With a critically acclaimed new film to add to a resume full of them, is Paul Thomas Anderson the best Hollywood director of this century?
Some great directors consistently deliver work that’s never less than compelling. They might also craft a film that is widely acclaimed or wins numerous awards during the statuette season. There’s an argument to be made that the cinema of the 21st century so far hasn’t quite matched the gold standard of the 20th century’s best periods. However, there are still a number of directors you can consistently rely upon to make the kind of cinema that leaves an indelible mark.
The likes of Hirokazu Kore-eda, Park Chan Wook, Michael Haneke and Pedro Almodovar rarely misfire. As far as Hollywood, Ridley Scott might tell you that modern movies are mostly trash, but we do still have Martin Scorsese in the game, Quentin Tarantino (for one more film), David Fincher and Christopher Nolan (to name a few). There are several new pretenders who could conceivably find the kind of consistency required to gain entrance to the pantheon.
However, Paul Thomas Anderson may well have just staked his claim as the King of Hollywood. This is a director who, by the time this century had rolled around, had already made waves with Boogie Nights and Magnolia (and let’s not discount his excellent debut, Hard Eight). He dove into the 21st with the deceptively simple, but assuredly quirky, Punch Drunk Love, which remains his most lithe and instantly accessible film. What he brought out of Adam Sandler was considered revelatory at the time (before the Sandman further proved later that he’s a great actor in the right circumstances).
His follow-up to that was the biggest record scratch of his career so far. From a promising director of great (and eclectically ranging) movies to someone delivering possibly the first outright masterpiece of the new century. It was old-time Hollywood epic scope, with 70s grit and a new modern, psychologically complex underbelly. It’s further aided by a performance for the ages by Daniel Day-Lewis, ably supported by Paul Dano’s career-best (thus far) performance.
There Will Be Blood still remains a stunning technical achievement that’s incredibly rich, leaving much to admire through repeated viewings. It’s perhaps what Anderson does best, as is the case with Nolan and Tarantino, and that’s BIG. Thunderous surface movies that still carry a bit of subtext, and in that regard, he probably does layered grandiosity better than his contemporary rivals.
The trouble with something as elite as his Day-Lewis-led, oil opus is that hitting those marks again can be tough. Ask the Coen brothers, having made something equally as sensational in the same year, with No Country for Old Men. They haven’t come close since. By contrast, though, Anderson has made a big, rich spectacle again with One Battle After Another. The film promises to remain essential in the years to come. Whether it holds the same standing in future rankings as There Will Be Blood (which recently made the top 10 in the NY Times best of the century list) remains to be seen.
Quentin Tarantino set such a high bar in the ’90s that he’s often struggled to find the consistency in his films this century. Whilst Inglorious Basterds, Kill Bill and Django Unchained have some of his highest points, and perhaps peaks higher than anyone, there’s also indulgences and idiosyncratic flights of fancy that can occasionally slow those films, or that don’t match the other heights. Sure, any time Christoph Waltz has trodden the set for QT, it’s cinematic nirvana. However, there are diversions that don’t quite hit, or characters that feel clunky (such as Mike Myers in Inglourious, or Jonah Hill in Django).
Nolan’s work might well hit technical spectacle better than anyone, but his complex narratives can sometimes escape him (Tenet) or feel emotionally cold. There’s also something so unshakably Tarantino-esque or Nolan-esque about their respective works. It’s why we love them, but although Anderson can imprint his DNA as well as anyone in cinema, he’s also got the ability to be a chameleon, to drift between genres and tones and to serve the film before himself.
This best exemplified in Anderson’s more cerebral and nuanced works like The Master or Phantom Thread. Could Nolan or Tarantino make films of this ilk, without perhaps feeling the need to add scale and pazzaz? Whereas Anderson may opt for simplicity in scenes, filled with subtext (particularly evident in Phantom Thread). Nolan, if there’s one criticism, has often felt a need to exposition dump, where Anderson is happy to leave the audience to work through some ambiguity.
Martin Scorsese’s range has always been impressive too, and whilst he’s been very consistent this century, you’d still have to concede that his best works remain in the 20th century. He also succumbed to excess weight in films like The Irishman and Killers of the Flower Moon. Undoubtedly brilliantly made, but the run times were felt. What I’ll say with One Battle After Another is that despite pushing nearly 3 hours, I was left wanting more, and it absolutely whizzed by. For the majestic high points of Killers of the Flower Moon, I felt the lags. If we’re talking all time, Scorsese is ahead, but we’re talking 21st century, right here, right now.
In Phantom Thread, Anderson made a film that, on the surface, could appear to be a quintessential English period drama. Then he infused it with some Hitchcock, a pinch of Greenaway and of course, his own inimitable flair. He dips into arthouse more than his mainstream contemporaries. It’s his most refrained film, and yet arguably as a character study, his most richly complex. There isn’t the wild bombast of Boogie Nights oners, or the epic Hollywood scale of There Will Be Blood and yet it might well be his most meticulously and perfectly shot film. It’s this real change of pace and style that may well mark him above other directors, in a film (and the same goes for The Master) that gets deeper and richer with repeat viewings.
In making such cinema, Anderson also risks alienating the new viewer, too. These aren’t works that pull the audience in from the opening and slip them into an inescapable figure four leg lock. The Master and even more so, Phantom Thread, challenge the viewer to give full focus (in an era where almost everyone struggles to concentrate for long periods). You have to dig beneath the surface, and if you find intrigue and come back, you’ll unstitch even more in subsequent viewings. Anderson’s dialogue says as much when the master tailor Reynolds Woodcock (Day-Lewis), reveals how, in every garment he makes, he hides a hidden detail somewhere within it. Granted, other auteurs are undoubtedly capable of this kind of cinema, but it’s ultimately about wanting to make it. Nolan loves to hide details, but they are less based in the dark psychological recesses or repressed emotions and more in narrative and/or intellectual easter eggs.
One thing is for sure: whether you think Paul Thomas Anderson is the best Hollywood director right now or not, his works are always a masterclass in filmmaking. Much like most directors, sometimes a film won’t work for the majority, such as Inherent Vice (and I struggle with that one, despite its technical mastery). He also made Licorice Pizza, which, though enjoyable and exceptionally well made, felt a little like an easy (for him) gap filler. Comfortingly surface-level, even if it beautifully captured a time and a place with colourful irreverence. Tarantino’s Once Upon A Time in Hollywood did something similar but more effectively (and that one improves with more viewings), leaning more into its pulpier aspects. When all is said and done, though, has a quartet of There Will Be Blood, The Master, Phantom Thread and One Battle After Another been topped?
SEE ALSO: The Rise of Paul Thomas Anderson: A Living Legend
Who do you think is the best Hollywood director of the 21st century? Let us know on our social channels @FlickeringMyth…
Tom Jolliffe
