Darren Aronofsky vs Paul Thomas Anderson

I think Andersons made the better films but I like Aronofsky's style more. His attempt at a Batman film I can't wait to see. They both seem to be almost straightjacketed in their individual styles which is wierd seeing how few films they've both done. And either could shoot ahead in my estimation if they can prove to me they can direct something very "other" to their current work.

As for Aronofsky, I loved pi when it first came out, partly because I didn't know whether I was supposed to be laughing or not. I was disappointed at first by Requiem for a Dream and now am starting to have a real distaste for it. That may have something to do with Ellen Burstyn's too-mannered-yes-i-know-that-was-the-idea performance and Jared Leto's smugness, but the unmentionable scene was too voyeuristic and what was the deal with the anonymity of Jared Leto's black friend?

I like Aronofsky's style (especially that "hiphop" editing), and love Matthew Libatique's gritty cinematography. But Aronofsky's ideas are facile and perhaps self-justifying. pi is silly fun, but it's also maybe anti-intellectual silly fun.

But I still love pi for its acting - every single performance is great if not wonderful - and maybe even more so for its mise-en-scene: Aronofsky is showing people and places that are distinctly New York and Jewish and academic in ways that don't appear in films by other filmmakers who work in those environments. Sol's apartment in pi is maybe my favorite location in any movie.

Labyrinth came out in 1986! You don't think she might've changed a bit in the 17 yrs following?

Seeing as how they pretty much had to -- ahem -- strap her down for Labirynth, no, not really.

As for the title question, it comes down to whether I want to see an Aronofsky film after I've seen it once. He has very little reply value. Whereas Anderson has his moments that are worth watching again -- esp. once Punch Drunk Love comes out...

but the math nnsense is so much fun! and what is "the pi story" anyway?

"but maybe it's Genius!"

ok, point taken, and that makes it more consistent with requiem and humanizes aronofsky a bit. but why isn't it just about obsession? or math? or religion?

Aaronofsky better hope they don't run out of interesting film stocks.

Good point, but that being said, PTA does have a lot of "look at me" camera tricks. The crucial difference, though, is that PTA's movies would still be excellent without them, albeit perhaps less exciting.

When Cohen is chased around by the bad guys, he's yelling for help - would a paranoiac do that?

I think the film is about migraine, hence the headache-inducing high-pitched tones on the soundtrack.

Most definitely, even in an acute paranoid state. There's a diff also between yelling for help in the abstract, and actually getting it

IMHO

(PTA/Spielberg, even at their harshest, have a verging-on-sappy feel-good-about-life kinda vibe, whereas Aronofski/Kubrick are more on some make-you-feel-crappy-not-pulling-any-punches kinda shit)

Soderberg : Wes Anderson :: Spielberg : Kubrick

Aronofsky : Anderson :: Cronenberg : Altman

i like all the movies

Och nö.

I could write a book about it, but I won't.

I just noticed a neat parallel between Aronofski/Anderson and Kubrick/Spielberg, possibly 'cause of an obsession I have with their conflicting styles evident strongly in Artificial Intelligence, which I just watched for the second time the other night.

Then I found out it was serious.

pi is the funniest movie of all time

NEE. THURR.