One Battle After Another (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2025)

[TheTreeSong]

Again, I have plenty more examples (and with more likes since that's important apparently) but you've made your point clear. No disliking a movie you like or I may get banned again.

Look, I'm not a mod and I'm not going to ban you, but I wonder if you can look within yourself to ask if, just maybe, you're the one being weird here.

No one cares if you can cherry-pick examples of black people not liking this film. That's just not the issue here. It's not like you're trying to engage in a meaningful discussion of the film's treatment of race or anything else, you're just using black audiences as human shields in your own battle to drag the film down. It's cynical and kinda gross and no one wants to hear it.

I've already given my thoughts on why PTA's writing of the Black characters is bad and haven't received a genuine response other than insults and people ganging up on me. Nobody has really responded to Zot!, who has shared similar criticisms, either. If you have no problem with the writing of the Black characters in OBAA and want to explain why I'm wrong, feel free to do so.

[Brian C]

I've already given my thoughts on why PTA's writing of the Black characters is bad and haven't received a genuine response other than insults and people ganging up on me. Nobody has really responded to Zot!, who has shared similar criticisms, either. If you have no problem with the writing of the Black characters in OBAA and want to explain why I'm wrong, feel free to do so.

Eh, I tried. You’re on your own, man.

[MichaelB]

I've already given my thoughts on why PTA's writing of the Black characters is bad and haven't received a genuine response other than insults and people ganging up on me. Nobody has really responded to Zot!, who has shared similar criticisms, either. If you have no problem with the writing of the Black characters in OBAA and want to explain why I'm wrong, feel free to do so.

I don't for one millisecond believe that they are your own thoughts. Before your hiatus, you didn't mention the writing of the Black characters once, so it presumably wasn't something that especially bothered you back then. But because you're so determined to dump on this film for reasons known only to you and your therapist, you Googled for negative takes, found one, and went "aha!".

And your track record means that you also don't get to suddenly demand that other people respond to you politely and respectfully. You made an utterly ludicrous allegation about film critics voting for the film as some kind of collective prank. You didn't back this up with evidence at the time—hardly surprisingly, as there won't be any—and you've failed to defend it since. As a result, I don't know whether you still believe this ridiculous claim—and if you do, it's frankly going to be impossible to take you seriously going forward. So do you still believe it?

[therewillbeblus]

A third of this thread now is people fighting one battle after another with this guy

[TheTreeSong]

I wonder if the director has read any of the criticisms of his film — complaints, for instance, about its hypersexualised depiction of black women, although the African-American Film Critics Association did name One Battle After Another the second best film of the year. “I tend to just listen to the overly enthusiastic reviews,” Anderson deadpans. “But if there are engaged conversations to be had with someone who has a problem with the film, I would love to have them. Let us have a cup of coffee. Just don’t shout it at me. Is that fair enough?”

https://www.thetimes.com/culture/film/a ... -zs7dpf3w7

But I keep being told that this barely exists and means nothing. Unfortunately PTA gives his usual evasive, nothing answer. That was your chance to engage and give a thoughtful response to the criticism and you didn't. But I don't actually think he cares at all.

I don't for one millisecond believe that they are your own thoughts. Before your hiatus, you didn't mention the writing of the Black characters once, so it presumably wasn't something that especially bothered you back then. But because you're so determined to dump on this film for reasons known only to you and your therapist, you Googled for negative takes, found one, and went "aha!".

Who's making outlandish theories now? Those were absolutely my thoughts. It was sadly all too predictable that his attempt and writing WOC was going to fall completely flat seeing as, IMO, he's bad at writing both women and POC. Prior attempts such as in Magnolia were dreadful. I was initially intrigued that at least he was casting POC but also skeptical because of said past attempts.

Most of the discourse/criticism has been about Teyana Taylor's character, understandably, but I was most disappointed in Regina Hall's character (or lack thereof). Especially since Hall is doing good work with absolutely nothing to work with. Deandra is actually a very rare PTA character in that she's a woman who seems to exist outside of any connection/relationship to a male character. But PTA doesn't care about her at all and we learn nothing about her. The moment she has with April Grace's character (nice to see April Grace again, she was one of the few people in Magnolia to feel like an actual human being even though she's just a sounding board for Cruise) should've and needed to go longer and deeper. But instead we cut to a Christmas Adventurer (whom we haven't seen in the film once before) and watch him walk down a hallway in what felt like longer than a minute. Not to mention the moment where Deandra tells Willa that Perfidia was rat. Why is that moment rushed through? In the end Deandra is just a plot device. PTA cared far more about Lockjaw than any of the Black woman characters. Also pointed out is that the Black female characters are all suffering in one way or the other while the male characters (Bob, Lockjaw, and Sensei) get to be funny, goofy, etc.

While I'm adamant that his writing of POC is very poor and outdated, I can maybe see that the issues with the female characters in OBAA is more that he's rarely been good at writing women.

[domino harvey]

Really cool how the character who takes action with great creativity and intelligence and saves the day is a black woman, yet this doesn’t somehow merit being mentioned. Convenient!

[TheTreeSong]

Really cool how the character who takes action with great creativity and intelligence and saves the day is a black woman, yet this doesn’t somehow merit being mentioned. Convenient!

Willa is very flatly written and is a pawn for most of the film. We barely get into her head at all (hence me mentioning the scene with her and Deandra being far too rushed). There's one scene between her and Bob, one that mostly consists of drug/alcohol jokes, before they're separated. Which makes the father/daughter aspect fall flat.

[domino harvey]

Really cool how the character who takes action with great creativity and intelligence and saves the day is a black woman, yet this doesn’t somehow merit being mentioned. Convenient!

Willa is very flatly written and is a pawn for most of the film. We barely get into her head at all. There's one scene between her and Bob, one that mostly consists of drug/alcohol jokes, before they're separated. Which makes the father/daughter aspect fall flat.

She reveals her character to us through how she acts and reacts. She also reveals how being DiCaprio’s daughter shaped who she is, and how she responds to authority (even authority she should trust, like Hall re: the secret phone). And ultimately, she strikes a balance between who her dad is, who her mom was, and who she wants to be. Which is to say, she grows up. PTA doesn’t need to announce and underline any of these elements for the Netflix watchers who can’t be bothered to look up from their phones. This trust in an audience is what makes many a film great, it’s called subtlety.

[TheTreeSong]

Really cool how the character who takes action with great creativity and intelligence and saves the day is a black woman, yet this doesn’t somehow merit being mentioned. Convenient!

Willa is very flatly written and is a pawn for most of the film. We barely get into her head at all. There's one scene between her and Bob, one that mostly consists of drug/alcohol jokes, before they're separated. Which makes the father/daughter aspect fall flat.

She reveals her character to us through how she acts and reacts. She also reveals how being DiCaprio’s daughter shaped who she is, and how she responds to authority (even authority she should trust, like Hall re: the secret phone). And ultimately, she strikes a balance between who her dad is, who her mom was, and who she wants to be. Which is to say, she grows up. PTA doesn’t need to announce and underline any of these elements for the Netflix watchers who can’t be bothered to look up from their phones. This trust in an audience is what makes many a film great, it’s called subtlety.

And your thoughts on the rest of my post, in particular the writing of Deandra and Perfidia?

[MichaelB]

And your thoughts on the rest of my post, in particular the writing of Deandra and Perfidia?

You first. Support your assertion about film critics voting for the film for shits and giggles, or withdraw it.

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

I wonder if the director has read any of the criticisms of his film — complaints, for instance, about its hypersexualised depiction of black women, although the African-American Film Critics Association did name One Battle After Another the second best film of the year. “I tend to just listen to the overly enthusiastic reviews,” Anderson deadpans. “But if there are engaged conversations to be had with someone who has a problem with the film, I would love to have them. Let us have a cup of coffee. Just don’t shout it at me. Is that fair enough?”

https://www.thetimes.com/culture/film/a ... -zs7dpf3w7

But I keep being told that this barely exists and means nothing. Unfortunately PTA gives his usual evasive, nothing answer. That was your chance to engage and give a thoughtful response to the criticism and you didn't. But I don't actually think he cares at all.

You read any interview with Paul Thomas Anderson throughout his career and he deliberates avoids any analysis or read on his work. He seems to be taking as gracious and smart approach here with a major publication of saying he’s all ears to other perspectives. He’s also under no obligation to explain or defend his creative decisions whether you approve or not nor does this mean “he doesn’t care at all”. Clearly he cares or he wouldn’t have made the movie.

Most of the discourse/criticism has been about Teyana Taylor's character, understandably, but I was most disappointed in Regina Hall's character (or lack thereof). Especially since Hall is doing good work with absolutely nothing to work with. Deandra is actually a very rare PTA character in that she's a woman who seems to exist outside of any connection/relationship to a male character. But PTA doesn't care about her at all and we learn nothing about her. The moment she has with April Grace's character (nice to see April Grace again, she was one of the few people in Magnolia to feel like an actual human being even though she's just a sounding board for Cruise) should've and needed to go longer and deeper. But instead we cut to a Christmas Adventurer (whom we haven't seen in the film once before) and watch him walk down a hallway in what felt like longer than a minute. Not to mention the moment where Deandra tells Willa that Perfidia was rat. Why is that moment rushed through? In the end Deandra is just a plot device. PTA cared far more about Lockjaw than any of the Black woman characters. Also pointed out is that the Black female characters are all suffering in one way or the other while the male characters (Bob, Lockjaw, and Sensei) get to be funny, goofy, etc.

Doesn’t the entire French 75 suffer including it’s male members and white members? Doesn’t Bob suffer quite a bit? Isn’t there a goofiness between Willa’s teenage behavior with the ultra serious, vaguely threatening Lockjaw who’s too impotent to actually do anything himself other than make threats?

[domino harvey]

Willa is very flatly written and is a pawn for most of the film. We barely get into her head at all. There's one scene between her and Bob, one that mostly consists of drug/alcohol jokes, before they're separated. Which makes the father/daughter aspect fall flat.

She reveals her character to us through how she acts and reacts. She also reveals how being DiCaprio’s daughter shaped who she is, and how she responds to authority (even authority she should trust, like Hall re: the secret phone). And ultimately, she strikes a balance between who her dad is, who her mom was, and who she wants to be. Which is to say, she grows up. PTA doesn’t need to announce and underline any of these elements for the Netflix watchers who can’t be bothered to look up from their phones. This trust in an audience is what makes many a film great, it’s called subtlety.

And your thoughts on the rest of my post, in particular the writing of Deandra and Perfidia?

To quote Clifton Webb in the Remarkable Mr Pennypacker, “Women seem like people,” so I guess it’s okay to allow them complexities of character and action. I don’t understand your objection because it seems to come from a place of assigned victimhood that you do not even factor into. A black woman can be a rat, she can be a hero, she can be a bystander, she can be a pawn, she can be anything any human being can be. You are so convinced that this film must be wrong that you are, ironically, far more racist than what you claim to object to. PTA gave us multiple non-white characters that have connected with audiences and critics. Indeed, two of them seem poised to win Oscars for their work. Doesn’t that suggest that they were interesting characters brought to life by talented actors in a way that connects broadly with audiences, even if you yourself do not like this film?

But I want to note that you are not actually engaging with my point regarding Infiniti, and instead deflecting to your initial argument. I suspect you post primarily on Reddit, where the need to defend your assertions is secondary to making a bold proclamation for upvotes. This is, blessedly, not Reddit. Try harder and, as MichaelB just said, how about telling us your own thoughts and providing your own evidence. Right now it appears you are writing checks your ass cannot cash

[TheTreeSong]

Who here is not a white male? Just curious.

A black woman can be a rat, she can be a hero, she can be a bystander, she can be a pawn, she can be anything any human being can be. You are so convinced that this film must be wrong that you are, ironically, far more racist than what you claim to object to.

You're the one getting upset and attempting to shut down any criticism of the writing of the WOC. And in what way did these character resonate with audiences? Unless you include Black audiences, in particular Black woman, being offended by the portrayal as them "resonating" which you don't seem to.

I did respond to your point about Infiniti. Your entitled to your opinion but it comes off to me like a bunch of excuses to cover up weak writing. I don't think she's a complex, layered character as written. And you haven't responded to my question about Hall and Taylor. How is Deandra a well written character? How does Perfidia avoid offensive tropes?

[The Elegant Dandy Fop]

Who here is not a white male? Just curious.

Spanish speaking Latino here with two immigrant parents or am I also not the right demographic for any argument?

I know it’s fun pulling TreeSong’s discourse apart, but why aren’t they banned yet especially now they want the racial identity of a member to validate or invlalidate their opinion?

[MichaelB]

You're the one getting upset and attempting to shut down any criticism of the writing of the WOC.

There's not even the tiniest scintilla of evidence to support that claim. If anything, Domino is being astonishingly generous in continuing to engage with you in good faith—but I suspect this is contingent on you restraining yourself from making sweeping, wholly unsupported claims along those lines.

Talking of which, I'm still waiting for you to respond to your equally absurd allegation about film critics. And if you continue to blank me, I'll be entirely justified in taking it as a tacit admission that you knew you were spouting nonsense at the time, and that nothing you say going forward should be taken seriously either. If you're not deliberately trolling for teh lolz, you're going to have to have a pretty radical rethink about how you present yourself here.

[TheTreeSong]

You're the one getting upset and attempting to shut down any criticism of the writing of the WOC.

There's not even the tiniest scintilla of evidence to support that claim. If anything, Domino is being astonishingly generous in continuing to engage with you in good faith—but I suspect this is contingent on you restraining yourself from making sweeping, wholly unsupported claims along those lines.

Talking of which, I'm still waiting for you to respond to your equally absurd allegation about film critics. And if you continue to blank me, I'll be entirely justified in taking it as a tacit admission that you knew you were spouting nonsense at the time, and that nothing you say going forward should be taken seriously either. If you're not deliberately trolling for teh lolz, you're going to have to have a pretty radical rethink about how you present yourself here.

They've insulted me numerous times and all their responses have been mostly snark. I wouldn't exactly call that good faith.

Are you a film critic? You seem personally offended by my theory. Apologies if that's the case. It was a little tongue in cheek but I still found it odd and a surprise that it topped the Film Comment list considering most of the members were publicly negative on the film.

Who here is not a white male? Just curious.

Spanish speaking Latino here with two immigrant parents or am I also not the right demographic for any argument?

I know it’s fun pulling TreeSong’s discourse apart, but why aren’t they banned yet especially now they want the racial identity of a member to validate or invlalidate their opinion?

It's not about validation. I'm curious if there are any Black members here and how they felt about the film.

[Noiretirc]

A third of this thread now is people fighting one battle after another with this guy

Maybe this part ends up in the basement soon?

May I propose the title "Resistance Is Futile"?

[MichaelB]

Are you a film critic?

I've already answered that question, citing an example of when someone directly accused me of jumping on a bandwagon that demonstrably didn't exist when I filed my review.

(Although at least, unlike that guy, I'm reasonably sure that you've actually seen the film under discussion—he was banned not long afterwards after admitting that he hadn't, despite excoriating it at considerable length.)

You seem personally offended by my theory.

It was such a ridiculous load of old guff that it doesn't deserve to be dignified with the term "theory"—because theories in general have to be supported by actual evidence, and you produced none at the time and blanked all subsequent attempts at getting any out of you. It's hard to be especially offended by behaviour quite this transparent.

Compare and contrast with my theory that you only started talking about the film's portrayal of Black women when you'd Googled for negative examples, which is supported by:

1. The fact that you didn't bring up the subject until very recently;
2. The fact that although you superficially seem to be engaging with Domino, you're not really; instead of directly and intelligently responding to his numerous very pertinent points, you're simply repeating the same talking points as before, which I strongly suspect didn't originate with you.

Apologies if that's the case. It was a little tongue in cheek but I still found it odd and a surprise that it topped the Film Comment list considering most of the members were publicly negative on the film.

It topped loads of similar lists, including the Sight & Sound one I was invited to participate in. (I didn't, for reasons already given, but I'd certainly have voted for it myself.)

It's not about validation. I'm curious if there are any Black members here and how they felt about the film.

Instead of attempting to shift the goalposts yet again, how about responding directly to Domino's various points? This would be an excellent method of validating yourself, by demonstrating that you can intelligently take opposing but peskily evidence-backed arguments on board and thereby actually develop your own position instead of endless parrot-like repetition.

[okcmaxk]

And in what way did these character[s] resonate with audiences? Unless you include Black audiences, in particular Black woman, being offended by the portrayal as them "resonating" which you don't seem to.

You’re implying all races should have a monolithic opinion on art, and, judging from your thoroughly-cited field research, do have one regarding this film?

Beyond that, it’s not hard to respond to outstanding questions from Domino and Michael, unless they challenge your line of thinking. Far from people picking on you if you’re refusing to be mature.

[Matt]

I know it’s fun pulling TreeSong’s discourse apart, but why aren’t they banned yet especially now they want the racial identity of a member to validate or invlalidate their opinion?

Well, he's banned now. That little stunt was a step too far for me.

When a user, not the movie, becomes the topic of discussion, it's time for that user to put up or shut up. That was never going to happen here.

[MichaelB]

Given the reason why he was suspended before, I suspect that was probably wise.

I'm not in favour of banning non-spammers as a general rule, but the chances of getting anything worthwhile out of this guy were always going to be pretty slim.

[Mr Sausage]

It's frustrating to talk to someone so obtuse.

Anyway, I'm surprised anyone would call Chase Infiniti's character flat or underdeveloped. She's the lynchpin character of the thing. She's the only character who interacts with every other important character. No one else does--the movie pointedly keeps most of its pieces from meeting each other. Without that character, none of these strands have any proper connection. She's the only character with all the context. So her development, the choices she makes, the point she ends on, are the movie's one organizing principle. Her character tells us the movie's perspective on all the madness of the various plot strands. So her character development across the film is crucial, hence she's the only character who is allowed to change. The rest take Pynchon's cue in being flattened outward projections, which is why I'm unmoved at the idea that the black women are flat: every character is, which is straight from the source material, except one young black female, who is the lone internalized and developing character.

[MichaelB]

This conversation has tangentially reminded me that I really need to catch up with the source novel Vineland. So I looked it up on Amazon, and was treated to this AI summary of customer reactions:

Customers find the book very funny. However, the readability receives mixed reactions, with some describing it as unreadable gabble.

[beamish14]

This conversation has tangentially reminded me that I really need to catch up with the source novel Vineland. So I looked it up on Amazon, and was treated to this AI summary of customer reactions:

Customers find the book very funny. However, the readability receives mixed reactions, with some describing it as unreadable gabble.

There are terrific annotations online for all of Pynchon’s works.

[Mr Sausage]

This conversation has tangentially reminded me that I really need to catch up with the source novel Vineland. So I looked it up on Amazon, and was treated to this AI summary of customer reactions:

Customers find the book very funny. However, the readability receives mixed reactions, with some describing it as unreadable gabble.

There are terrific annotations online for all of Pynchon’s works.

Where?