Follow-up to a masterpiece

[Z]

I feel like making a film that receives overwhelming critical (or, sometimes, commercial) approval relative to everything you've put out before is, nine times out of ten, bound to have a huge impact on your next release.



Half way through the Confession by Costa Garvas right now and it's such a weird film, it's undoubtedly overreaching and at times it seems to just be scraping by on very assured direction that's doubling down on stylistic choices from Z which ellicit simultaneous responses of "that's way better done than Z" and "...that's a bit much". Fully expect it to fall apart in the second half.

Coppola is a weird case who spent the 70s repeatedly trying to outdo himself in a manner that seemed absolutely anything but effortless. Really need to see One for the Heart, or at least a decent making of about it, for whatever reason I feel like he was completely spent even before Apocalypse Now was edited

An obvious recent one is the Master by Paul Thomas Anderson, whereas There Will Be Blood somehow manages to just feel like a really fucking well made film, everything about the Master feels like it has an absolute fuckton of work put into it. If I didn't think it was amazing I'd've been distracted by how hard it was trying to be amazing.


So yeah, can you think of any examples of people battling with this? Dread over the possibility they've already peaked?

[Sebastian Cobb]

I'm away to see There Will Be Blood this afternoon seeing as it's relevant.

[Z]

Have fun, it's a masterpiece!

(Prince Charles Cinema?)

[Phil_A]

I suppose the prime example of this would be what John Boorman chose to make following the huge critical and commercial hit Deliverance:



Fuck only knows what his Lord Of The Rings would've been like had it ever filmed.

The other big one would Michael Cimino following up The Deer Hunter with Heaven's Gate, although in the case of the latter there's a lot more people who would be prepared to defend it than Zardoz, I'm sure.

[Z]

...I had no clue that Zardoz was the follow up to Deliverance :O

[Sebastian Cobb]

Have fun, it's a masterpiece!

(Prince Charles Cinema?)

GFT.

I notice they're both 35mm screenings, one around 1 and the other around 8; I wonder if they're rushing the same print down to that London the minute it comes out the projector.

[Custard]

There Will Be Blood is obscenely great. Brilliant, gripping stuff, from start to finish

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Coppola's One From the Heart is terrific and really underrated.

[selectivememory]

I feel like making a film that receives overwhelming critical (or, sometimes, commercial) approval relative to everything you've put out before is, nine times out of ten, bound to have a huge impact on your next release.

...

An obvious recent one is the Master by Paul Thomas Anderson, whereas There Will Be Blood somehow manages to just feel like a really fucking well made film, everything about the Master feels like it has an absolute fuckton of work put into it. If I didn't think it was amazing I'd've been distracted by how hard it was trying to be amazing.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Are you saying that There Will Be Blood is more effortlessly brilliant than The Master? That it's more obvious that hard work went into The Master? That The Master is too try-hard?

I dunno, I think they're both sensational films, and The Master might even be a top 5 of all time for me. I don't feel like one is more obviously "trying to be amazing" than the other. I don't even understand that as a criticism to be honest!

[Shit Good Nose]

Does Friedkin's Sorcerer count?

I know it started out life as an easy low budget studio quickie after the trials and tribulations he went through with The Exorcist, and its subsequent critical and commercial success, but we all know how it soon changed into a titanic task that almost ruined him.

[Sebastian Cobb]

Darren Aronofski has been on a downwards trajectory since PI. 'Masterpiece' might be pushing it, but it is very good.

Jeunet has never bettered Delicatessen, he's since made some very good films but they'll always be compared unfavourably to it.

[Z]

GFT.

I notice they're both 35mm screenings, one around 1 and the other around 8; I wonder if they're rushing the same print down to that London the minute it comes out the projector.

In 2007 film was still more or less everywhere so I'd say there's plenty of reels about the place that they wouldn't have to do that.

Coppola's One From the Heart is terrific and really underrated.

Does it ever get screened? Those big Coppola films from the 80s, I really can't justify watching them at home when there's the possibility there's something amazing in there.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean here. Are you saying that There Will Be Blood is more effortlessly brilliant than The Master? That it's more obvious that hard work went into The Master? That The Master is too try-hard?

I dunno, I think they're both sensational films, and The Master might even be a top 5 of all time for me. I don't feel like one is more obviously "trying to be amazing" than the other. I don't even understand that as a criticism to be honest!

The Master is a significantly messier, more difficult film than There Will Be Blood, much more strained as to knowing what it is. It's a film someone only viewed as the absolute peak of the artform would be allowed to even try. I probably like the Master a lot more than There Will Be Blood but I'm not gonna pretend it's not significantly more flawed at the same time.

As far as projects to follow up There Will Be Blood go, he'd've struggled to have found a bigger challenge.

[selectivememory]

The Master is a significantly messier, more difficult film than There Will Be Blood, much more strained as to knowing what it is. It's a film someone only viewed as the absolute peak of the artform would be allowed to even try. I probably like the Master a lot more than There Will Be Blood but I'm not gonna pretend it's not significantly more flawed at the same time.

As far as projects to follow up There Will Be Blood go, he'd've struggled to have found a bigger challenge.

Okay, thanks for clarifying.

[Monsieur Verdoux]

Does it ever get screened? Those big Coppola films from the 80s, I really can't justify watching them at home when there's the possibility there's something amazing in there.

I don't know if it does, but I'd imagine that it's very much worth waiting for a big screen showing. You've correctly assumed that it's that kind of film. A visual feast.

[Sebastian Cobb]

In 2007 film was still more or less everywhere so I'd say there's plenty of reels about the place that they wouldn't have to do that.

I did wonder, the copy they used for Punch Drunk Love was pretty tatty, yet the one for Magnolia they got in was alright, as was this outside the changeovers.

[SavageHedgehog]

New York New York, the follow-up to Taxi Driver, is not without its charms, though you probably need to be intrigued by its conceptual conceit (splitting the difference between glossy 40s musicals and gritty 70s urban drama) to get much out of it. Bafflingly the most lavish scene was cut from the original release.

[biggytitbo]

[Z]

I did wonder, the copy they used for Punch Drunk Love was pretty tatty, yet the one for Magnolia they got in was alright, as was this outside the changeovers.

That kind of makes sense, wouldnt be surprised if Magnolia got reprints whereas Punch Drunk Love is probably circulating the somewhat underused original pressings.

I don't know if it does, but I'd imagine that it's very much worth waiting for a big screen showing. You've correctly assumed that it's that kind of film. A visual feast.

He'll probably get some thorough retrospectives whenever he dies, so I've that to look forward to at least.

[Johnny Textface]

Inherent Vice is a movie.

[Mister Six]

An obvious recent one is the Master by Paul Thomas Anderson, whereas There Will Be Blood somehow manages to just feel like a really fucking well made film, everything about the Master feels like it has an absolute fuckton of work put into it. If I didn't think it was amazing I'd've been distracted by how hard it was trying to be amazing.

In what ways did you feel like it was trying hard? I did think the story was a bit thin compared to the lavish production but it never really felt strained to me.

[itsfredtitmus]

was just listening to the theme to that before

[Z]

In what ways did you feel like it was trying hard? I did think the story was a bit thin compared to the lavish production but it never really felt strained to me.

So outside of the production aspects the structure of the whole thing is pretty overloaded. I can remember on first viewing feeling like it was hitting its natural end point like 40 minutes before it actually ended*. I don't think the story is thin at all, there's an awful lot going on with the families, it's all much more expanded and rounded out to just be noise but the issue is that it's really quite secondary to the core story (i.e. the relationship between Dodd and Quell). In fact, I'd say the final 40 minutes are more about reigning things in to be about just the two of them where it had kind of lost control of itself.


* _{regarding this part, I'd be interested to hear if you had access to a clock when watching it. I usually try to avoid it so I don't wind up reverse engineering the thing on the basis of where we're at in the film. I've talked to a few people who also felt like (iirc) the book launch was nearing a natural endpoint.}