Performance of the Decade so far?

Unfortunately for many Anderson fans, they try to defend his films in all the wrong ways and wind up making some boneheaded statements out of desperation for what they're so moved by.

That is certainly true, as even you acknowledge. And if someone had simply said that they enjoyed Phoenix's performance, I would not bother to respond with whatever minor quibbling I would have. But to categorically suggest that this was the "performance of the decade" (even in the coy form of a question) demands a response. As you pointed out, Anderson fans defend his films in all the wrong ways with bonehead statements.

Suggesting that this is the "performance of the decade" is a categorically different statement than one of mere appreciation - it necessarily insults the work of other actors who have put in far better work. Those performances need to be defended.

For instance, nobody should get upset at some adolescent who merely claims that he "really liked" the Avengers and thought it was "fun". That is a matter of pure opinion that is not worth debating,

But when enough people rate Avengers 10 out of 10 and likewise give works like Lawrence of Arabia a lower rating such that Avengers ends up higher on an "all time best" list than Lawrence of Arabia, then it no longer becomes a simple matter of personal preference - it becomes a categorical public statement that demands a response from people who admire works that are genuinely great. They correctly recognize it as not just an overstatement about Avengers, but as an insult to Lawrence of Arabia. PTA fanboys instinctively understand this concept, which is why they spend so much time criticizing the IMDB top-250 list. The problem is that they themselves engage in the same form of fanboy over-praise because they don't understand true quality when they see it. They mistake surface pretensions of quality for the genuine article. They value the broad notion of auteur-worship more than truly great works.

If PTA fans were to simply say "I like his work", I would not bother to respond. But when they compare him to Kubrick, and even suggest that Anderson has surpassed him (!?!), that demands a response from anyone who takes film seriously.

And yet they do just that:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000759/board/thread/179790350

When PTA fans make such ridiculous statements, I find it astounding that you even question my motivations for insulting them as they deserve.

At the very least, anyone who suggests that Phoenix gave "the performance of the decade" here ought to have the courage to explicitly state what they necessarily imply - that they feel a performance such as the one Michelle Williams gave in 'Blue Valentine' wasn't as good as Phoenix's in 'The Master'. And they ought to be able to articulate why.

Your distinction between "formalism vs. realism" is complete strawman in this discussion, though it at least implies that Phoenix's performance had nothing to do with "realism", which is true. The question we are discussing is how one distinguishes the best "performance of the decade" without qualification - since that is the criteria that PTA fanboy OP posited. Even if you can apply the "formalism vs. realism" distinction in acting alone (as opposed to the larger artistic goals that acting should be serving), that doesn't shed any light on how PTA fans could possibly characterize this as the "performance of the decade", let alone how they could praise a genuinely awful performance like the one Julianne Moore gave in Magnolia.

Your reference to The Shining is also a strawman. There is nothing controversial in saying The Shining is a great work, but if someone were to say that the primary reason it is great was due to the quality of Nicholson's performance, that too is a ridiculous, categorical declaration that would demand a response. Though eventually Spielberg came around to praising The Shining, it had nothing to do with the quality of Nicholson's performance, which he correctly suggested was "kabuki"-like.

If people like Nicholson's performance in The Shining - fine. But if they were to categorically declare it the best performance of his career, then surely you understand the difference in statements here. The latter statement demands a response since it necessarily insults the far deeper and more nuanced work he gave in performances like "Five Easy Pieces" or "Chinatown" among many others. It would show that the declarant has no appreciation for what great acting is.

There admittedly is some room for genuine disagreements as to quality, but that room is not infinite. For a more detailed discussion of the debate, I'd recommend Stephen Farber's essay "Over the Top for an Oscar" where he pinpoints the modern trend of bad acting that garners praise. But I suspect the PTA fans won't know what he is talking about here, since they actively encourage this problem:

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/nov/06/entertainment/ca-47707

And so it is with Paul Thomas Anderson fans. They claim "There Will Be Blood" to be "deep" because of its surface themes of "greed" and how a person "loses his soul" at the expense of his family. And yet they praise it more than "Godfather II", and you expect any respectable film-lover NOT to be insulted by that?? Please...

reply share

add reply

formatting help