If you asked me what living American director would be revered with the same status as a Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg or Martin Scorsese, I would choose Paul Thomas Anderson. Anderson is one of the most critically acclaimed directors of the last 25 years, most known for explosive, thrilling period pieces such as “Boogie Nights,” “There Will Be Blood” and “Phantom Thread.”
Anderson’s filmography can be loosely split into two sections. The first section, including most films before “Punch-Drunk Love,” features large ensemble casts and uses the universal flaws of each character to develop a greater thematic idea. His following films take a character-study approach and go deeper into fewer characters. These films are less flashy and more focused. In both sections, he meditates most on regret, loneliness, greed and childhood trauma. Anderson is also an adept directing actor — his films feature some of the best performances of the past 25 years, including Daniel Day-Lewis, Philip Seymour Hoffman and Joaquin Phoenix. His latest film, “Licorice Pizza,” gets a wide release this Christmas. If any director deserves all their films to be watched, “PTA” is a great choice.
Hard Eight (1996)
“Hard Eight” stars Philip Baker Hall as Sydney Brown, a mysterious old man that takes in young gambler John Finnegan (John C. Reilly) under his wing. Anderson’s directorial debut is respectable, but unrealized. The best things about this film are its ideas. I love the concept behind Sydney’s and John’s dynamics, the occasional energy and awe created just from characters walking around, the prevalence of the score and the attempt at creating characters representing greater ideas. This is similar to seeing a first grader doing algebra, in that the algebra itself isn’t impressive, but the potential is unbelievable. Some scenes give me the same excited feeling as some of the most glamorous moments of “Boogie Nights” or “Phantom Thread.” However, the weakest aspect of the film by far is the writing. This feels like the first draft to an outstanding script. Some dialogue feels awkward, some twists feel sudden or anticlimactic and the decisions from some characters feel unusually stupid. From a filmmaking perspective, this is interesting in that it shows how far Anderson has come in sharpening his style. This is a decent film, but watch his others first.
Boogie Nights (1997)
“Boogie Nights,” taking place in the late ‘70s to the early ‘80s, is a sprawling story about people’s interactions with the adult film industry. Do not go in expecting exploitation — the setting only serves as a backdrop to an emotionally heavy story about greed, identity and the social status of sex workers. This is one of Anderson’s most thrilling films from a technical perspective, with many long sequences of perfection. The long, continuous takes feature many moving parts and important characters, which emphasize the excitement and glamor of the time period. It balances the stories of many characters, which gives Anderson many opportunities to create these intricate montages between many people. The film also does a fantastic job at immersing the audience in the setting through the set designs, the costumes and especially the soundtrack. This film manages to be dark, suspenseful and fun at the same time. However, this film does run a little longer than it needs to, and the film does not consistently reach the highs of its best scenes. Regardless, there’s a reason this put Anderson on the map: it’s one of the best films of the ‘90s.
Magnolia (1999)
“Magnolia” is a lot. The film tells the story of interconnected lives in the San Fernando Valley across a few days. Even with a three-hour runtime, it covers an absurd amount of ground. According to my subjective count, this film heavily focuses on nine characters. That’s three more characters than there were Avengers in “The Avengers.” This is one of the most ambitious films I have ever seen, with the film attempting to explore topics like grief, guilt and the meaning of life. The three hours fly by, especially in the first half when the entire film is cutting back and forth to stressful situations each of the characters are in. Anderson throws everything at the wall here, and most of it sticks. The film is both energetic and engaging, while also being emotionally exhausting. If Anderson’s interests as a filmmaker were a pool, this feels like a shallow ocean where the impressiveness comes from how you can barely see its edge. It is interesting to watch this film after watching his others, because it is clear that all his other films are like small segments of this ocean, except with an extra fifty feet below the surface. This is not my favorite film: Not every stylistic choice works, some people overact and it bites off a bit more than it can chew. Still, “Magnolia” is a great film I would recommend to anyone.
Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
“Punch-Drunk Love” follows a small business owner with social anxiety, played by Adam Sandler, while juggling falling in love with his sister’s coworker (Emily Watson) and falling victim to scam artists. Anderson dramatically changes the pace here: While his previous films feature many characters and a glamorous setting, this is a focused, small-scale character study. This is one of my favorite Anderson films due to a surprisingly outstanding performance by Sandler, beautiful and intentional shots and colors and a perfect cinematic portrayal of anxiety. Jon Brion’s score captures the tone of the film, featuring songs soaked with both love and worry. While this film is partially a meditation on anxiety, it still manages to have a comforting aura. If you’re looking for a melancholy warm blanket of a rom-com, check this out.
There Will Be Blood (2007)
“There Will Be Blood” follows Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), an oil-man in the early 20th century, as he develops his wealth and raises his adopted son. The film also stars Paul Dano as Eli Sunday, a young, idealistic pastor. Capitalism, Christianity and fatherhood all collide in this American epic. The ground this film covers is immense. This is the best, most comprehensive character study I have ever seen, while also successfully tackling themes of greed, obsession and family. Day-Lewis’s performance as Plainview is my favorite performance of all time. This film develops Plainview through showing rather than telling. The audience is kept at arm’s length from the main character, which gives Day-Lewis the space to fill in the gaps purely with his face. This film is the first I would describe as the new Anderson: This is more focused on complexity of characters, development of themes and intentional editing choices. This film is also perfectly presented. The score compliments the foreboding, uneasy tone, the cinematography emphasises rifts between characters and the transitions between shots reflect the mind of the characters. This film takes full advantage of all means of filmmaking. Because of that, this is my favorite movie of all time. Watch as soon as possible.
The Master (2012)
“The Master” takes place in post-World War II America and follows a veteran with PTSD (Joaquin Phoenix) as he joins a mysterious religious organization called “The Cause,” helmed by the charismatic Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). This is Anderson’s most technically precise film. The details in the performances, cinematography and editing are deliberate, giving a lot for the audience to dissect as they watch. For example, a beautiful shot of a boat’s wake is spliced multiple times throughout the film, which could be interpreted to be emphasizing the character’s meditations on the past. This is not a flashy or high-octane movie. It instead demands your attention through the comprehensive command of everyone’s craft. All the lead performances are incredible in different ways. Phoenix’s physicality is staggering, Hoffman’s portrayal of a charismatic public speaker is hilariously on point and Amy Adams, playing Dodd’s wife, perfectly executes a less-is-more approach. What holds this back from being perfect is that it’s neither consistently thrilling nor emotionally overwhelming, which left me more unaffected than some of his other works. As much as I love this film, this is not a good Anderson film to start with. Because this is Anderson’s style held back, what he accomplishes will become clearer after viewing his more unrestrained projects first. Watch other films on this list, then watch this one.
Inherent Vice (2014)
“Inherent Vice” stars Joaquin Phoenix as Doc Sportello, a private eye in 1970s Los Angeles, as he investigates the disappearance of his ex-girlfriend in connection to a wealthy real-estate developer. While this is easily my least favorite Anderson movie, it is not due to incompetence. It is well shot and does a fantastic job immersing you into this hazy, drug-induced dream of a setting. The acting is also entertaining across the board, and I never felt bored watching the film. Here’s the problem: it is purposefully obtuse and hard to follow. Anderson does a wonderful job making the audience confused, but that doesn’t make it enjoyable to get through. So many scenes revolve around providing information to a plot we are not supposed to understand. This is something impossible to fully understand on first watch, but I have no desire to actually understand what happened. This is his only film that had no scene or sequence that wowed me. If you’re looking for a chuckle-worthy trippy comedy, this might be what you’re looking for. Otherwise, stay away.
Phantom Thread (2017)
“Phantom Thread” stars Daniel Day-Lewis as Reynolds Woodcock, a controlling and talented fashion designer in 1950s London. The film revolves around his relationship with Alma Elson (Vicky Krieps), a waitress with a strong will. This is Anderson at his most subtle and haunting. The atmosphere is immaculate — the score by Jonny Greenwood perfectly captures the haughty yet beautiful world of the characters. This film manages to balance a dark premise with beautiful presentation, which creates a haunting, off-putting feeling Anderson has never achieved with his other films. The story is totally unpredictable and perfect for exploring themes of obsession, grief and love. Going in, I expected to be a little bored considering the time period and subject, but I could not keep my eyes off the screen. This is Anderson’s most emotionally moving film to date. If you want to watch the cinematic embodiment of melancholy, this is the film for you.
Edited by Elise Mulligan | emulligan@themaneater.com