The most frequent sight in the film (other than scenes of old TV appearances) appears to be the director filming Paul Williams eating. It reeked of someone who had no idea of what he was doing and so just following Paul around and hoping something interesting would happen.
shareThis just shows how desperate the filmmaker was in trying to make a story for the doc..when there actually wasn't any story except Paul Williams conquered his addiction and moved on with his life. I'm thinking he couldn't afford to get rights to Phantom of the Paradise so he had to stick with old tv appearances.
"There is no Hollywood any more, there's just a bunch of banks"
And why no mention of "Smokey & The Bandit?" And even though we're introduced to Paul as the featured guest at a "Phantom" screening in Canada, very little mention of the film follows. And what makes it so popular in Canada? Anyone left wondering about this stuff?
The whole squid thing was really strange. The director tells us that he and Paul really bonded over their love of squid. Yet, we never see ANY evidence of this. Sure, we see Paul eating it. We see Paul eat a lot, actually, but we never see any interaction between the two on the topic. This perfectly illustrates the old "show don't tell" axiom.
How about the part where Paul is trying to tell him a story about his father and the director cuts him off and asks him another question? Paul is like, "hey, this story means a lot to me..."
I understand that a filmmaker has to assert himself creatively and everything, but why would you cut the guy off? Let him tell the story! If it's not interesting, it could always be left out. I just found that approach very odd, and it didn't yield any positive result from what I could tell. The director wanted Paul to talk about the talent shows he entered as a young man instead. Was that more interesting than the story he would have told about his father? Why include the awkward interruption?
Not sure what version of the movie you were watching, but it definitely had a "Smokey and the Bandit" clip in there.
shareIt's true. PW ended up seeming like a really cool guy only in spite of this poorly-directed doc:
• the endless shots of eating - terrible editing
• the "dig" at Paul, which Paul rightfully calls him out on - terrible interviewing
• his interrupting Paul, which Paul rightfully calls him out on - terrible interviewing
• the complaint about Paul's wife "ruining our trip"! I couldn't believe he said that seriously or left it in - terrible narration / framing
• the director's inability to grasp that PW was right - his family, sobriety, and happiness were much more important than some old variety shows - terrible directing
• the director's xenophobia - has this guy ever been out of the country before? - terrible narration / framing
• him continuing to film his supposed idol, after Paul asks him not to. PW had laryngitis - why does his claimed fan want to present a negative image of Paul? - terrible directing
Paul Williams seemed very aware that 1. there was no story here and 2. the director had an agenda to paint PW as a fallen star, pining for the glory days like Norma Desmond. The most likely explanation for why PW agreed to be filmed is that he felt sorry for the director, a guy who related very strongly to the unhappiness in Paul's lyrics and who lives in the past. His "directing" skills are apparently limited to turning the camera on and waiting for something to happen.