt Reynolds his best role of the last 35 years, put Anderson on the map, and gave early career boosts to Philip Seymour Hoffman, John C. Reilly, Don Cheadle, and Thomas Jane.

    These days, “Boogie Nights” evokes double nostalgia, both for the disco 1970s, lovingly recreated in the movie’s costumes and soundtrack, and for the 1990s, when Hollywood studios still nurtured indie directors and let them realize their visions instead of plucking them fresh from Sundance and assigning them to direct CGI blockbuster franchise sequels.

    “Boogie Nights” had a famously fraught production history, including some life-imitates-porn moments and a near-fistfight between Reynolds and Anderson. Here are some of the things that, uh, went down.
    1. Anderson (above, right) grew up in the Valley and was, as a teen, obsessed with the porn industry existing all around him. He was still in high school when he made his first movie, a 32-minute short called “The Dirk Diggler Story,” a “Zelig”-like mockumentary about a fallen porn star. In addition to the protagonist, several other characters and much of the dialogue would find their way into “Boogie Nights” a decade later.

    2. The Dirk Diggler of Anderson’s “Boogie Nights” screenplay bears a strong resemblance to legendary porn actor John Holmes, and not just in terms of length. There’s Holmes’ rise to fame via the series of “Johnny Wadd” thrillers (echoed in Dirk’s “Brock Landers” movies), his biographical documentary directed by a colleague (“Exhausted,” the inspiration for the movie that Julianne Moore‘s Amber makes about Dirk), and his alleged involvement in the Wonderland drug murder case (the inspiration for the whole nightmarish sequence involving Alfred Molina‘s Rahad Jackson).
    3. New Line wanted to be the next Miramax, and they needed their own Quentin Tarantino. After seeing Anderson’s first film, “Hard Eight,” they thought he might be it. They decided the director’s phone-book-sized script about a guy with a 13-inch penis was edgy enough, as long as he agreed to keep it under three hours and keep the rating down to an R.

    4. Anderson initially wanted Leonardo DiCaprio to star as Dirk Diggler, but the actor begged off, citing his commitment to star in “Titanic.” But he recommended his “Basketball Diaries” co-star Wahlberg. “You know,” Anderson joked, “Mark came to me and said, ‘I’ve got an inch on Leo.’ I said, ‘Really?’ And he showed it to me. And then I hired him.” Years later, DiCaprio would cite turning down “Boogie Nights” as his “biggest regret.”
    5. The role of Jack Horner, the porn filmmaker who becomes a surrogate father to Dirk and an ad hoc family of cast and crew members, was hard to cast. Before hiring Burt Reynolds, Anderson considered actors as diverse as Albert Brooks, Harvey Keitel, Bill Murray, Jack Nicholson and Sydney Pollack.

    6. Warren Beatty expressed interest, but he ultimately acknowledged he just wanted to be associated with the project because the 59-year-old star saw himself more as Dirk. (“I think he was joking and not joking,” Anderson mused.)7. Samuel L. Jackson, who’d played the villain in “Hard Eight,” turned down the role of Buck Swope, the porn actor who dreams of selling stereos. His response to the script, Anderson recalled, was “What the hell is this?” After Moore vouched for the young director, Cheadle took the part and turned it into a career-boosting showcase.

    8. There were a number of real-life porn actors in the cast, mostly as extras, though Nina Hartley had the biggest part as the emasculating wife of Little Bill (William H. Macy). Anderson hired them to help make sure he was depicting the porn world accurately, but sometimes, things got a little too much like the real thing. Hartley would often walk around the set in the nude because that’s what she was used to doing on porn sets, even though it unnerved Anderson’s cast and crew. She also wondered aloud why she couldn’t just have sex in her sex scenes, since she found simulating sex much more complicated. During one scene, some of the actors and crew claimed she and her partner really were having sex, but she insisted later that his penis wasn’t venturing where everyone thought it was going; it just wasn’t taped to his thigh like it should have been.
    9. Like her character, Heather Graham (Rollergirl) seldom took off her skates, even when cameras weren’t rolling.

    10. Speaking of penises, the movie’s most famous special effect was the prosthetic Diggler that Wahlberg shows off in the final scene. The first one that the make-up team built was John Holmes-sized, but it just looked too huge to seem real, so they built a shorter one, still large enough for Marky Mark to hide his actual funky bunch inside.
    11. In fact, the make-up artists built several, in case of breakage. Wahlberg also whipped it out during the sequence where Dirk and Amber are shooting a sex scene; it doesn’t appear on camera then, but Wahlberg wanted to get a rise out of Moore. Most of the time, however, the package shown straining against the confines of Dirk’s bellbottoms is just a woman’s stocking filled with birdseed. The propmakers left the stocking in a warm trunk, where its seeds started to sprout, so they had to make another one.

    12. During one scene where Little Bill grumbles about having caught his wife being sodomized by another man, Macy repeatedly muffed his line and said it backwards: “My f**king wife has an ass in her c**k.” Anderson decided he preferred the mistake and kept it in the film.
    13. While Anderson allowed Macy and others to ad lib, he insisted that Reynolds stay on script. Reynolds became irked and felt that the relatively inexperienced director wasn’t giving him the respect he deserved as a veteran movie star. The two men argued loudly, and Reynolds swung a fist that might have hit Anderson in the face had a crew member not held back his arm.

    14. Why is Molina the only actor in his scene not distracted by the firecrackers going off at random intervals? Because he’s wearing a hidden earpiece piping in “Sister Christian” on a continuous loop.
    15. If the song “You Got the Touch,” which Dirk records during his dubious effort to branch out into music, sounds familiar, it’s because it originally appeared on the soundtrack of the first “Transformers” movie — the 1986 cartoon, that is. Dirk’s other song, “Feel the Heat,” was composed by Anderson and Reilly.

    16. Avant-garde satirical film director Robert Downey Sr. (yep, Iron Man’s real-life dad) shows up in a cameo as the record label executive. With Downey’s permission, Anderson cribbed the kid setting off firecrackers from Downey’s 1969 movie “Putney Swope,” as well as Buck Swope’s last name.
    17. Anderson had to submit the film to the MPAA 18 times, cutting a few frames each time from scenes the ratings board found too risqué, in order to avoid an NC-17 rating and earn the R rating he was contractually obliged to deliver. In the end, the difference between NC-17 and R turned out to be only 45 seconds worth of film. “I don’t miss it at all,” Anderson said of the snipped footage.

    18. Still, Anderson’s cut was over three hours long, making both test audiences and executives at New Line restless. Studio co-founder Bob Shaye made his own two-hour cut of the film and screened it for a test audience in Pasadena. Before the screening, the then-unknown director walked among the viewers in line and bad-mouthed his own film, saying, “This movie sucks. You’re gonna hate it. This movie sucks,” so that Shaye’s cut would earn even lower test scores than his own. Eventually, both sides reached a compromise, resulting in a 155-minute release. Among the lost scenes: Dirk learns his parents have been killed in a gruesome car crash, which is then briefly shown on screen.
    19. “Boogie Nights” reportedly cost $15.5 million to make. It earned back $26.4 million in North America and another $16.7 million overseas.

    20. The Academy nominated “Boogie Nights” for three Oscars: Best Original Screenplay, Best Supporting Actress (Moore), and Best Supporting Actor (Reynolds). It was shut out of all three categories.
    21. In 2015, Reynolds said that, to this day, he still hasn’t ever watched “Boogie Nights” all the way through, and that he turned down an offer to appear in Anderson’s follow-up, “Magnolia.” “I’d done my picture with Paul Thomas Anderson, that was enough for me,” he said. Wahlberg, who recalled Reynolds trying an Irish accent for his role in rehearsals, said in 2014 that he believed Reynolds’ evident ill will toward what could have been his career comeback role had consequences. “He would have won the Oscar,” Wahlberg said, “had he not dug such a hole for himself.”

  • Paul Thomas Anderson to Write, Maybe Direct Robert Downey Jr.’s ‘Pinocchio’

    Premiere Of Marvel's "Avengers: Age Of Ultron" - ArrivalsHuh! This is a bit of a head-scratcher: Paul Thomas Anderson is writing and possibly directing the live-action remake of “Pinocchio” starring Robert Downey Jr.

    According to The Hollywood Reporter, Anderson will pen a draft with eye toward directing the film. An auteur like Anderson overseeing a remake of the classic cartoon seems like an odd pairing, though THR says it “shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise. Downey was poised to star in Anderson’s ‘Inherent Vice’ until his ‘Avengers: Age of Ultron’ obligations got in the way and Joaquin Phoenix stepped in to play the lead.”

    Downey has been working on this “Pinocchio” project for years, but it’s gained steam now that live-action takes on classic children’s tales have achieve such success (see: “Maleficent” and “Cinderella”). Now, the studios are engaged in an arms race to turn over their libraries. Disney is filming “Beauty and the Beast” with Emma Watson. Both Disney and Warner Bros. have competing “Jungle Book” movies in development. Universal is working on a live-action “Little Mermaid,” which briefly had Sofia Coppola attached to direct.

    Perhaps Anderson is moving away from writing and directing original movies; his latest film, “Inherent Vice,” was an adaptation of the Thomas Pynchon novel. And the last time he insisted on working with a particular star, it was with Adam Sandler on the well-reviewed “Punch-Drunk Love.” So, maybe he and Downey will make more magic together.

    Want more stuff like this? Like us on Facebook.

    %Slideshow-271113%

  • Jena Malone on ‘Inherent Vice,’ ‘Batman v Superman,’ and Her ‘Punk’d’ Legacy (EXCLUSIVE)

    jena malone in inherent viceIn Paul Thomas Anderson‘s dizzying crime comedy “Inherent Vice” (read our review from the New York Film Festival here), characters flit in and out, each one played by a terrific actor, as shaggy dog detective Doc (Joaquin Phoenix) tries to untangle a mystery that involves his old girlfriend (Katherine Waterston), a missing hippie (Owen Wilson), a real estate tycoon (Eric Roberts), and an entity known only as The Golden Fang. One of the characters Doc meets along the way is a young woman named Hope Harlingen, played by Jena Malone, who most know from her role in the blockbuster “Hunger Games” franchise.

    Hope is a recovering drug addict in 1970 Los Angeles and as such she looks pretty rough, with a mouth full of crummy veneers and skin like a citrus-deprived pirate. She’s only in the movie briefly but makes a big impression. We talked about her chompers, what it was like working with a director with a reputation as mythical as Paul Thomas Anderson’s, what’s in store for the final “Hunger Games” entry, and whether or not she’s in Zack Snyder’s “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.”

    Moviefone: My editor dared me to make this entire interview about your bad teeth.

    Jena Malone: We could try! There’s certainly a lot to talk about. I did do a lot of research on female dental veneers from the seventies.

    Okay! What kind of research did you do?

    Well, you know, what it looks like — what the feeling was, what the purpose was, all the different variations of it. Because we were creating a set of teeth for her, from nothing, we had to decide the whiteness, was this too big, was this too small. You know, the bigger the front of the teeth was from an earlier era… It just goes on and on.

    Were the teeth something from the novel?

    Yes. And the thing with him is he’s the master of metaphor. Within his prose he’s telling you things about a character and revealing all of the nature of the character within that character’s actions. Just the fact that her name is Hope and living in this death of an era, the death of the dream of free love and she’s an ex-junkie and she’s removing herself from this darkness and approach this parenthesis of light. You know, she has fake teeth and she’s trying to clean herself up and become a good mom. All of it worked within the narrative so well.

    Since you have relatively little screen time, did you feel any added pressure to really make your scenes pop?

    I always feel pressure. Every day on set I feel a mash of butterflies that occupy a small part of my stomach, particularly when you’re doing work that you care about and work that is basically the essence of what we do, creating something out of nothing, continually. And to be fair, you have no idea what you’re doing, half of the time, because I’m just trying things out. There’s always that pressure and also that excitement of finding out what’s going to happen. But maybe there was more because of the fact that I was working with, for me, the greatest American filmmaker alive and getting to work with Joaquin, who is such an incredibly talented actor. You’re working with these greats, so there’s the added pressure of that. But what’s amazing about those two… Paul creates an energy on set of such ease and it’s so gentle and trying things and he’s constantly writing and editing as he’s shooting, allowing the scene to become what it wants to become in the moment. It’s a really easy and collaborative set to be apart of and the nerves melted away and just kind of became adrenaline and excitement.

    Most of the movie is captured in these super-long takes. Was that scary at all?

    It’s funny, it’s like talking about the lines at Six Flags. You don’t leave Six Flags talking about the lines, you leave Six Flags talking about the excitement of going down the ride and the thrill of those three seconds. Were there long takes? Yeah. I guess we were. But in the environment of how Paul creates, actors flourish. I didn’t find it restrictive at all. I find it all encompassing and welcoming, in a way.

    What were your expectations of working with Paul Thomas Anderson, and what was the reality of working with him?

    I didn’t have many expectations, because I know now that every director I’ve worked with is so different and so unique. They each have their own fingerprint, that I was just excited to see how he worked. I didn’t know what that would be. I guess I was expecting, in a way, that it’d be more restrictive or for him to be leading these very powerful sets with not an iron fist but something like that, because his films are so uniquely his vision. I imagined him to be this giant craftsman but he’s really this soft welder. He’s constantly re-interpreting his own material, finding things that didn’t work and letting those things go. You could ask him, “What does this mean?” And he’d say, “I don’t know.” He’s courageous enough to say that he’s not quite sure, he’s allowing the moment to figure itself out, which not a lot of directors have the balls to do.

    Did you shoot a lot of extra stuff? Even the trailer is full of scenes that aren’t in the actual movie.

    We shot a lot that day, up and around and all over that scene. But what became was perfect.

    What did you think about Joaquin’s amazing yelp? Did he try out different screams?

    Nothing was ever repeated when it came to Joaquin’s performance. It was a constant joy. It was constantly a surprise, it was constantly wanting to see where he was going to go next. That was working with him on every level. He’s so generous and giving and also very joyful. It’s not this very serious, weighty matter. He’s very happy to share whatever’s in his pocket and ideas and whatever and allow for things to happen. It was incredible to get to dance with him. I had the best time.

    It sounds like this movie spoiled you.

    I’m totally spoiled. I’m never going to be able to work with anyone again. He creates such an incredible environment for the actors, we were all wondering, “Why can’t this always be like this?”

    You showed up very briefly in “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1.” Is it safe to say you’ll be a bigger part of the finale?

    There’s a lot more to the books. “Part 1” was just part one of the full book. There’s a lot more for all of the characters. It’s the final chapter, so it’s going to be crazy.

    Are you sad to see that end?

    It is and it isn’t. It’s nice to see that we’ve created something so beautiful together but it’s more about missing those friendships and being a part of that family.

    There have been rumors that you are in talks to join another sizable franchise for a director you’ve worked with before, as part of Zack Snyder’s “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.” Can you say anything?

    Ummmm… no.

    Would you say, hypothetically, that you would be excited to contribute a strong female role model to a genre that is somewhat bereft of them?

    I don’t think that it’s bereft. I mean look at “Hunger Games” — are you kidding me?

    Yeah, but “The Hunger Games” isn’t a comic book.

    It doesn’t matter. You’re turning something into a film, you’re creating a myth. What is a comic book but a written myth? I feel like there’s so much negativity, but we create. We’re still making things. It’s not about having as much as they have, it’s about continuing the conversation.

    Do those big movies hold the same amount of appeal for you as something like “Inherent Vice”? Would you keep going between those two poles?

    I don’t see them as poles. In my own audience, there’s no bigger film than “Inherent Vice.” As an audience, there’s no bigger film than “The Hunger Games.” As an audience member, for me, that’s what I want from a film. I just want to work with great filmmakers and keep pushing myself.

    Is there any filmmaker you’ve worked with that you would want to work with again?

    Paul. I’ll be texting him all the time now: “So…?” No, he’s constantly working on things. I’m just excited as an audience member to what he does next.

    What do people come up to you on the street and talk to you about, besides “Hunger Games”?

    That I was on “Punk’d.”

    You were on “Punk’d”?

    Yes. And seriously, more people recognize me from that than anything.

    Thanks so much for chatting and if you do end up in that sizable film next year, hopefully we’ll talk again.

    Sizable? What a funny way to say anything.

    Isn’t it a sizable film?

    I don’t know. I don’t know even what you’re talking about.

    Oh right. You have no knowledge of this.

    [Laughs] Thanks again.
    %Slideshow-253055%