WEBVTT 00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.480 Welcome back to The Deep Dive. Today we're taking 00:00:02.480 --> 00:00:04.960 that big stack of research, all the critical 00:00:04.960 --> 00:00:08.099 takes, the behind -the -scenes stories, and boiling 00:00:08.099 --> 00:00:10.539 it all down for you. Yeah, we're zeroing in on 00:00:10.539 --> 00:00:13.800 a real force in cinema today. We are. We're immersing 00:00:13.800 --> 00:00:15.960 ourselves in the world of Paul Thomas Anderson. 00:00:17.080 --> 00:00:19.640 PTA. PTA, right. And he's fascinating because 00:00:19.640 --> 00:00:23.100 he kind of exists in this weird space, doesn't 00:00:23.100 --> 00:00:25.739 he? Like a paradox. How so? Well, he was immediately 00:00:25.739 --> 00:00:28.940 tagged as this wunderkind, you know, after Boogie 00:00:28.940 --> 00:00:32.359 Nights, Magnolia, huge splash. Right, huge. But 00:00:32.359 --> 00:00:35.060 then he didn't flame out. He kept going, building 00:00:35.060 --> 00:00:37.740 on it. And now, well, now he's just seen as one 00:00:37.740 --> 00:00:40.000 of the modern masters of American film. He sort 00:00:40.000 --> 00:00:43.200 of bridges that gap between, say, the new Hollywood 00:00:43.200 --> 00:00:46.070 guys and what's happening now. Okay, yeah, I 00:00:46.070 --> 00:00:47.630 see that. And that's really our mission today, 00:00:47.729 --> 00:00:50.770 isn't it? We want to unpack why. Why over like 00:00:50.770 --> 00:00:53.750 three decades now people consistently call him 00:00:53.750 --> 00:00:55.810 one of the preeminent writer -directors of his 00:00:55.810 --> 00:00:57.990 generation. We're looking at his path, which 00:00:57.990 --> 00:01:01.369 was, well, pretty unconventional. His themes, 00:01:01.390 --> 00:01:03.750 too, these deep dives into dysfunctional America. 00:01:04.329 --> 00:01:06.450 And his collaborators, this incredibly loyal 00:01:06.450 --> 00:01:08.569 group he works with again and again. Almost like 00:01:08.569 --> 00:01:10.810 a family, yeah. Right. We want to get under the 00:01:10.810 --> 00:01:13.989 hood, understand how he built this whole body 00:01:13.989 --> 00:01:17.450 of work films that are so human, but also, you 00:01:17.450 --> 00:01:19.790 know, structurally really complex. And just to 00:01:19.790 --> 00:01:21.230 set the stage, I mean, the level of prestige 00:01:21.230 --> 00:01:23.810 here is, it's kind of nuts. I found this stat 00:01:23.810 --> 00:01:25.890 that just blew me away. Oh, yeah. Paul Thomas 00:01:25.890 --> 00:01:31.049 Anderson, he is the only person ever to win Best 00:01:31.049 --> 00:01:34.349 Director at Cannes and the Silver Lion at Venice. 00:01:34.890 --> 00:01:37.469 And both the Silver and Golden Bear at Berlin. 00:01:37.629 --> 00:01:40.250 Wait, really? Yeah. All three major European 00:01:40.250 --> 00:01:43.049 festivals. Best director. All three. The top 00:01:43.049 --> 00:01:45.170 directing prize at each one. Nobody else has 00:01:45.170 --> 00:01:46.689 done that. That's actually insane. It's like 00:01:46.689 --> 00:01:48.969 the grand slam of film directing. It really is 00:01:48.969 --> 00:01:52.469 global recognition on a level that's just unparalleled. 00:01:52.489 --> 00:01:54.209 And that's not even mentioning the Oscars back 00:01:54.209 --> 00:01:57.129 home. He's racked up, what, 11 nominations across 00:01:57.129 --> 00:02:00.230 his films? 11. OK, so this tells you these aren't 00:02:00.230 --> 00:02:02.849 just like obscure arthouse flicks. No. They're 00:02:02.849 --> 00:02:05.969 major works. They hit with critics, they hit 00:02:05.969 --> 00:02:07.909 on the international festival circuit, and they 00:02:07.909 --> 00:02:10.870 get recognized by the mainstream awards. Doing 00:02:10.870 --> 00:02:13.150 all three consistently, that's incredibly tough. 00:02:13.370 --> 00:02:16.550 It really is. Okay, so let's start unpacking 00:02:16.550 --> 00:02:19.030 this. Where do we begin? His education seems 00:02:19.030 --> 00:02:21.990 like the obvious or maybe the unobvious place 00:02:21.990 --> 00:02:24.509 to start. Absolutely, because how he learned 00:02:24.509 --> 00:02:27.229 or didn't learn formally is key. And you see 00:02:27.229 --> 00:02:29.789 two things right away. Southern California and 00:02:29.789 --> 00:02:31.860 a total rejection of film school. The valley 00:02:31.860 --> 00:02:34.199 looms large. Oh, completely. He's totally linked 00:02:34.199 --> 00:02:36.199 to the San Fernando Valley. Born and raised in 00:02:36.199 --> 00:02:38.840 Studio City. It's not just scenery in his movies. 00:02:38.860 --> 00:02:40.879 Sometimes it feels like a main character itself. 00:02:41.099 --> 00:02:42.800 Yeah, definitely. But that family connection 00:02:42.800 --> 00:02:45.219 to entertainment is interesting, too, because 00:02:45.219 --> 00:02:48.080 it sets up this high -low thing you see in his 00:02:48.080 --> 00:02:50.759 work. His dad, Ernie Anderson. Ernie Anderson, 00:02:50.960 --> 00:02:52.719 yeah, a legend. People might know he was the 00:02:52.719 --> 00:02:55.259 voice of ABC for years, that big, booming announcer 00:02:55.259 --> 00:02:58.180 voice. Right. Authoritative. But he also had 00:02:58.180 --> 00:03:01.719 this... Completely other side, this wild alter 00:03:01.719 --> 00:03:05.219 ego back in Cleveland, a late night horror host 00:03:05.219 --> 00:03:09.050 named Gulardi. Gulardi. That's perfect, isn't 00:03:09.050 --> 00:03:11.590 it? It's like a metaphor for PTA's whole thing. 00:03:11.710 --> 00:03:14.990 A really polished, sophisticated technique right 00:03:14.990 --> 00:03:17.449 next to the messy, sometimes kind of vulgar, 00:03:17.569 --> 00:03:21.550 really raw, emotional stuff. Totally. And you 00:03:21.550 --> 00:03:23.770 know that stuck with PTA because he named his 00:03:23.770 --> 00:03:26.629 production company Gulardi Film Company. Huh. 00:03:26.770 --> 00:03:29.449 No way. I didn't know that. Yeah. So he clearly 00:03:29.449 --> 00:03:32.009 soaked up storytelling from his dad, but then 00:03:32.009 --> 00:03:34.490 he forged his own path for learning the craft 00:03:34.490 --> 00:03:36.930 itself, a fiercely independent one. Meaning he 00:03:36.930 --> 00:03:39.340 basically skipped film school. Pretty much. He 00:03:39.340 --> 00:03:41.159 did a bit of time at Santa Monica College, two 00:03:41.159 --> 00:03:45.039 semesters as an English major at Emerson. And 00:03:45.039 --> 00:03:47.120 apparently David Foster Wallace was one of his 00:03:47.120 --> 00:03:49.520 teachers there, which is wild. Okay. PTA taught 00:03:49.520 --> 00:03:51.900 by DFW. That's a whole other deep dive, maybe. 00:03:52.020 --> 00:03:54.699 Right. But yeah, Emerson and then NYU's film 00:03:54.699 --> 00:03:57.259 program. He lasted exactly two days. Two days. 00:03:57.360 --> 00:03:59.500 Why? He was really blunt about it. He said it 00:03:59.500 --> 00:04:02.120 turned watching and making movies into homework. 00:04:02.620 --> 00:04:05.240 Like a chore. And for someone obviously driven 00:04:05.240 --> 00:04:08.139 like him, that academic box was just suffocating. 00:04:08.199 --> 00:04:10.219 Okay, so if not school, then how? How did he 00:04:10.219 --> 00:04:13.439 get so good so fast? He learned by watching. 00:04:13.680 --> 00:04:17.259 And not just watching, but like dissecting. His 00:04:17.259 --> 00:04:19.459 method was basically reverse engineering the 00:04:19.459 --> 00:04:22.319 filmmakers he loved. Who were his guys? He lists 00:04:22.319 --> 00:04:25.660 about 17 major influences. You know, Scorsese, 00:04:25.699 --> 00:04:29.459 Kubrick, Altman, Orson Welles, the canon. Okay. 00:04:29.699 --> 00:04:32.939 But here's the crucial bit. He wasn't just watching 00:04:32.939 --> 00:04:34.879 the movies over and over. He was watching them 00:04:34.879 --> 00:04:38.519 with the audio commentaries on. Oh, interesting. 00:04:38.620 --> 00:04:40.680 Getting the director's thought process. Exactly. 00:04:40.920 --> 00:04:43.800 He wanted to understand the choices, the compromises 00:04:43.800 --> 00:04:47.040 on set, the thinking behind specific shots. It 00:04:47.040 --> 00:04:49.500 was practical learning by analysis. And by doing 00:04:49.500 --> 00:04:52.199 it right. He started super young. Oh, yeah. Made 00:04:52.199 --> 00:04:55.040 his first film at eight. His dad got a Betamax 00:04:55.040 --> 00:04:57.339 camera back in 82, and apparently that was it. 00:04:57.420 --> 00:04:59.579 He was off. And by high school. By senior year, 00:04:59.740 --> 00:05:03.220 1988, he made what he called his first real production, 00:05:03.399 --> 00:05:06.500 a 30 -minute mockumentary, The Dirk Diggler Story. 00:05:06.779 --> 00:05:09.079 Dirk Diggler. Okay, the name rings a bell. It 00:05:09.079 --> 00:05:11.860 should. But here's the great detail. He paid 00:05:11.860 --> 00:05:14.199 for it with money. He earned cleaning cages at 00:05:14.199 --> 00:05:16.819 a pet store. Cleaning pet cages to fund your 00:05:16.819 --> 00:05:20.399 mockumentary about a porn star. That's PTA in 00:05:20.399 --> 00:05:22.720 a nutshell right there. Isn't it, though? Drive 00:05:22.720 --> 00:05:25.459 and dedication from the start. And the key thing 00:05:25.459 --> 00:05:27.839 is, this wasn't just some random student film. 00:05:27.980 --> 00:05:31.060 It was... The Blueprint. For Boogie Nights. Exactly. 00:05:31.620 --> 00:05:34.600 That short was inspired by the life of John Holmes, 00:05:34.779 --> 00:05:37.100 the real -life porn star. The character, the 00:05:37.100 --> 00:05:39.360 story, the world. He had it all figured out in 00:05:39.360 --> 00:05:41.759 that 30 -minute short years before he got the 00:05:41.759 --> 00:05:44.000 chance to make the feature. He knew his stuff 00:05:44.000 --> 00:05:47.180 inside out. That focus is amazing. Which takes 00:05:47.180 --> 00:05:49.920 us right into his big arrival in the 90s. Section 00:05:49.920 --> 00:05:53.540 2. The Ascendancy. He basically decides, forget 00:05:53.540 --> 00:05:56.040 college tuition, I'm putting my money into making 00:05:56.040 --> 00:05:58.509 a film. Right. He had to be scrappy. For his 00:05:58.509 --> 00:06:02.089 next short, Cigarettes and Coffee in 93. 20 minutes 00:06:02.089 --> 00:06:05.350 long. Budget was $10 ,000. Where did he get 10 00:06:05.350 --> 00:06:07.589 grand? Cobbled it together, gambling winnings 00:06:07.589 --> 00:06:10.230 apparently. His girlfriend's credit card. And 00:06:10.230 --> 00:06:12.509 tellingly, the money his dad had saved for his 00:06:12.509 --> 00:06:15.269 college, he literally bet his education fund 00:06:15.269 --> 00:06:17.870 on this short film. He made the choice. This 00:06:17.870 --> 00:06:20.029 is my education. Pretty much. And that 10 grand, 00:06:20.129 --> 00:06:21.949 it paid off immediately in showing what he could 00:06:21.949 --> 00:06:24.009 do. Cigarettes and Coffee announced his knack 00:06:24.009 --> 00:06:26.110 for complex structure, what you called narrative 00:06:26.110 --> 00:06:29.060 geometry. How did it work? It connects these 00:06:29.060 --> 00:06:31.560 different storylines, these intense little emotional 00:06:31.560 --> 00:06:36.180 scenes, all through one single prop, a $20 bill 00:06:36.180 --> 00:06:38.779 that passes between them. Ah, okay. Showing connections. 00:06:39.100 --> 00:06:41.639 Yeah. The structure itself tells a story. It 00:06:41.639 --> 00:06:43.899 showed how separate lives can be linked, often 00:06:43.899 --> 00:06:47.920 by chance or money. That $20 bill kind of weaves 00:06:47.920 --> 00:06:50.560 through these raw conversations. It showed right 00:06:50.560 --> 00:06:53.500 away he could handle nonlinear stuff and give 00:06:53.500 --> 00:06:56.459 it real thematic weight, even in just 20 minutes. 00:06:56.600 --> 00:06:59.259 And people noticed. The right people. Definitely. 00:06:59.360 --> 00:07:01.399 It screened at the Sundance Strolls program in 00:07:01.399 --> 00:07:03.519 93, and that got him into the Sundance feature 00:07:03.519 --> 00:07:06.120 film program the next year. A big deal. And he 00:07:06.120 --> 00:07:08.560 got mentored there. Yeah, by Michael Caton -Jones, 00:07:08.680 --> 00:07:11.879 the director. Caton -Jones saw this raw talent, 00:07:11.959 --> 00:07:14.240 this voice, but knew PTA needed the practical 00:07:14.240 --> 00:07:16.800 side. How to deal with studios, how to run a 00:07:16.800 --> 00:07:19.600 bigger set. He gave him, as PTA put it, hard 00:07:19.600 --> 00:07:22.139 and practical lessons. Which he absolutely needed 00:07:22.139 --> 00:07:24.660 for his first feature film. That was a real fight, 00:07:24.759 --> 00:07:26.540 wasn't it? Heartache, originally called Sydney. 00:07:26.879 --> 00:07:29.519 Oh, yeah. His first big clash with the system. 00:07:29.920 --> 00:07:32.199 Reicher Entertainment financed it. But then they 00:07:32.199 --> 00:07:34.899 took his finished film and just recut it. Tried 00:07:34.899 --> 00:07:37.680 to make it more, you know, commercial. Changed 00:07:37.680 --> 00:07:39.420 his whole vision. That can kill a career right 00:07:39.420 --> 00:07:42.199 there. First film gets taken away from you. But 00:07:42.199 --> 00:07:45.139 he fought back. He did. And this says a lot about 00:07:45.139 --> 00:07:48.480 him and the loyalty he inspires. He got his actors, 00:07:48.579 --> 00:07:51.160 Philip A. Berhal, John C. Reilly, Gwyneth Paltrow 00:07:51.160 --> 00:07:53.639 together. Big names even then, mostly. Right. 00:07:53.740 --> 00:07:58.189 And they, together, had to raise $200 ,000. personally, 00:07:58.189 --> 00:08:00.750 just to buy back the rights to finish and release 00:08:00.750 --> 00:08:03.269 his cut of the film. Wow. The actress chipped 00:08:03.269 --> 00:08:05.610 in. Yep. They believed in his vision that much, 00:08:05.730 --> 00:08:07.769 put their own money and reputations out there, 00:08:07.870 --> 00:08:10.029 and they succeeded. They got his cut out. And 00:08:10.029 --> 00:08:12.750 it got acclaimed, right? Ebert loved it. Ebert 00:08:12.750 --> 00:08:15.389 called it a quietly compelling and distinctive 00:08:15.389 --> 00:08:18.209 debut. It basically launched him because he fought 00:08:18.209 --> 00:08:20.509 for his version. It proved his vision was worth 00:08:20.509 --> 00:08:22.970 protecting. But the real explosion, the thing 00:08:22.970 --> 00:08:26.189 that made him PTA, was next. Boogie Nights, 1997. 00:08:27.069 --> 00:08:29.509 Yeah, that just blew the doors off. Based on 00:08:29.509 --> 00:08:32.250 that old high school short. Explored the golden 00:08:32.250 --> 00:08:35.210 age of porn. It was huge, critically and commercially. 00:08:35.970 --> 00:08:38.809 Showed he could handle this massive, messy subject 00:08:38.809 --> 00:08:41.909 with real art and control. And the cast. It was 00:08:41.909 --> 00:08:44.629 huge for them, too. Totally. It basically resurrected 00:08:44.629 --> 00:08:46.950 Burt Reynolds' career, got him an Oscar nomination. 00:08:47.289 --> 00:08:49.309 Yeah, I remember that. And it was the breakout 00:08:49.309 --> 00:08:51.850 dramatic role for Mark Wahlberg, for Julianne 00:08:51.850 --> 00:08:54.690 Moore. Both got nominated, too. And PTA himself 00:08:54.690 --> 00:08:57.509 got his first Oscar nomination. odd for the screenplay 00:08:57.509 --> 00:09:00.190 just incredible for a guy who was what 27 27 00:09:00.190 --> 00:09:03.269 years old yeah and then you know comes the pressure 00:09:03.269 --> 00:09:06.330 after boogie nights hit so big new line cinema 00:09:06.330 --> 00:09:08.769 basically said okay kid what do you want to do 00:09:08.769 --> 00:09:11.070 next here's the money do whatever you want total 00:09:11.070 --> 00:09:13.450 creative freedom which sounds great but can also 00:09:13.450 --> 00:09:16.389 be dangerous exactly he said he wanted to do 00:09:16.389 --> 00:09:20.179 something small scale next but then It just grew. 00:09:20.379 --> 00:09:23.419 It kept blossoming, as he put it. Right. Into 00:09:23.419 --> 00:09:27.259 Magnolia, 1999. This three -hour, sprawling, 00:09:27.259 --> 00:09:29.519 multi -character epic set back in the valley. 00:09:29.720 --> 00:09:32.799 Just a monster of a film. So ambitious. Totally 00:09:32.799 --> 00:09:34.919 ambitious. All these interconnected stories, 00:09:35.000 --> 00:09:37.500 this intense emotional meltdown over one day. 00:09:37.860 --> 00:09:40.519 And the inspiration, interestingly, came from 00:09:40.519 --> 00:09:44.139 music. Amy Mann. Amy Mann songs, yeah. He said 00:09:44.139 --> 00:09:46.500 her music gave him the blueprint for that feeling 00:09:46.500 --> 00:09:49.960 in the film, that aching sadness and almost cosmic 00:09:49.960 --> 00:09:52.159 dread. And after that film, after pouring everything 00:09:52.159 --> 00:09:54.139 into it, he said something really telling. Yeah, 00:09:54.179 --> 00:09:57.340 that famous quote. He basically claimed with 00:09:57.340 --> 00:10:00.279 real intensity that Magnolia is, for better or 00:10:00.279 --> 00:10:03.360 worse, the best movie I'll ever make. Wow. after 00:10:03.360 --> 00:10:06.000 just three films to feel like you've already 00:10:06.000 --> 00:10:08.440 peaked you can feel the weight in that can't 00:10:08.440 --> 00:10:10.980 you like he threw every idea every structural 00:10:10.980 --> 00:10:13.200 trick every raw emotion he had into that one 00:10:13.200 --> 00:10:15.919 film the question then becomes okay what do you 00:10:15.919 --> 00:10:18.240 do next how do you follow up what you think is 00:10:18.240 --> 00:10:19.980 your masterpiece right well it seems like he 00:10:19.980 --> 00:10:23.179 needed a palate cleanser a hard reset which brings 00:10:23.179 --> 00:10:26.139 us to section three pivots in style and the era 00:10:26.139 --> 00:10:29.299 of prestige After the everything plus the kitchen 00:10:29.299 --> 00:10:31.639 sink approach of Magnolia, he did something totally 00:10:31.639 --> 00:10:34.019 different. Yeah, he imposed a big constraint 00:10:34.019 --> 00:10:37.279 on himself. Punch Drunk Love, 2002. It was a 00:10:37.279 --> 00:10:40.659 romance. And it was tight, just 90 minutes long. 00:10:40.779 --> 00:10:44.259 A huge contrast. And starring Adam Sandler. Yeah. 00:10:44.419 --> 00:10:46.909 Which was... a shock at the time a huge shock 00:10:46.909 --> 00:10:50.289 his first really acclaimed dramatic role he plays 00:10:50.289 --> 00:10:53.029 barry egan this guy just crippled by anxiety 00:10:53.029 --> 00:10:55.629 and rage whose life gets completely turned upside 00:10:55.629 --> 00:10:58.690 down by falling in love and also this weird pudding 00:10:58.690 --> 00:11:01.450 promotion scam the visual style was a big shift 00:11:01.450 --> 00:11:04.600 too wasn't it very stylized totally Very heightened. 00:11:04.659 --> 00:11:07.779 Those intense blues and reds, the abstract lens 00:11:07.779 --> 00:11:10.700 flares, the artwork by Jeremy Blake. Critics 00:11:10.700 --> 00:11:13.039 really noticed that shift. Time Out called it 00:11:13.039 --> 00:11:15.259 perhaps his most original work, exactly because 00:11:15.259 --> 00:11:18.080 it moved away from that sprawling realism towards 00:11:18.080 --> 00:11:20.259 something more surreal, more internal, more psychological 00:11:20.259 --> 00:11:22.799 expressed visually. It showed he had range, serious 00:11:22.799 --> 00:11:25.259 range. He could take Sandler's chaotic energy, 00:11:25.500 --> 00:11:27.240 channel it into something fragile and dramatic, 00:11:27.419 --> 00:11:29.759 and wrap it all in this concise, visually poetic 00:11:29.759 --> 00:11:32.759 package. And the acclaim was immediate and high 00:11:32.759 --> 00:11:34.850 level. He won Best Director at Cannes for it. 00:11:34.870 --> 00:11:37.070 That really cemented him as a major international 00:11:37.070 --> 00:11:39.490 auteur, not just the Boogie Nights guy. Winning 00:11:39.490 --> 00:11:42.710 Cannes for Punch Drunk Love. That's quite a statement. 00:11:42.850 --> 00:11:45.009 It really is. And that kind of tight, intense 00:11:45.009 --> 00:11:47.990 focus maybe set the stage for what came next 00:11:47.990 --> 00:11:51.320 five years later. What many consider his absolute 00:11:51.320 --> 00:11:55.220 peak. There will be blood. 2007. Right. The masterpiece. 00:11:55.360 --> 00:11:57.840 I mean, it felt like a seismic event when it 00:11:57.840 --> 00:12:00.340 came out. A huge leap into the American epic. 00:12:00.600 --> 00:12:03.039 It's loosely based on Upton Sinclair's novel 00:12:03.039 --> 00:12:06.360 Oil. But PTA really just used that as a starting 00:12:06.360 --> 00:12:10.639 point. To explore what? Greed. Capitalism. All 00:12:10.639 --> 00:12:13.179 of that. It's the savage meditation on American 00:12:13.179 --> 00:12:15.379 ambition, manifest destiny, the birth of the 00:12:15.379 --> 00:12:18.600 oil industry, all filtered through this one towering, 00:12:18.600 --> 00:12:21.419 monstrous character, Daniel Plainview. And the 00:12:21.419 --> 00:12:23.879 critical reaction was just overwhelming. Off 00:12:23.879 --> 00:12:26.440 the charts. Instantly hailed as a classic. David 00:12:26.440 --> 00:12:28.460 Denby in The New Yorker made that incredible 00:12:28.460 --> 00:12:30.919 comparison, putting Anderson's work alongside 00:12:30.919 --> 00:12:32.779 the greatest achievements of Griffith and Ford. 00:12:32.919 --> 00:12:34.539 Griffith and Ford. I mean, that's placing him 00:12:34.539 --> 00:12:36.519 right at the foundation of American cinema. It's 00:12:36.519 --> 00:12:38.899 the highest praise imaginable. And the film resonated. 00:12:39.019 --> 00:12:41.460 It made money, too, over 76 million worldwide 00:12:41.460 --> 00:12:44.899 on a 25 million budget. So high art that also 00:12:44.899 --> 00:12:47.539 connected commercially. And its reputation has 00:12:47.539 --> 00:12:50.720 only grown. That New York Times poll naming it 00:12:50.720 --> 00:12:53.620 the best film of the 21st century so far back 00:12:53.620 --> 00:12:56.320 in 2017. Right. It just confirmed its status 00:12:56.320 --> 00:12:58.799 as a landmark. And the Oscars that year, it tied 00:12:58.799 --> 00:13:01.559 with No Country for Old Men for the most nominations, 00:13:01.940 --> 00:13:04.590 eight. And Daniel Day -Lewis. One best actor, 00:13:04.649 --> 00:13:07.269 of course. One of the truly iconic screen performances. 00:13:07.690 --> 00:13:10.750 There Will Be Blood basically announced PTA as 00:13:10.750 --> 00:13:13.549 this heavyweight, capable of tackling history, 00:13:13.750 --> 00:13:16.690 myth, character on the grandest possible scale. 00:13:16.929 --> 00:13:18.850 So how does he do it? How do you get punch -drunk 00:13:18.850 --> 00:13:21.330 love and There Will Be Blood from the same filmmaker? 00:13:21.929 --> 00:13:25.549 That brings us to Section 4. Themes, visual style, 00:13:25.889 --> 00:13:28.990 and the auteur's signatures. What makes a PTA 00:13:28.990 --> 00:13:31.710 film feel like a PTA film? Okay, yeah. Let's 00:13:31.710 --> 00:13:33.570 start with the look, the visual trademarks. People 00:13:33.570 --> 00:13:35.269 talk about his bold visual style. What does that 00:13:35.269 --> 00:13:37.730 mean? Well, constantly moving cameras, for one. 00:13:37.950 --> 00:13:40.649 Lots of Steadicam long takes. Exactly. Those 00:13:40.649 --> 00:13:43.250 Steadicam long takes are the signature. And layered 00:13:43.250 --> 00:13:45.330 audiovisual sound and image working together 00:13:45.330 --> 00:13:47.669 complexly. He wants the camera to feel like it's 00:13:47.669 --> 00:13:50.330 in the scene, emotionally involved. Those long 00:13:50.330 --> 00:13:53.529 takes, they're more than just showing off, right? 00:13:53.629 --> 00:13:55.889 There's a purpose. Oh, absolutely. It's about 00:13:55.889 --> 00:13:59.559 immersion and sometimes pressure. Think about 00:13:59.559 --> 00:14:01.580 the opening of Boogie Nights. Yeah, the club 00:14:01.580 --> 00:14:04.899 scene. That insane three -minute steadicam shot 00:14:04.899 --> 00:14:06.919 that just throws you right into the middle of 00:14:06.919 --> 00:14:10.019 that. chaotic slightly dangerous energy before 00:14:10.019 --> 00:14:11.899 you even know who's who right you're just dropped 00:14:11.899 --> 00:14:14.840 in yeah there's no distance you're in the thick 00:14:14.840 --> 00:14:17.740 of it no time to judge no time to breathe it 00:14:17.740 --> 00:14:20.580 creates this immediate intensity and music is 00:14:20.580 --> 00:14:22.960 obviously huge for him too though the collaborators 00:14:22.960 --> 00:14:25.919 have changed big time early on it was john brian 00:14:25.919 --> 00:14:28.700 his scores for heartache magnolia punch drunk 00:14:28.700 --> 00:14:31.460 love they have that jazzy feel kind of melancholic 00:14:31.460 --> 00:14:34.210 but warm very distinctive But then came There 00:14:34.210 --> 00:14:36.629 Will Be Blood, and he started working with Johnny 00:14:36.629 --> 00:14:38.889 Greenwood from Radiohead. And Greenwood's done 00:14:38.889 --> 00:14:41.909 everything since. Every film since. And that 00:14:41.909 --> 00:14:44.529 shift in composers perfectly mirrors a shift 00:14:44.529 --> 00:14:47.370 in the films themselves, I think. From Brienne's 00:14:47.370 --> 00:14:50.669 emotional warmth to Greenwood's often jarring, 00:14:50.710 --> 00:14:53.690 dissonant, experimental, orchestral stuff. Yeah, 00:14:53.710 --> 00:14:56.029 the There Will Be Blood score is unsettling. 00:14:56.399 --> 00:14:59.100 Totally. It matches that move from films about 00:14:59.100 --> 00:15:02.759 finding surrogate families to these darker studies 00:15:02.759 --> 00:15:07.000 of isolation, greed, politics. The sound changed 00:15:07.000 --> 00:15:10.320 with the themes. Okay, let's talk themes. What 00:15:10.320 --> 00:15:12.960 are the big recurring ideas? Well, they're usually 00:15:12.960 --> 00:15:16.240 psychological dramas, right? About flawed people. 00:15:16.730 --> 00:15:19.470 Desperate people, often kind of rootless. And 00:15:19.470 --> 00:15:21.529 even when the films are set elsewhere, like Phantom 00:15:21.529 --> 00:15:24.230 Thread, that emotional grounding often feels 00:15:24.230 --> 00:15:26.029 like... The San Fernando Valley. The valley, 00:15:26.190 --> 00:15:28.570 yeah. It's his heartland. And within that, you 00:15:28.570 --> 00:15:30.590 see the same concerns pop up again and again. 00:15:30.830 --> 00:15:33.789 Dysfunctional families are huge. Alienation. 00:15:34.509 --> 00:15:36.450 Loneliness. Let's search for surrogate families. 00:15:36.789 --> 00:15:39.110 That's maybe the biggest one. People trying to 00:15:39.110 --> 00:15:40.909 build connections because their original families 00:15:40.909 --> 00:15:44.570 failed them. And themes of regret, guilt, forgiveness. 00:15:45.990 --> 00:15:48.110 redemption, maybe, these big moral questions 00:15:48.110 --> 00:15:50.169 underneath the messy lives. And there's that 00:15:50.169 --> 00:15:52.809 specific phrase he uses. Right, that repetition 00:15:52.809 --> 00:15:55.490 device, the line, I didn't do anything. Which 00:15:55.490 --> 00:15:58.190 films? It pops up in Boogie Nights, Magnolia, 00:15:58.509 --> 00:16:01.009 Punch Drunk Love, and The Master, at least once 00:16:01.009 --> 00:16:03.090 in each. I didn't do anything. What's the significance 00:16:03.090 --> 00:16:06.269 there? It's about denial, isn't it? Responsibility. 00:16:06.450 --> 00:16:08.789 It's characters refusing to own up to the chaos 00:16:08.789 --> 00:16:11.309 they're part of or that they've caused. It's 00:16:11.309 --> 00:16:14.289 a really subtle but smart way to link these different 00:16:14.289 --> 00:16:17.429 stories about accountability or the lack of it 00:16:17.429 --> 00:16:19.990 and then there's this deeper layer almost intellectual 00:16:19.990 --> 00:16:24.509 the bible specifically exodus yeah this is fascinating 00:16:24.509 --> 00:16:26.389 it shows that english major background maybe 00:16:26.389 --> 00:16:29.370 he uses the book of exodus as this kind of thematic 00:16:29.370 --> 00:16:33.320 anchor sometimes subtly sometimes Not so silly. 00:16:33.419 --> 00:16:35.659 Like in Magnolia. Magnolia is the obvious one. 00:16:35.759 --> 00:16:38.379 There are references to Exodus 8 .2, the plague 00:16:38.379 --> 00:16:41.440 of frogs. And then famously at the climax. It 00:16:41.440 --> 00:16:43.879 rains frogs. Literally. Frogs falling from the 00:16:43.879 --> 00:16:46.700 sky over the valley. It's this moment of bizarre, 00:16:46.820 --> 00:16:49.460 almost biblical judgment or intervention hitting 00:16:49.460 --> 00:16:51.840 this landscape of emotional decay. And there 00:16:51.840 --> 00:16:53.879 will be blood connects too. The title itself, 00:16:54.100 --> 00:16:57.080 right. It echoes Exodus 7 .19, the plague of 00:16:57.080 --> 00:17:00.059 blood turning the waters red. Okay, so it's not 00:17:00.059 --> 00:17:02.529 just about oil and violence. It hints at something 00:17:02.529 --> 00:17:06.109 bigger, moral consequence, divine wrath almost. 00:17:06.470 --> 00:17:09.049 The plagues in his films feel like metaphors 00:17:09.049 --> 00:17:10.890 for the characters bringing destruction upon 00:17:10.890 --> 00:17:13.049 themselves through their greed, their denial. 00:17:13.289 --> 00:17:16.369 It gives their modern sins this ancient, epic 00:17:16.369 --> 00:17:19.369 weight. So, looking at the arc, there's a clear 00:17:19.369 --> 00:17:21.950 evolution. The early films... Boogie Nights, 00:17:22.029 --> 00:17:24.910 Magnolia. There are these big ensemble pieces 00:17:24.910 --> 00:17:27.289 about finding family. Right. Sprawling casts, 00:17:27.750 --> 00:17:30.170 interconnected stories, searching for connection. 00:17:30.509 --> 00:17:32.990 But starting with There Will Be Blood, the focus 00:17:32.990 --> 00:17:36.170 shifted. It got narrower. More intense. Definitely. 00:17:36.250 --> 00:17:38.250 He moved towards these really focused character 00:17:38.250 --> 00:17:40.490 studies, often just one or two central figures, 00:17:40.710 --> 00:17:43.210 and they engaged more directly with bigger ideas, 00:17:43.349 --> 00:17:46.150 capitalism, ambition, belief systems, American 00:17:46.150 --> 00:17:48.950 identity. It's like he mastered the ensemble, 00:17:49.170 --> 00:17:51.910 then turned his lens inward to dissect the individual 00:17:51.910 --> 00:17:55.109 ego, often the dangerous male ego. Okay, let's 00:17:55.109 --> 00:17:57.329 follow that thread into Section 5, his work since 00:17:57.329 --> 00:18:00.089 the 2010s. Starting with The Master in 2012, 00:18:00.470 --> 00:18:03.109 people called that his religion film. Yeah, although 00:18:03.109 --> 00:18:05.220 that's maybe a bit reductive. It's intense, difficult. 00:18:05.539 --> 00:18:08.279 Stars Joaquin Phoenix as Freddie Quell, this 00:18:08.279 --> 00:18:12.579 traumatized alcoholic WWII vet. Right. And he 00:18:12.579 --> 00:18:14.960 falls under the spell of Lancaster Dodd, played 00:18:14.960 --> 00:18:17.500 by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who's the charismatic 00:18:17.500 --> 00:18:19.799 leader of this new movement called The Cause 00:18:19.799 --> 00:18:22.539 in the 50s. And everyone immediately thought 00:18:22.539 --> 00:18:25.700 Scientology. Right. The parallels to L. Ron Hubbard 00:18:25.700 --> 00:18:28.299 and early Scientology were impossible to ignore, 00:18:28.400 --> 00:18:30.119 though the film never names it. Was that risky? 00:18:30.599 --> 00:18:32.680 Getting so close to such a controversial topic, 00:18:32.819 --> 00:18:35.759 did it become just a Scientology movie? I think 00:18:35.759 --> 00:18:38.140 he avoided that trap, actually, because the film 00:18:38.140 --> 00:18:40.380 isn't really about Scientology. It's about the 00:18:40.380 --> 00:18:43.740 dynamic between Dodd and Quell, the master and 00:18:43.740 --> 00:18:46.380 the disciple. Okay. It's more about that post 00:18:46.380 --> 00:18:48.880 -war American search for meaning, the psychological 00:18:48.880 --> 00:18:51.819 void these guys had, and how charismatic figures 00:18:51.819 --> 00:18:55.799 can step in to fill it. It's about belief. control, 00:18:55.799 --> 00:18:58.000 codependency. It really became this incredible 00:18:58.000 --> 00:19:01.099 acting showcase for Phoenix, Hoffman, and Amy 00:19:01.099 --> 00:19:03.359 Adams all got Oscar nominations. And then he 00:19:03.359 --> 00:19:05.759 did something maybe even more daunting, adapting 00:19:05.759 --> 00:19:08.359 Thomas Pynchon. Oh, yeah. Tackling Pynchon is 00:19:08.359 --> 00:19:10.339 like the Mount Everest of literary adaptation, 00:19:10.759 --> 00:19:13.819 inherent vice in 2014. And the big deal here 00:19:13.819 --> 00:19:16.200 was this was the first time ever Pynchon allowed 00:19:16.200 --> 00:19:19.259 one of his books to be filmed. That's huge. From 00:19:19.259 --> 00:19:21.299 an author famous for being impossible to adapt 00:19:21.299 --> 00:19:24.539 and intensely private. Exactly. Pinch On's stuff 00:19:24.539 --> 00:19:26.559 is just legendarily dense. All these tangled 00:19:26.559 --> 00:19:29.000 plots, endless references, weird digressions, 00:19:29.000 --> 00:19:31.400 characters popping in and out. It's not naturally 00:19:31.400 --> 00:19:34.640 cinematic. So why Pinch On? And how did PTA actually 00:19:34.640 --> 00:19:37.049 make it work on screen? What was the trick? Well, 00:19:37.089 --> 00:19:40.210 Pynchon's whole vibe, that mix of goofy, shaggy 00:19:40.210 --> 00:19:43.309 dog detective story with deep paranoia set against 00:19:43.309 --> 00:19:45.990 the specific historical moment feels very PTA, 00:19:46.170 --> 00:19:49.450 actually, especially 70s California Pynchon. 00:19:49.589 --> 00:19:52.670 The trick, I think, was that PTA didn't try to 00:19:52.670 --> 00:19:55.549 streamline it too much. He embraced the messiness, 00:19:55.630 --> 00:19:58.410 the stone confusion. He used a narrator, Joanna 00:19:58.410 --> 00:20:00.730 Newsom, to deliver chunks of Pynchon's prose, 00:20:00.930 --> 00:20:03.289 which helped ground the viewer. And visually, 00:20:03.390 --> 00:20:05.630 he just leaned into the hazy, sun -drenched, 00:20:05.670 --> 00:20:08.210 slightly... decaying vibe of 70s LA. Let him 00:20:08.210 --> 00:20:10.450 go back to a big ensemble, back to the valley, 00:20:10.529 --> 00:20:12.470 but through this completely different psychedelic 00:20:12.470 --> 00:20:15.089 filter. Okay. Then his next two films were quite 00:20:15.089 --> 00:20:17.710 different again. Phantom Thread in 2017. Yeah. 00:20:17.789 --> 00:20:20.819 Daniel Day -Lewis' last role. So far, yeah. And 00:20:20.819 --> 00:20:23.980 Phantom Thread was another stylistic turn. A 00:20:23.980 --> 00:20:28.140 meticulous period piece. 1950s London high fashion. 00:20:28.599 --> 00:20:31.299 Very controlled, almost suffocating atmosphere, 00:20:31.599 --> 00:20:34.680 focused on this intense, toxic romance. There 00:20:34.680 --> 00:20:36.339 was something unusual about the cinematography 00:20:36.339 --> 00:20:38.519 on that one. Yeah, very unusual. No director 00:20:38.519 --> 00:20:40.720 of photography was officially credited, which 00:20:40.720 --> 00:20:44.000 is rare. So who shot it? The strong rumor, almost 00:20:44.000 --> 00:20:47.000 confirmed, is that PTA essentially shot large 00:20:47.000 --> 00:20:49.359 parts of it himself, working with a very small 00:20:49.359 --> 00:20:52.180 camera team. Taking on the DP role himself, that 00:20:52.180 --> 00:20:54.059 ties back to what you said about control, about 00:20:54.059 --> 00:20:57.140 authorship. Absolutely. If his usual DP wasn't 00:20:57.140 --> 00:20:59.339 available or wasn't the right fit, and the vision 00:20:59.339 --> 00:21:01.740 was that specific, maybe he felt he just had 00:21:01.740 --> 00:21:03.779 to do it himself. It shows a director completely 00:21:03.779 --> 00:21:05.900 immersed in every aspect of the image making. 00:21:06.119 --> 00:21:08.140 Total control. Right. And then came Licorice 00:21:08.140 --> 00:21:11.579 Pizza in 2021. Back to the 70s, back to the Valley. 00:21:12.119 --> 00:21:14.559 His home turf. Yeah, that felt like a real return. 00:21:14.720 --> 00:21:17.519 More nostalgic, maybe. Yeah. Chaotic, but tender. 00:21:17.839 --> 00:21:21.059 Definitely looser, funnier in some ways. A coming 00:21:21.059 --> 00:21:24.119 -of -age story. Got great reviews, more Oscar 00:21:24.119 --> 00:21:26.460 nominations, Best Picture, Director, Screenplay. 00:21:26.900 --> 00:21:28.980 Showed he could still nail that specific time 00:21:28.980 --> 00:21:30.980 and place, but with a lighter touch this time. 00:21:31.599 --> 00:21:34.460 Master of tone. And now, the next one sounds 00:21:34.460 --> 00:21:37.500 huge. His tenth film, One Battle After Another 00:21:37.500 --> 00:21:41.240 is the working title. Out in 2025. And it's Pinchon 00:21:41.240 --> 00:21:44.400 again. Pinchon again, yeah. A loose take on Vineland. 00:21:44.559 --> 00:21:46.740 And everything points to this being massive. 00:21:46.920 --> 00:21:49.859 How so? Well, PTA himself said he kind of stole 00:21:49.859 --> 00:21:52.259 the parts of the novel that hit him and mashed 00:21:52.259 --> 00:21:55.119 them up with other ideas, apparently with Pinchon's 00:21:55.119 --> 00:21:58.099 blessing. It's set later, dealing with the fallout 00:21:58.099 --> 00:22:00.559 of the 60s counterculture in the Reagan 80s. 00:22:00.559 --> 00:22:03.880 And the scale. Budget. Cast. The budget is reportedly 00:22:03.880 --> 00:22:07.359 $100 million, which is huge for this kind of 00:22:07.359 --> 00:22:10.299 film today. And the cast is stacked. Leonardo 00:22:10.299 --> 00:22:12.799 DiCaprio, Regina Hall, Sean Penn, Alana Haim 00:22:12.799 --> 00:22:15.299 from Licorice Pizza, Teyana Taylor. Oh, we owe 00:22:15.299 --> 00:22:18.259 Sean Penn. Yeah. It confirms his status. He's 00:22:18.259 --> 00:22:20.259 one of the very few directors who gets that level 00:22:20.259 --> 00:22:22.019 of budget and creative freedom to make something 00:22:22.019 --> 00:22:24.779 complex and personal. The industry trusts him. 00:22:24.880 --> 00:22:27.980 And speaking of trust, that anecdote about Napoleon, 00:22:28.359 --> 00:22:30.829 Ridley Scott's film. Oh, right. That's amazing. 00:22:31.009 --> 00:22:34.309 Apparently in 2022, Joaquin Phoenix, who was 00:22:34.309 --> 00:22:36.769 starring as Napoleon. And who PTA worked with 00:22:36.769 --> 00:22:39.410 on The Master. Exactly. Phoenix was apparently 00:22:39.410 --> 00:22:41.750 unhappy with the script, felt the character wasn't 00:22:41.750 --> 00:22:43.809 working, and was threatening to walk away from 00:22:43.809 --> 00:22:47.390 this huge Ridley Scott epic. So they called PTA. 00:22:48.089 --> 00:22:51.190 To fix Napoleon. They brought PTA in, yeah, as 00:22:51.190 --> 00:22:53.750 a script doctor, specifically to work on the 00:22:53.750 --> 00:22:56.289 Napoleon character arc to make it richer, more 00:22:56.289 --> 00:22:59.269 human, presumably, to keep Phoenix happy. That 00:22:59.269 --> 00:23:02.470 is incredible. PTA, the auteur of valley angst 00:23:02.470 --> 00:23:05.289 and period nuance, gets called in to save a massive 00:23:05.289 --> 00:23:07.569 historical war movie. It says everything about 00:23:07.569 --> 00:23:09.890 how respected his writing and character work 00:23:09.890 --> 00:23:11.569 is, right? That he's the guy you call in that 00:23:11.569 --> 00:23:13.950 kind of crisis, even way outside his usual genre. 00:23:14.089 --> 00:23:16.049 Okay, that leads perfectly into section six. 00:23:16.670 --> 00:23:19.269 The collaborators. Yeah. The rep company, as 00:23:19.269 --> 00:23:21.430 he calls them. This loyalty is a huge part of 00:23:21.430 --> 00:23:23.190 his story. It really is. It speaks to a working 00:23:23.190 --> 00:23:25.930 method built on trust and shared history. And 00:23:25.930 --> 00:23:29.329 the anchor of that for so long was Philip Seymour 00:23:29.329 --> 00:23:32.809 Hoffman. Yeah. His death was such a loss. How 00:23:32.809 --> 00:23:35.589 many films did they do together? Five. Right 00:23:35.589 --> 00:23:37.690 from Heartache all the way through The Master. 00:23:38.349 --> 00:23:41.099 Hoffman was just... brilliant at playing those 00:23:41.099 --> 00:23:44.740 guys in PTA's world. The flawed conscience, the 00:23:44.740 --> 00:23:47.640 desperate outsider, the guy barely holding it 00:23:47.640 --> 00:23:50.420 together. A huge, huge presence in his work. 00:23:50.579 --> 00:23:53.019 And others keep coming back too. Oh yeah. John 00:23:53.019 --> 00:23:55.640 C. Reilly, four films. Think Heartache, Boogie 00:23:55.640 --> 00:23:58.740 Nights, Magnolia, William H. Macy, Julianne Moore, 00:23:58.859 --> 00:24:00.940 Melora Walters. You see the same faces popping 00:24:00.940 --> 00:24:03.200 up. It really does feel like a theater troupe 00:24:03.200 --> 00:24:05.220 that moves from play to play with their director. 00:24:05.440 --> 00:24:07.880 That kind of loyalty is rare. It is. And look 00:24:07.880 --> 00:24:11.160 who else he attracts. Daniel Day -Lewis, famously 00:24:11.160 --> 00:24:13.160 picky, only worked with three directors more 00:24:13.160 --> 00:24:15.019 than once in his entire career. Who were the 00:24:15.019 --> 00:24:17.140 other two? Jim Sheridan and Martin Scorsese. 00:24:17.279 --> 00:24:21.299 Wow. So Day -Lewis put PTA right up there with 00:24:21.299 --> 00:24:23.660 Scorsese. That's the company he keeps. It tells 00:24:23.660 --> 00:24:25.859 you the level of artistry Day -Lewis saw there. 00:24:26.000 --> 00:24:27.859 And this stability extends behind the camera 00:24:27.859 --> 00:24:31.190 too, right? Absolutely. His core producing team 00:24:31.190 --> 00:24:33.390 has been incredibly stable. Joanne Seller, eight 00:24:33.390 --> 00:24:36.529 films. Daniel Lupe, nine films. They've been 00:24:36.529 --> 00:24:38.589 with him almost the entire way. And the costume 00:24:38.589 --> 00:24:40.569 designer, Mark Bridges, he holds the record. 00:24:41.009 --> 00:24:44.809 Nine films. Basically, PTA's entire feature filmography, 00:24:44.970 --> 00:24:47.589 he's the guy creating the look, the period feel, 00:24:47.829 --> 00:24:50.450 the character through clothes, time after time. 00:24:50.509 --> 00:24:52.730 That's an incredible partnership. With cinematography. 00:24:53.160 --> 00:24:55.099 That's been a bit more complex, especially later 00:24:55.099 --> 00:24:57.579 on. Robert Elswit was the guy for a long time. 00:24:57.700 --> 00:25:00.980 Elswit was key. Shot six films. Won the Oscar 00:25:00.980 --> 00:25:03.359 for There Will Be Blood. Defined the look of 00:25:03.359 --> 00:25:05.599 that middle period. But not The Master. No, The 00:25:05.599 --> 00:25:08.599 Master was shot by Mihaly Malamar Jr. Gave it 00:25:08.599 --> 00:25:11.740 that distinct, almost archival 1950s texture. 00:25:12.299 --> 00:25:15.869 Shot on 65mm. And phantom thread. The mystery 00:25:15.869 --> 00:25:19.089 DP. Right. No credit. Likely PTA himself stepping 00:25:19.089 --> 00:25:20.710 in. And then Alice would actually said in an 00:25:20.710 --> 00:25:22.990 interview around 2019 that he and PTA probably 00:25:22.990 --> 00:25:25.809 wouldn't work together again. Oh, OK. So that 00:25:25.809 --> 00:25:27.829 sounds like a real break in a major creative 00:25:27.829 --> 00:25:29.509 relationship. What do you think that signifies? 00:25:29.730 --> 00:25:32.710 Well, it could suggest that PTA's demand for 00:25:32.710 --> 00:25:35.769 control for a very specific, sometimes unconventional 00:25:35.769 --> 00:25:39.480 look maybe became absolute. Elsewood is brilliant, 00:25:39.740 --> 00:25:42.220 a master craftsman, but maybe more traditional 00:25:42.220 --> 00:25:45.920 in some ways. PTA's later films, like The Master 00:25:45.920 --> 00:25:48.599 or Phantom Thread, they needed something unique, 00:25:48.700 --> 00:25:51.779 old lenses, specific film stocks, unusual lighting. 00:25:52.140 --> 00:25:55.119 Maybe the only way PTA felt he could get exactly 00:25:55.119 --> 00:25:57.460 what was in his head was to literally operate 00:25:57.460 --> 00:26:00.460 the camera or find someone totally new for the 00:26:00.460 --> 00:26:03.220 master. It points to that total auteur vision, 00:26:03.460 --> 00:26:06.180 even if it means parting ways with a long -term 00:26:06.180 --> 00:26:08.720 Oscar -winning collaborator. Fascinating. And 00:26:08.720 --> 00:26:10.359 beyond the features, he does other stuff too, 00:26:10.420 --> 00:26:13.079 music videos. Loads of them, especially for musicians 00:26:13.079 --> 00:26:15.359 he's close to. He did a bunch for Fiona Apple 00:26:15.359 --> 00:26:17.339 back when they were together. Right. And more 00:26:17.339 --> 00:26:20.259 recently, multiple videos for Haim, for Radiohead, 00:26:20.380 --> 00:26:22.839 for Tom York. His videos aren't just promo clips. 00:26:23.000 --> 00:26:25.660 They're often really visually experimental, like 00:26:25.660 --> 00:26:27.900 that short film Anima he did with Tom York. That 00:26:27.900 --> 00:26:30.180 got Grammy nominated. Yeah, for Best Music Film. 00:26:30.799 --> 00:26:33.980 It's this amazing, choreographed, dreamlike piece. 00:26:34.359 --> 00:26:36.980 He uses music videos almost like a sketchbook, 00:26:37.039 --> 00:26:39.200 trying out ideas. And he directed a documentary, 00:26:39.299 --> 00:26:42.359 too, June Noon. Yeah, June Noon in 2015. Which 00:26:42.359 --> 00:26:44.680 brings us back to Johnny Greenwood. The film 00:26:44.680 --> 00:26:46.799 follows Greenwood collaborating with this amazing 00:26:46.799 --> 00:26:49.779 group of Israeli and Indian musicians. They recorded 00:26:49.779 --> 00:26:52.579 an album in this incredible 15th century fort 00:26:52.579 --> 00:26:55.779 in Rajasthan, India. Wow. It's a beautiful film, 00:26:55.839 --> 00:26:57.880 really captures the energy of musical creation. 00:26:57.980 --> 00:27:00.579 And again, it shows how central sound and music 00:27:00.579 --> 00:27:02.940 are to his whole process, not just an add -on. 00:27:03.039 --> 00:27:05.180 And one last bit of trivia, him being a standby 00:27:05.180 --> 00:27:08.579 director for Robert Altman. Yeah. On Altman's 00:27:08.579 --> 00:27:11.440 last film, A Prairie Home Companion, in 2005. 00:27:12.159 --> 00:27:14.039 Stand by, director. What does that even mean? 00:27:14.279 --> 00:27:17.200 Altman was 80 years old and not in the best health. 00:27:17.279 --> 00:27:19.519 So for insurance purposes, they needed someone 00:27:19.519 --> 00:27:22.140 lined up, someone respected who could literally 00:27:22.140 --> 00:27:24.700 step in and take over directing if Altman couldn't 00:27:24.700 --> 00:27:26.400 finish the film. And they picked PTA. She was 00:27:26.400 --> 00:27:28.720 only in his mid -30s then. Exactly. The fact 00:27:28.720 --> 00:27:30.720 that the producers, the insurance company, presumably 00:27:30.720 --> 00:27:33.579 Altman himself, agreed that PTA was the guy, 00:27:33.640 --> 00:27:35.960 the one director with the sensibility and skill 00:27:35.960 --> 00:27:38.460 to potentially finish an Altman film in Altman 00:27:38.460 --> 00:27:40.960 style, that's just immense respect from his peers, 00:27:41.019 --> 00:27:43.839 from a master he clearly admired. Okay, so wrapping 00:27:43.839 --> 00:27:45.799 this all up, what's the big takeaway for you, 00:27:45.839 --> 00:27:47.839 the listener, after this deep dive into PTA? 00:27:48.220 --> 00:27:50.599 Well, I think our journey really confirms him 00:27:50.599 --> 00:27:53.000 as this fiercely original, self -taught talent 00:27:53.000 --> 00:27:55.720 who just mastered the craft incredibly quickly. 00:27:55.940 --> 00:27:59.160 He uses his home turf, the valley, as this canvas 00:27:59.160 --> 00:28:02.819 to paint these epic, complex, very American stories 00:28:02.819 --> 00:28:05.880 about... Well, about us. Loneliness, ambition, 00:28:06.200 --> 00:28:09.559 family, failed and found, regret. He manages 00:28:09.559 --> 00:28:12.259 that rare thing. Yeah. Huge critical acclaim 00:28:12.259 --> 00:28:14.599 worldwide, box office success on his own terms, 00:28:14.680 --> 00:28:17.720 and this intense artistic integrity. From intimate 00:28:17.720 --> 00:28:20.140 dramas to sprawling epics. Yeah. Critics call 00:28:20.140 --> 00:28:22.259 him the foremost filmmaking talent of his generation. 00:28:22.559 --> 00:28:24.819 Sam Mendes called him a true auteur. One of the 00:28:24.819 --> 00:28:27.019 few I would classify as geniuses. A guy who swept 00:28:27.019 --> 00:28:29.380 the director prizes at Cannes, Venice, and Berlin. 00:28:29.519 --> 00:28:32.220 He really does occupy this unique space in movies 00:28:32.220 --> 00:28:35.240 today. He absolutely does. And maybe, for you 00:28:35.240 --> 00:28:37.180 listening, here's a final thought to chew on. 00:28:37.240 --> 00:28:39.119 Something building on everything we've talked 00:28:39.119 --> 00:28:41.660 about. Okay. Given how deep his connection to 00:28:41.660 --> 00:28:45.160 music is John Bran, then the long, crucial partnership 00:28:45.160 --> 00:28:47.940 with Johnny Greenwood, the June and Doc, the 00:28:47.940 --> 00:28:50.859 music videos, and given that his visual style 00:28:50.859 --> 00:28:53.180 became so specific he might have even taken over 00:28:53.180 --> 00:28:55.799 cinematography duties himself. Right. Consider 00:28:55.799 --> 00:28:58.480 this. How much does the sound actually drive 00:28:58.480 --> 00:29:01.740 the image in his films? Is the score, the sound 00:29:01.740 --> 00:29:04.609 design? just supporting the visuals, or especially 00:29:04.609 --> 00:29:06.990 with Greenwood's often challenging music, does 00:29:06.990 --> 00:29:09.730 the sound come first sometimes? Does that dissonance 00:29:09.730 --> 00:29:12.390 or rhythm actually dictate the camera movement, 00:29:12.650 --> 00:29:15.650 the editing, the specific feel of a scene? So 00:29:15.650 --> 00:29:17.950 not just music in the film, but music as the 00:29:17.950 --> 00:29:20.569 film's engine, in a way. Maybe. Exploring that 00:29:20.569 --> 00:29:22.430 relationship between the sonic world and the 00:29:22.430 --> 00:29:24.930 visual style, that might be the key to really 00:29:24.930 --> 00:29:27.970 getting the full depth of PTA's artistry. Something 00:29:27.970 --> 00:29:29.329 to listen for next time you watch one of his 00:29:29.329 --> 00:29:29.569 films.