7 Minutes
A divisive new chapter in Paul Thomas Anderson's career
Paul Thomas Anderson's One Battle After Another has landed like a thunderclap this awards season: a nearly three-hour, loosely Pynchon-inspired bildungs-into-rebellion drama anchored by Leonardo DiCaprio. Praised by many critics as a daring work of auteur cinema and already crossing the $100 million mark worldwide, the film has also become a flashpoint for heated cultural debate. On social platforms it is being hailed as 'the movie of the year' by some viewers; at the same time, conservative commentators and outlets have assailed it as reckless and potentially incendiary.
Anderson adapts Thomas Pynchon's Vineland into a contemporary, politically sharp tale. DiCaprio plays a burned-out revolutionary whose mission to rescue his daughter from a white nationalist military officer (played by Sean Penn) propels the film into morally ambiguous territory. The opening sequence — a jailbreak-style raid on a detention facility followed by scenes of government-sanctioned violence and undercover operations designed to justify crackdowns — sets a confrontational tone that many moviegoers find thrilling and some critics find alarming.
Why the controversy feels larger than the film
Part of the firestorm stems from timing and context. The movie portrays a U.S. that looks less like a familiar contemporary democracy and more like a paranoid conspiracy imagined for satire. For viewers already anxious about political polarization, the film’s images — revolutionary fervor, targeted assassinations, and scenes of state brutality — read as provocations. For others, Anderson has crafted a darkly comic, heightened fable that exaggerates both left-wing romanticism and right-wing paranoia to make a point about cycles of political violence.
This split reaction is also practical: political thrillers and radical-edge dramas have historically excited some audiences and alienated others. Think of the way films like Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing or Oliver Stone’s Nixon inspired debate when they arrived; Anderson’s movie has revived that tradition on a larger, more polarized stage. Its almost operatic tone, long runtime, and complex moral arithmetic invite comparison to Anderson’s previous work such as There Will Be Blood and The Master, which likewise demanded audiences wrestle with charismatic but morally compromised protagonists.
Voices on the right: alarm and accusation
Several conservative commentators have reacted strongly, framing the film as an apology for or romanticization of left-wing violence. Critics on the right have argued that the film suggests violent direct action is an acceptable response to systemic injustice, and some commentators predicted it could inspire real-world extremism. Headlines in conservative outlets have called it 'ill-timed' or 'irresponsible,' sometimes citing recent political violence and judicial debates over domestic extremism as reasons to treat the movie with suspicion.
These critiques often hinge on the film’s visceral scenes and on how clearly the target of the protagonists’ rage is depicted. To some critics, the rebels are less believable as a realistic leftist movement and more like a cinematic caricature that rewards destruction rather than constructive change.
Critical defenses: satire, fantasy, and moral complexity
Many film critics and cultural commentators have urged a different reading. They describe One Battle After Another as a political satire or a speculative fable rather than a manual for action. The film’s antagonists are occasionally rendered in comic-book proportions — a cartoonish Colonel Lockjaw who channels a Dr. Strangelove eccentricity — while the rebel network takes on an improbable, hyper-organized air more reminiscent of cinematic fantasy than grounded insurgency.
Prominent film writers have argued the movie highlights the human costs of choosing violence: family breakdowns, collateral trauma, and moral ambiguity. In that sense, the film functions more like a warning than a celebration. It exposes the seductive logic of political absolutism by dramatizing its costs rather than endorsing them.
Comparisons and context: Pynchon, Anderson, and the modern political film
Anderson’s aesthetic here borrows from a range of traditions. The loose Pynchonian framework allows for conspiratorial worldbuilding in the manner of postmodern novels and paranoid thrillers. Stylistically, the film reunites Anderson with sweeping tracking shots and meticulous production design reminiscent of his earlier masterworks, while DiCaprio’s committed, sweaty performance evokes the kind of obsession-driven leads that have carried Anderson’s best-known films.
If you’re tracing a lineage, consider these touchpoints: the political satire of Dr. Strangelove; the radical-age dramatizations of films like The Weather Underground-influenced dramas; and contemporary portrayals of political unrest in series such as Showtime’s The Man Who Fell to Earth. The film also taps into a wider trend in cinema where filmmakers explore the ethics of protest, the glamorization of violence, and the limits of institutional resistance.
Behind the scenes and audience reaction
Insider trivia: Anderson reportedly worked on this adaptation in fits and starts for decades, reshaping Pynchon’s dense novel into a cinematic structure that could sustain almost three hours. On set, sources say DiCaprio pushed for raw, physical scenes to convey his character’s trauma and exhaustion, and that Anderson leaned into practical effects to keep sequences grounded despite their surreal political implications.
Audience reactions have been volatile. Festival screenings saw cheering, laughter, and audible gasps — responses that split viewers between cathartic enjoyment and uneasy recognition. Social media hashtags boosted the film’s visibility, while ticket sales indicate that provocative cinema still draws crowds.
"One Battle After Another refuses easy moral answers, and that's precisely why it has provoked such a broad range of response," says film historian Maya Santos. "Anderson is less interested in instruction than in spectacle and consequence; the film asks viewers to sit with the aftermath of radical action rather than applaud the action itself."
What this means for awards, industry, and cultural debate
Industry insiders have noted that controversy can help a film’s awards prospects — polarizing works often remain in the awards conversation precisely because they prompt public debate. Whether One Battle After Another will translate cultural chatter into trophies remains to be seen, but it has already reinvigorated discussions about cinema's role in political storytelling: should films depict radical impulses candidly and risk being misread, or sanitize them entirely and lose their edge?
For filmmakers, platforms, and studios, the movie underscores a tricky balancing act. Studios want bold art that attracts attention, but they also have to weigh reputational risk in a fractured media ecosystem where every frame can be weaponized in cultural argument.
Final note
One Battle After Another is not a comfortable film, nor does it pretend to be. It trades in extremes: grand performances and stark images, satire and melodrama, provocation and introspection. For cinephiles and critics, it offers a lot to discuss — about Anderson’s evolving craft, about adaptations of difficult literature, and about the ongoing relationship between film and politics. Whether you see it as reckless or revelatory, the film has already achieved one of cinema's old goals: making viewers leave the theater talking.
Source: hollywoodreporter
Leave a Comment