There Will Be Blood

[Melville]

By the way:
Best blurb ever. :lol:
That reminds me: I'm glad you liked Fire Walk With Me, iosos. What a great, unfairly maligned movie.

[Sven]

By the way:



Best blurb ever. :lol:


That reminds me: I'm glad you liked Fire Walk With Me, iosos. What a great, unfairly maligned movie.

Thanks! You know, I can be right some of the time. :)

[chrisnu]

My funniest moment would be after the baptism, when Eli has to say "that's enough" to his congregation.

My favorite shot is a little more difficult; since Day-Lewis consumes any scene he's in, I'm most likely going to pick something which concentrates on his face. I'll go with the look on Daniel's face as he says, "I drink your water. I drink it up. Every day I drink the blood of lamb from Bandy's tract."

[origami_mustache]

I thought the funniest part is when they are around the campfire and Abel says to Daniel "My son is a healer and a vessel for the holy spirit; he has a church."
Plainview's response is a patronizing "Ooh." The delivery is priceless.

[Raiders]

I thought the funniest part is when they are around the campfire and Abel says to Daniel "My son is a healer and a vessel for the holy spirit; he has a church."
Plainview's response is a patronizing "Ooh." The delivery is priceless.

That's actually in the film? I don't remember it. I thought it must have been something from the trailer that didn't make it into the film.

[origami_mustache]

That's actually in the film? I don't remember it. I thought it must have been something from the trailer that didn't make it into the film.

I remember the "oh" response being in the film...although I'm not certain it's the direct response to that line from the trailer, regardless the result is the same.

[Benny Profane]

I don't remember a scene with Abel and the Plainviews around a campfire.

[Raiders]

I don't remember a scene with Abel and the Plainviews around a campfire.

It was in the trailer, but I believe it was deleted from the final cut.

[Benny Profane]

It was in the trailer, but I believe it was deleted from the final cut.

Ah, never saw the trailer.

Back to the favorite shot of the film query, I'd say for me it was the rear shot of Plainview and his partner watching the oil rig inferno as they're kinda hunched over out of breath with their hands on their knees.

[origami_mustache]

It was in the trailer, but I believe it was deleted from the final cut.

Hmm, I seem to recall it, although perhaps falsely. I thought they brought food out to them or something. Maybe I just watched the trailer too many times.

[Raiders]

Hmm, I seem to recall it, although perhaps falsely. I thought they brought food out to them or something. Maybe I just watched the trailer too many times.

Perhaps you are confusing it with the dinner table scene?

EDIT: Or when Daniel first meets Eli as he and H.W. are setting up tents.

[origami_mustache]

Perhaps you are confusing it with the dinner table scene?

EDIT: Or when Daniel first meets Eli as he and H.W. are setting up tents.

Yeah, I watched the deleted clip...parts of it still seem familiar, like when they ask what church he is part of and ask about the earthquake, but maybe similar dialogue was included in another scene or else I'm just insane.

[Qrazy]

Absolutely. I just feel it's a bit glib to only include this aspect of (pseudo)spirituality, even if it serves the movie's thematic purpose. Same goes for the little girl who is beaten by her father when she doesn't pray. I just sense an overriding perspective of "isn't religion fucking backwards?", even if that is by no means an implicit message. And this is coming from an atheist, so it's not as though I'm personally offended. :lol:

I think this has more to do with your reading than the film, since most of the characters are extremely flawed. Sure the dad beats his daughter, but our capitalist alternative Plainview eventually just abandons his son, not to mention that he fucking kills people. Even if the film is read from a pure capitalism vs. religion angle (which I find to be a misleading reading as I expressed earlier), it's not as if Anderson is saying capitalism is so much better than religion... just more systematically brutal. All dichotomies aside, the film strikes me as being primarily about how the age old theme of how indescribably ugly man can be to his fellow man... his loved ones... his brothers.

However, even with the pure capitalism vs. religion reading, I think it can be just as easily intuited that Anderson is both commenting upon and cautioning against the dangers of a capitalist ideology over and above the dangers of a perverted religious ideological bent. Sure televangelists, Scientologist leaders and the like are despicable, but who are really the power houses in our society? The CEO's, or better yet... the majority stockholders and behind the scenes financial puppet-masters. Dano is the weakling in he and Plainview's relationship for a reason. He is at least partially constrained by the ideology he professes to believe. He can pervert The Bible but he's still bound to it's schema. In this sense he has less room to operate than in Plainview's purely profit minded mentality. Organized religion vis. Dano only knows as much about business as it can glean from business minded men. Dano bankrupts when the dollar falls while Plainview is sitting pretty. Plainview's approach allows him to adopt a crushingly powerful greed-based moral nihilism. While organized religion certainly isn't portrayed as a good, perhaps it's a necessary evil by which to keep men from completely annihilating one another... either way it doesn't much matter since it is itself being annihilated by the purely profit minded perspective.

[Benny Profane]

I think this has more to do with your reading than the film, since most of the characters are extremely flawed. Sure the dad beats his daughter, but our capitalist alternative Plainview eventually just abandons his son, not to mention that he fucking kills people. Even if the film is read from a pure capitalism vs. religion angle (which I find to be a misleading reading as I expressed earlier), it's not as if Anderson is saying capitalism is so much better than religion... just more systematically brutal. All dichotomies aside, the film strikes me as being primarily about how the age old theme of how indescribably ugly man can be to his fellow man... his loved ones... his brothers.

However, even with the pure capitalism vs. religion reading, I think it can be just as easily intuited that Anderson is both commenting upon and cautioning against the dangers of a capitalist ideology over and above the dangers of a perverted religious ideological bent. Sure televangelists, Scientologist leaders and the like are despicable, but who are really the power houses in our society? The CEO's, or better yet... the majority stockholders and behind the scenes financial puppet-masters. Dano is the weakling in he and Plainview's relationship for a reason. He is at least partially constrained by the ideology he professes to believe. He can pervert The Bible but he's still bound to it's schema. In this sense he has less room to operate than in Plainview's purely profit minded mentality. Organized religion vis. Dano only knows as much about business as it can glean from business minded men. Dano bankrupts when the dollar falls while Plainview is sitting pretty. Plainview's approach allows him to adopt a crushingly powerful greed-based moral nihilism. While organized religion certainly isn't portrayed as a good, perhaps it's a necessary evil by which to keep men from completely annihilating one another... either way it doesn't much matter since it is itself being annihilated by the purely profit minded perspective.

I like what you're saying here. Good post.

[Rowland]

I think this has more to do with your reading than the film, since most of the characters are extremely flawed. Sure the dad beats his daughter, but our capitalist alternative Plainview eventually just abandons his son, not to mention that he fucking kills people. Even if the film is read from a pure capitalism vs. religion angle (which I find to be a misleading reading as I expressed earlier), it's not as if Anderson is saying capitalism is so much better than religion. All dichotomies aside, the film strikes me as being primarily about how the age old theme of how indescribably ugly man can be to his fellow man... his loved ones... his brothers.

However, even with the pure capitalism vs. religion reading, I think it can be just as easily intuited that Anderson is both commenting upon and cautioning against the dangers of a capitalist ideology over and above the dangers of a perverted religious ideological bent. Sure televangelists, Scientologist leaders and the like are despicable, but who are really the power houses in our society? The CEO's, or better yet... the majority stockholders and behind the scenes financial puppet-masters. Dano is the weakling in he and Plainview's relationship for a reason. He is at least partially constrained by the ideology he professes to believe. He can pervert The Bible but he's still bound to it's schema. In this sense he has less room to operate than in Plainview's purely profit minded mentality. Organized religion vis. Dano only knows as much about business as it can glean from business minded men. Dano bankrupts when the dollar falls while Plainview is sitting pretty. Plainview's approach allows him to adopt a crushingly powerful greed-based moral nihilism. While organized religion certainly isn't portrayed as a good, perhaps it's a necessary evil by which to keep men from completely annihilating one another... either way it doesn't much matter since it is itself being annihilated by the purely profit minded perspective.Well, yeah. My complaints about the portrayal of religion are really just a facet of my comprehensive impression that the movie is overly contrived and condescending in its sociological/allegorical perspective. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but it's difficult for me to just assume the best when the movie feels like it's aggressively attacking me into submission. It's hard to trust something that feels so self-conscious about its greatness, especially when I sensed little in the way of compassion, affectingly conveyed drama, or uniquely perceptive ideas. The poetry doesn't sing.

[origami_mustache]

"We need these men well rested to bring in this well...we can't get that if their up here listening to your gospel and then the well can't produce and blow gold all over the place."

:lol:

[Duncan]

Thought it was great. I think Qrazy is saying some good things in this thread. I did have some problems with the brother side trek. As soon as Henry showed up I knew where the film was going with his character. Even before he made claim to brotherhood, you could just tell. Then it was just a matter of waiting for the outcome. I'm not even convinced he was necessary thematically. What about giving that same speech on the porch to his deaf son? Perhaps that would have been too on the nose. Anyway, I think there was a bit of bloat there. The one thing I'd agree with iosos about is that the cinematography was a bit flat. Too bright. Overexposed maybe? I would have loved to see some more shadows cast by the desert rocks.

But, by and large, an excellent film. Favorite shot would have to be the second time Daniel goes into the ocean, and the wave rolls into the camera.

[Ezee E]

Saw it again. I got a favorite shot. When Eli walks up to meet Daniel, only to be beaten, there is a shot when he walks down the hill, and the oil lake is a mirror of the sky.

[Qrazy]

An obvious choice, but the shot where Day Lewis carries his boy to safety was the highlight for me... also an El Topo-esque shot initial staking of the pipeline... obvious metaphor? Hells yeah, but effective nonetheless.

---

Two things I think we ought to be talking more about, although I don't have the energy to type much about them right now...

All of the oil well related accidents sprinkled throughout the film (opening injury, first well death, second well death, deafening, etc), and how these relate to both Plainview's character arc and the overarching themes of the film.

Also an extrapolation of the fraud brother storyline (anyone catch any of the writing in the actual brother's diary? anything there of note?) and the mirrored relationship between the twins (?) Paul and Eli. Since we're dealing with mostly biblical names, I think some cross referencing is in order.

Bible:

Daniel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel
Henry: Reference to numerous rulers in France and England... lineage to the throne type thing perhaps? I'm unsure.
Eli: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_%28Bible%29
Paul: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus

HW: George... HW Bush? Perhaps, but probably more relevant in terms of general alienation both from his real father, from his adopted father and from the world in general (deafening)... vis. Kafka's character K.

Actually I thought of a third region of inquiry as well. I think it's quite relevant that the film begins on someone other than Plainview... it seems to begin with (correct me if I'm wrong) presumably HW's father. We start with gold and move to oil.

[Rowland]

also an El Topo-esque shot initial staking of the pipeline... obvious metaphor? Hells yeah, but effective nonetheless.Which shot is this? I haven't seen El Topo.

Actually I thought of a third region of inquiry as well. I think it's quite relevant that the film begins on someone other than Plainview... it seems to begin with (correct me if I'm wrong) presumably HW's father. We start with gold and move to oil.No, the movie definitely starts with Plainview. That is Day-Lewis in the opening sequence, and he signs his name as Daniel Plainview after discovering the oil in his mine.

[Derek]

Actually I thought of a third region of inquiry as well. I think it's quite relevant that the film begins on someone other than Plainview... it seems to begin with (correct me if I'm wrong) presumably HW's father. We start with gold and move to oil.

I think it opens up with Daniel digging for gold alone before he lights the dynamite and subsequently falls into the hole. After he signs the lease (or whatever you call it), the other men, including HW and his father, show up. I think it's important that the film begins and ends with Daniel alone. As soon as he discovers gold, other people are forced into his life and world and he spends a majority of the film dealing with and eventually correcting this problem.

The other points to discuss are great, particularly the biblical names, which I considered but never looked into. I'll try to get to that at some point this week.

[Spinal]

Which shot is this? I haven't seen El Topo.
No, the movie definitely starts with Plainview. That is Day-Lewis in the opening sequence, and he signs his name as Daniel Plainview after discovering the oil in his mine.

Plus, his limp is a result of his accident.

[Bosco B Thug]

Ooh, came across this (http://www.panix.com/~sallitt/blog/2008/01/i-am-not-convinced-that-p-t-anderson-is.html). I mentioned in my first 8.5/10 review about the film that for some reason I really wasn't feeling the film for the first hour or so, and I was thinking maybe I was just too excited about seeing it to adjust to its storytelling, but I think this article touches upon why I felt like I did.

[Duncan]

All of the oil well related accidents sprinkled throughout the film (opening injury, first well death, second well death, deafening, etc), and how these relate to both Plainview's character arc and the overarching themes of the film. For some reason I'm interested in the direction of motion. First, Plainview falls down into the gold mine, then he crawls back up only to retain a chronic leg injury. You can read your own metaphors into that injury, but in the last shot he's not standing. I think that's significant.

Next is the stake that falls into the well and, it seems to me, wounds or penetrates the Earth. It was very apparent to me that Plainview is a sexless character, and I don't think the sexual imagery of forcing the earth open to get at its fluids can be ignored.

The next two accidents are almost identical. ie., something falls down on a man in the well. I should probably state at this point that I think Earth itself is a force in this film capable of both femininity and masculinity. At the very least, it's a reflection of the characters psychologies (like that reunion scene Melville referenced with the unfinished pipe in the foreground). But I prefer to think of Earth embodying the same potential for beauty, vengeance, and deception that people are capable of. There's the ominous and masculine opening shot of the mountain, the Lessons of Darkness reminiscent shot that E referenced (duplicitous nature of reflection), the scenes in the ocean, and of course the feminine wells themselves. Anyway, I think these two deaths are very feminine responses by the Earth to its exploitation. Men are lured down into the cavity and don't come up.

The deafening of H.W., however, I consider a very masculine response from a feminine aspect of the landscape. The initial blast of gas is even white. I think it's this hermaphroditic response from the Earth that really cripples the sexless Plainview. In other words, the damaging of the product of Plainview's imagined virility is part of what makes his self destruction irreversible after this point.

But that just one, broad interpretation. And maybe a stretched one. I think if I spent more time I could develop it more.

[Rowland]

Ooh, came across this (http://www.panix.com/~sallitt/blog/2008/01/i-am-not-convinced-that-p-t-anderson-is.html).Thanks for the link, this is great. He expounds on some of the thoughts I've been trying to express here with greater clarity.

[Melville]

Ooh, came across this (http://www.panix.com/~sallitt/blog/2008/01/i-am-not-convinced-that-p-t-anderson-is.html). I mentioned in my first 8.5/10 review about the film that for some reason I really wasn't feeling the film for the first hour or so, and I was thinking maybe I was just too excited about seeing it to adjust to its storytelling, but I think this article touches upon why I felt like I did.
All the things he points out are actually things I liked about the film, helping to build the tone and narrative structure that I mentioned in earlier posts.


For some reason I'm interested in the direction of motion. First, Plainview falls down into the gold mine, then he crawls back up only to retain a chronic leg injury. You can read your own metaphors into that injury, but in the last shot he's not standing. I think that's significant.

Next is the stake that falls into the well and, it seems to me, wounds or penetrates the Earth. It was very apparent to me that Plainview is a sexless character, and I don't think the sexual imagery of forcing the earth open to get at its fluids can be ignored.

The next two accidents are almost identical. ie., something falls down on a man in the well. I should probably state at this point that I think Earth itself is a force in this film capable of both femininity and masculinity. At the very least, it's a reflection of the characters psychologies (like that reunion scene Melville referenced with the unfinished pipe in the foreground). But I prefer to think of Earth embodying the same potential for beauty, vengeance, and deception that people are capable of. There's the ominous and masculine opening shot of the mountain, the Lessons of Darkness reminiscent shot that E referenced (duplicitous nature of reflection), the scenes in the ocean, and of course the feminine wells themselves. Anyway, I think these two deaths are very feminine responses by the Earth to its exploitation. Men are lured down into the cavity and don't come up.

The deafening of H.W., however, I consider a very masculine response from a feminine aspect of the landscape. The initial blast of gas is even white. I think it's this hermaphroditic response from the Earth that really cripples the sexless Plainview. In other words, the damaging of the product of Plainview's imagined virility is part of what makes his self destruction irreversible after this point.

But that just one, broad interpretation. And maybe a stretched one. I think if I spent more time I could develop it more.
You just blew my mind. I think that reading is definitely very stretched... but, still, my mind is blown.


Edit: regarding the review that Bosco linked to, I don't understand how the reviewer came to the conclusion that Daniel is only ever using his son as a marketing tool. That certainly never seemed to be the case to me.

[Qrazy]

Which shot is this? I haven't seen El Topo.
No, the movie definitely starts with Plainview. That is Day-Lewis in the opening sequence, and he signs his name as Daniel Plainview after discovering the oil in his mine.

Ah OK I prefer that, didn't recognize him for some reason.

It's the shot with the marker in the foreground and the horses walking away in the background.

[transmogrifier]

Why.
The.
Hell.
Haven't.
I.
Seen.
This.
Movie!

[Rowland]

I can't wait to see this again, taking into account everything I've read/discussed here and elsewhere. This is easily one of last year's more interesting movies to wrestle with, even if I remain unconvinced of its greatness.

[transmogrifier]

I can't wait to see this again, taking into account everything I've read/discussed here and elsewhere. This is easily one of last year's more interesting movies to wrestle with, even if I remain unconvinced of its greatness.

Yeah.

Not helping.

:cry:

[Bosco B Thug]

Edit: regarding the review that Bosco linked to, I don't understand how the reviewer came to the conclusion that Daniel is only ever using his son as a marketing tool. That certainly never seemed to be the case to me. Yeah, I agree. And I can see how the ambiguity PTA imbues into the film adds to the film's stark symbolic allegory like you say. I think part of what the reviewer's saying is that in Anderson's desire to retain this ambiguity, we have only learned about this character through his own outward gestures, never through any real introspection (until the "opening up to brother" scene) or through the thoughts of other characters. This leaves us a bit discombobulated when we're trying to grasp who this character is and what we ought to feel towards him.

[Qrazy]

For some reason I'm interested in the direction of motion. First, Plainview falls down into the gold mine, then he crawls back up only to retain a chronic leg injury. You can read your own metaphors into that injury, but in the last shot he's not standing. I think that's significant.

Next is the stake that falls into the well and, it seems to me, wounds or penetrates the Earth. It was very apparent to me that Plainview is a sexless character, and I don't think the sexual imagery of forcing the earth open to get at its fluids can be ignored.

The next two accidents are almost identical. ie., something falls down on a man in the well. I should probably state at this point that I think Earth itself is a force in this film capable of both femininity and masculinity. At the very least, it's a reflection of the characters psychologies (like that reunion scene Melville referenced with the unfinished pipe in the foreground). But I prefer to think of Earth embodying the same potential for beauty, vengeance, and deception that people are capable of. There's the ominous and masculine opening shot of the mountain, the Lessons of Darkness reminiscent shot that E referenced (duplicitous nature of reflection), the scenes in the ocean, and of course the feminine wells themselves. Anyway, I think these two deaths are very feminine responses by the Earth to its exploitation. Men are lured down into the cavity and don't come up.

The deafening of H.W., however, I consider a very masculine response from a feminine aspect of the landscape. The initial blast of gas is even white. I think it's this hermaphroditic response from the Earth that really cripples the sexless Plainview. In other words, the damaging of the product of Plainview's imagined virility is part of what makes his self destruction irreversible after this point.

But that just one, broad interpretation. And maybe a stretched one. I think if I spent more time I could develop it more.

I usually don't like Freudian analysis of art, it's just too malleable for me... yet I find myself oddly attracted to this one. Although parts of your reading may be a little stretched (white steam vis. ejaculate), most seems reasonable and I would be inclined to believe that PTA had at least some of this stuff in mind (particularly initial sexual metaphor - puncturing of earth). One tangent I'd like to point out (perhaps obvious but still ought to be stated)... improvements in technology, particularly mining machinery, did not actually help the miners (or riggers), in that it did not lead to a safer working environment. We move from a broken wooden ladder and gradually escalate to an actual fountain of fire, which takes about 50 times more explosive to deal with than the unearthing of the gold. This sense of technological escalation seems potent to me as well. Are the oil pumps merely tools or actual weapons of industry? I think we could read some general parallels here between industrial/technological escalation and the escalation of weapons of war (from Kubrick's bone all the way to the atom bomb)... after all, it's oil which drives the war machine.

[Duncan]

You just blew my mind. I think that reading is definitely very stretched... but, still, my mind is blown.
I think one reason I'm reading these gender characteristics into the film is the startling lack of a female presence. There's Mary, I guess, but she's mostly a prepubescent girl in a white dress.

Another thing I really liked about this film is that it feels so goddamn American. I'm always seeing French or Japanese films and thinking, "Wow, this film is so quintessentially French/Japanese." Maybe that's because my perspective is very much that of an outsider in those cases. Still, I don't remember the last time I've felt this way about a new American film.

[Duncan]

I usually don't like Freudian analysis of art, it's just too malleable for me... yet I find myself oddly attracted to this one. Although parts of your reading may be a little stretched (white steam vis. ejaculate), most seems reasonable and I would be inclined to believe that PTA had at least some of this stuff in mind (particularly initial sexual metaphor - puncturing of earth). One tangent I'd like to point out (perhaps obvious but still ought to be stated)... improvements in technology, particularly mining machinery, did not actually help the miners (or riggers), in that it did not lead to a safer working environment. We move from a broken wooden ladder and gradually escalate to an actual fountain of fire, which takes about 50 times more explosive to deal with than the unearthing of the gold. This sense of technological escalation seems potent to me as well. Are the oil pumps merely tools or actual weapons of industry? I think we could read some general parallels here between industrial/technological escalation and the escalation of weapons of war (from Kubrick's bone all the way to the atom bomb)... after all, it's oil which drives the war machine.

Yeah, I generally don't like Freudian analysis either, so I was hesitant to go ahead with that interpretation.

I agree with your observations on technological escalation. I didn't make that connection between the dynamite in the gold mine and the dynamite in the oil well. Good catch.

[Rowland]

We are introduced to the figurative birth of Plainview as we will grow to know him underground. Mother Nature's womb?

[Bosco B Thug]

We are introduced to the figurative birth of Plainview as we will grow to know him underground. Mother Nature's womb? And he returns to the breast of his Mother Earth (albeit to plunder and extract from it)

in order to regress back into an isolated, infantile state in his great big cavernous mansion.

[Derek]

For some reason I'm interested in the direction of motion. First, Plainview falls down into the gold mine, then he crawls back up only to retain a chronic leg injury. You can read your own metaphors into that injury, but in the last shot he's not standing. I think that's significant.

Next is the stake that falls into the well and, it seems to me, wounds or penetrates the Earth. It was very apparent to me that Plainview is a sexless character, and I don't think the sexual imagery of forcing the earth open to get at its fluids can be ignored.

The next two accidents are almost identical. ie., something falls down on a man in the well. I should probably state at this point that I think Earth itself is a force in this film capable of both femininity and masculinity. At the very least, it's a reflection of the characters psychologies (like that reunion scene Melville referenced with the unfinished pipe in the foreground). But I prefer to think of Earth embodying the same potential for beauty, vengeance, and deception that people are capable of. There's the ominous and masculine opening shot of the mountain, the Lessons of Darkness reminiscent shot that E referenced (duplicitous nature of reflection), the scenes in the ocean, and of course the feminine wells themselves. Anyway, I think these two deaths are very feminine responses by the Earth to its exploitation. Men are lured down into the cavity and don't come up.

The deafening of H.W., however, I consider a very masculine response from a feminine aspect of the landscape. The initial blast of gas is even white. I think it's this hermaphroditic response from the Earth that really cripples the sexless Plainview. In other words, the damaging of the product of Plainview's imagined virility is part of what makes his self destruction irreversible after this point.

But that just one, broad interpretation. And maybe a stretched one. I think if I spent more time I could develop it more.

I like this interpretation since I noticed Anderson used a lot of vertical tracking shots (crane shots?) taking us up and down the wells, usually with a rope in the center of the frame. There are also several of stakes being driven into the ground (not sure if their blood red tips contain any significance) and, in at least one instance Anderson lingers on the image for longer than it seems necessary. When Daniel is all set to go to the Bandy property and "claim" it, he also drives a stakes through the map and table. I think the penetration motif contains both the inherent violence in Daniel's nature and the unwillingness of the earth to give into his raping of it.

I don't think this is necessarily a lens through which you can view the entire film, but it does add a fascinating layer to Plainview's character and his relationship to the world being explored somewhat metaphorically via his pillaging of nature.

[Watashi]

If anyone wants to read an interesting dissenting opinion, Sick Droogy wrote one over in RT-GD.


Paul Thomas Anderson, the dummkopf wunderkind, never opted for a quietly thoughtful moment when a stentorian downpour of amphibious meaning was available. Which makes the near-silent expositional opening passages of There Will Be Blood so surprising and, I daresay, assured. With only the faintest traces of light limning the form of pickax-wielding prospector Daniel Plainview, we (barely) see a man hard at work to find an elusive small fortune, breaking a sweat and his leg to score some precious silver ore. It is here that Anderson is at his best, while simultaneously hinting at his forthcoming miscalculation. "There she is," Plainview whispers to himself upon finally acquiring his quarry, more concerned with prosperity than self-preservation. Immediately, the director presents his protagonist as single-mindedly preoccupied with profit, effectively reducing the character to an avaricious concept, an unctuous implement of the Oil Age.

As usual, Anderson focuses on family, but rather than explore its tragic dissolution as a consequence of unethical enterprise, he begins from a position of opportunism and exploitation, presenting Plainview’s adopted son H.W. as just another weapon in the businessman’s arsenal. Even in those instances when Plainview jealously defends his fatherhood or stands up for his son – threatening to cut a competitor’s throat for criticizing his parenting, curtailing the abuse of H.W.’s childhood friend – it seems more like a business stratagem than a natural extension of his paternal sensibilities; when H.W. loses his hearing following an explosion, the familial bond breaks along with the financial opportunity. Later, a subplot involving the appearance of Plainview’s alleged half-brother briefly provides promise of a respite from the monotonous acquisitiveness, only to devolve into yet another example of cupidity and distrust.

Rarely has such formal elegance been wasted on such a negligible story. Gone are the rapid-fire swish pans and Scorsesean dollies that suggested a filmmaker desperate for unearned attention, and in their place are more relaxed camera movements and long shots, a sign of either Anderson’s maturation or his desire for artistic recognition. A pool of crude reflects the resplendent beauty of the then-unpolluted sky, and ruptured oil derricks spew the fires of hell as big-eyed onlookers, shrouded in an oleaginous chiaroscuro, are swallowed up by the night’s oblivion – pristine nature plundered and man corrupted by its allure. These visually brilliant big ideas are made thematically small by the calculated flatness of their presentation and the cynical trivialization of socioeconomic reality. The rivalry between Plainview and the fraudulent preacher Eli Sunday is one of contrived necessity and never feels authentic; their confrontations occur merely to prove a point about the pernicious similarities between secular and religious organized institutions – the supposed backbone of our national identity. But what’s lacking is humanity. The marginalized townspeople fall into one or the other camp, never offering an alternate viewpoint or a sense of individuality, and the respective ringleaders are forced to renounce their ways in order to achieve their goals – Plainview’s business acumen being the equivalent of Sunday’s hypocrisy. Such aestheticized nonsense is profound only insofar as it reflects the worst of American ambition: Plainview is Industry, Sunday is Religion, and both are Greed. Yet neither is US.

The whole thing is one-note, exemplified by Daniel Day-Lewis’ skin-deep performance, a Noah Cross-meets-Charles Foster Kane embodiment of American avarice and cynicism. With his alien-gruff voice and condescending facial expressions, Day-Lewis plays Plainview as a savvier-than-thou misanthropic cipher – likely the perfect mating of performance and production given Anderson’s limited grasp of his material. It’s a tour de force of Method mimicry but not much else. By the time Plainview descends into shotgun-toting madness in his personal Xanadu, maniacally barking about metaphorical milkshakes, the film has surrendered its confident restraint and, seemingly, its continuity. Blood becomes black comedy and bad theater, and the cavalier final line, capped by a Brahms crescendo, says more about the film’s stepwise, point A-to-point $ structure than it does about the destructive nature of unprincipled American competition.

[Qrazy]

SD surely likes to dress up his opinions in the purplest of prose. I agree with certain elements of his critique of the actual film (re: underdevelopment of the extras/townsfolk referred to in third paragraph). I don't agree with his pigeon-holing of Day-Lewis performance nor with his general degradation of PTA's artistic merit. It seems a bit absurd to me that SD bemoans what he takes to be the director's facile approach and Day Lewis's supposedly one-note performance of a condescending character... while his review simultaneously reeks of such condescension for nearly everyone involved with the production, and approaches the film's thematics in a blunt, reductionist manner.

[Spinal]

Rarely has such formal elegance been wasted on such a negligible story.

This is where I tuned out.

[transmogrifier]

This is where I tuned out.

Droogy writes well, but he's wrong about pretty much everything.

[Boner M]

This is where I tuned out.
Why there and not "dummkopf wunderkind"?

[Boner M]

Also, I usually like Droogy's writing but his taste is so uncannily aligned with Armond's (minus the loopy digressions) that I wonder if he isn't a relative.

He is, however, an excellent debater.

[transmogrifier]

Also, I usually like Droogy's writing but his taste is so uncannily aligned with Armond's (minus the loopy digressions) that I wonder if he isn't a relative.

He is, however, an excellent debater.

Like White, he knows how to turn a phrase, but I swear neither of them really have an objective clue about what they are arguing from movie to movie. It seems to me that they both adapt flighty metaphorical construct devoid of any basic principles in order to justify their gut emotional reaction to a film.

Take for example, this:


As usual, Anderson focuses on family, but rather than explore its tragic dissolution as a consequence of unethical enterprise, he begins from a position of opportunism and exploitation, presenting Plainview’s adopted son H.W. as just another weapon in the businessman’s arsenal. Even in those instances when Plainview jealously defends his fatherhood or stands up for his son – threatening to cut a competitor’s throat for criticizing his parenting, curtailing the abuse of H.W.’s childhood friend – it seems more like a business stratagem than a natural extension of his paternal sensibilities; when H.W. loses his hearing following an explosion, the familial bond breaks along with the financial opportunity. Later, a subplot involving the appearance of Plainview’s alleged half-brother briefly provides promise of a respite from the monotonous acquisitiveness, only to devolve into yet another example of cupidity and distrust.

What he says may be true (I haven't seen the film), but nowhere there does he offer ANY objective explanation why exploring "its tragic dissolution as a consequence of unethical enterprise" makes a better film than showing the lead character mingle his family with his business interests. There is simply no rational justification to allow such an avalanche of moralising without actually bothering to point out how this choice of the director is bad.

And that is exactly what White does. It's meaningless crap sculpted to explain an emotional reaction to the movie that they can't address through more objective means - camerawork, story, acting, symbolism and consistency.

[transmogrifier]

With NCFOM, the Coen's refuse to allow the spectre of capitalism to get a word in edgewise in the cacophony of rather mundane MacGuffin changing. What could have been a biting examination of how basic ecomomic theory is totally at odds with our carefully evolved social customs instead focuses tiresomely on the worthlessness of nostalgia as a worldview, continuously forcing us to reevaluate what it means to be part of a society that is at best monumentally indifferent to our presence. The Coen's continue to push this line of sermonizing to its breaking point, not once allowing America's tremulously truculent waltz with Ann Rynd economic theory a hearing in amongst the headlong crawl into the existential abyss.

[Boner M]

What he says may be true (I haven't seen the film), but nowhere there does he offer ANY objective explanation why exploring "its tragic dissolution as a consequence of unethical enterprise" makes a better film than showing the lead character mingle his family with his business interests. There is simply no rational justification to allow such an avalanche of moralising without actually bothering to point out how this choice of the director is bad.

And that is exactly what White does. It's meaningless crap sculpted to explain an emotional reaction to the movie that they can't address through more objective means - camerawork, story, acting, symbolism and consistency.
I dunno. Droogy at least seems able to accurately describe and analyse what he sees - an element of common sense that White lacks, in his desperate need to establish/hold his iconoclast rep - and without attacking people who feel differently. Just because he doesn't pepper his reviews with "I think" and "IMO" doesn't mean that he's trying to pass off his emotional reaction or moral evaluation as gospel (another of White's flaws).

Aside from some of the more questionable choices of language (srsly, dummkopf?), it's a good review, and I can see how the factors he's describing could lead to an unsatisfying experience for someone.

[transmogrifier]

I dunno. Droogy at least seems able to accurately describe and analyse what he sees - an element of common sense that White lacks, in his desperate need to establish/hold his iconoclast rep - and without attacking people who feel differently. Just because he doesn't pepper his reviews with "I think" and "IMO" doesn't mean that he's trying to pass off his emotional reaction or moral evaluation as gospel (another of White's flaws).

Aside from some of the more questionable choices of language (srsly, dummkopf?), it's a good review, and I can see how the factors he's describing could lead to an unsatisfying experience for someone.

But in the quote I just mention, he makes no attempt to explain WHY it is a flaw for this movie to be pursuing that line of thought - it just is, for no apparent reason.

It's like me saying No Country is a poor film because it is set in the 80s rather than being contemporary, and then listing examples of all the 80s set dressing to back up my argument. Doesn't explain a thing, does it?

BTW, I don't mind flowery language at all if the argument is sound.

[Sven]

I mind flowery language when it's cheesy or incorrect. Wunderkind - cheesy (and pointless... German?). Chiaroscuro - incorrect. Droogy's review is worse than anything I've read by White.

I like the point that the blogger linked to by Bosco makes about Daniel's apparent imperviousness from judgment from the townspeople and the law. I'm like Rowland, here... I definitely want to see this again.

[Ezee E]

I wish Droogy posted here. I disagree with him on everything, but I like his writing.

[Melville]

Yeah, I agree. And I can see how the ambiguity PTA imbues into the film adds to the film's stark symbolic allegory like you say. I think part of what the reviewer's saying is that in Anderson's desire to retain this ambiguity, we have only learned about this character through his own outward gestures, never through any real introspection (until the "opening up to brother" scene) or through the thoughts of other characters. This leaves us a bit discombobulated when we're trying to grasp who this character is and what we ought to feel towards him.
But why are you grasping for the way you "ought" to feel toward him? I think it's a mistake to try to definitively characterize or judge him, especially when he's such an obviously larger-than-life, mythical character, and when the ambiguous tone preempts such pigeon-holing. And isn't that ambiguous, external character development usually taken to be one of Citizen Kane's assets? Why does it lead to discombobulation here but acclamation there?


I usually don't like Freudian analysis of art, it's just too malleable for me... yet I find myself oddly attracted to this one. Although parts of your reading may be a little stretched (white steam vis. ejaculate), most seems reasonable and I would be inclined to believe that PTA had at least some of this stuff in mind (particularly initial sexual metaphor - puncturing of earth). One tangent I'd like to point out (perhaps obvious but still ought to be stated)... improvements in technology, particularly mining machinery, did not actually help the miners (or riggers), in that it did not lead to a safer working environment. We move from a broken wooden ladder and gradually escalate to an actual fountain of fire, which takes about 50 times more explosive to deal with than the unearthing of the gold. This sense of technological escalation seems potent to me as well. Are the oil pumps merely tools or actual weapons of industry? I think we could read some general parallels here between industrial/technological escalation and the escalation of weapons of war (from Kubrick's bone all the way to the atom bomb)... after all, it's oil which drives the war machine.
That technological escalation is obvious, but only in retrospect. Good call.


I think one reason I'm reading these gender characteristics into the film is the startling lack of a female presence. There's Mary, I guess, but she's mostly a prepubescent girl in a white dress.
True. The absence of women is so prominent that it does demand some interpretation. I'm not sure what to make of it, though.


And he returns to the breast of his Mother Earth (albeit to plunder and extract from it)

in order to regress back into an isolated, infantile state in his great big cavernous mansion.
I don't know if I can abide all this Freudian business, but that reminds me how much I liked the contrast between the beginning and the ending. In the beginning it's just Plainview and the barren (well, except for bearing gold), stark earth, with only an implicit relation with external society and its artifices; in the end it's Plainview in a pointedly artificial setting—not just in a mansion, but in a bowling alley inside a mansion. I think that ties in perfectly with the technological escalation that Qrazy pointed out, as well as with Plainview's relationship with society that I described in my first post. And it again reminds me of Sutpen in Absalom, Absalom! (Has anybody read this, or am I making a pointless reference?)


With NCFOM, the Coen's refuse to allow the spectre of capitalism to get a word in edgewise in the cacophony of rather mundane MacGuffin changing. What could have been a biting examination of how basic ecomomic theory is totally at odds with our carefully evolved social customs instead focuses tiresomely on the worthlessness of nostalgia as a worldview, continuously forcing us to reevaluate what it means to be part of a society that is at best monumentally indifferent to our presence. The Coen's continue to push this line of sermonizing to its breaking point, not once allowing America's tremulously truculent waltz with Ann Rynd economic theory a hearing in amongst the headlong crawl into the existential abyss.
:lol:

I'd rep you if it weren't for the misspelling of Ayn Rand.


But in the quote I just mention, he makes no attempt to explain WHY it is a flaw for this movie to be pursuing that line of thought - it just is, for no apparent reason.
Yeah, his whole review sounds like he would simply prefer the movie to tell a different story in a different way. Why is it a flaw to present the characters as mythic archetypes when that is obviously congruent with the film's aesthetic? Why is it a flaw to marginalize the townspeople when the story is structured as a fable? All the things he criticizes are obviously purposeful; in order for the criticism to be valid, he needs to criticize their failure to achieve that purpose, or to give a more meaningful criticism of the purpose itself, rather than just complaining that the film doesn't have a different purpose.

[Melville]

I mind flowery language when it's cheesy or incorrect. Wunderkind - cheesy (and pointless... German?). Chiaroscuro - incorrect.
Really? What was wrong with his use of "chiaroscuro"?

[Sven]

He was using it to mean "darkness" or "black". The townspeople were covered in oily blackness. Chiaroscuro is a shading technique. Blackness is not chiaroscuro. A style of variation in shade is chiaroscuro, and variation is not what Droogy was talking about.

Plus, it's just a horribly pretentious word that irritates me whenever anyone uses it.

[Melville]

He was using it to mean "darkness" or "black". The townspeople were covered in oily blackness. Chiaroscuro is a shading technique. Blackness is not chiaroscuro. A style of variation in shade is chiaroscuro, and variation is not what Droogy was talking about.

Plus, it's just a horribly pretentious word that irritates me whenever anyone uses it.
Given the interplay between the flickering light from the soaring tower of fire and the darkness of the night, I think his use of the word really does describe the lighting in the scene. Although you're right that he kind of contradicts himself by saying the characters are "swallowed up by the night’s oblivion".

Anyway, "oleaginous" is way more pretentious, especially in its oh-so-clever connection to the scene's events.

[Sven]

Anyway, "oleaginous" is way more pretentious, especially in its oh-so-clever connection to the scene's theme.

I know. I refused to even repeat the word.

Hilariously enough, answer.com's second definition of the word is "Falsely or smugly earnest; unctuous". Tee-hee.

[Rowland]

If anyone wants to read an interesting dissenting opinion, Sick Droogy wrote one over in RT-GD.Is it really that interesting? Most of his points mirror mine here, only dressed up in infinitely more ornate language. Which I suppose is a large factor for its allure and potential persuasiveness. Oh well..

[Watashi]

Is it really that interesting? Most of his points mirror mine here, only dressed up in infinitely more ornate language. Which I suppose is a large factor for its allure and potential persuasiveness. Oh well..
Sure it is. He definitely disliked the film more than you.

I love Droogy. He's probably my favorite online reviewer (when he does write something), mainly for unabashedly love for everything Spielberg.

[Ezee E]

Sure it is. He definitely disliked the film more than you.

I love Droogy. He's probably my favorite online reviewer (when he does write something), mainly for unabashedly love for everything Spielberg.
Yeah. I don't think he likes a movie UNLESS it's done by Spielberg.

I read the TWBB review, and it's pure Droogy. I agree with none of it, but it was a good read.

However, after watching it a second time, I see that it isn't quite as serious at the end as I thought. It goes for comedy, and maybe a little too much, that it somewhat takes away from Plainview's descent. I will probably take it off my #1 movie of the year, and replace it with No Country For Old Men, but, it's still masterful, but mostly because of Daniel Day-Lewis. Several scenes just sit on him as he talks or even listens to people, but he's just so good at it that you don't think about the need for the movie to be stylish.

One thing though, I hate the "mature" word when used for directors. It seems like "mature" is associated with long, non-moving shots. Something that Lumet, Eastwood, and Allen use a lot. Those directors are also considered "boring" by many people, so it's a catch-22. This is still anything but boring though. It moved a lot faster the second time around.

[Sven]

Rep for you, E, for your calling out of the ridiculous application of the "m" word. One of my very very very biggest pet peeves is when people refer to Jackie Brown as a "mature" QT work. :frustrated:

[Watashi]

Oh, heh. I didn't read E's post and just assumed the "m" word is 'milkshake'.

[Sven]

Oh, heh. I didn't read E's post and just assumed the "m" word is 'milkshake'.

No, that part was awesome.

[Spinal]

Rep for you, E, for your calling out of the ridiculous application of the "m" word. One of my very very very biggest pet peeves is when people refer to Jackie Brown as a "mature" QT work. :frustrated:

Long, non-moving shots = mature.

Experimentation with form = student film.

Or didn't you know?

[Sven]

Or didn't you know?

:sulks:

[origami_mustache]

Long, non-moving shots = mature.

Experimentation with form = student film.

Or didn't you know?

haha I prefer the terms classical and new wave.

[Benny Profane]

However, after watching it a second time, I see that it isn't quite as serious at the end as I thought. It goes for comedy, and maybe a little too much, that it somewhat takes away from Plainview's descent.

100% agree. I don't typically mind comedic elements in such scenes. I know you're a big fan of Goodfellas, and I'm sure that, like me, you were laughing at some of the scary, intense parts of that film, and yet it still did not take away from their scary intensity!

But with TWBB, in that scene only, it crosses a line, and it leaves a sour taste as it's the last scene in the film.

[Raiders]

I don't think the "milkshake" scene was all that ridiculous or different than the rest of the film. In particular, I think back to Eli's over-the-top sermon and I see the finale as Daniel's exaggerated sermon on how he has defeated Eli. How he has "won." I think the sheer absurdity, ridiculousness and vengeance to his dialogue only accentuates his fall and moral bankruptcy even more so than before.

[Sven]

The only beef I have with the last scene is how it lies within the film's thematic framework. For being a technical and visceral standalone sequence (and narrative capper), I think its humor only works for it. It's a fantastic scene in and of itself. Great performances, great rhythm, interesting blocking... I do not see validity in the complaints that it is too funny. Maybe just in that it was so funny that the murder comes as a completely incongruous shock and is thereby exploitative, but I don't think that's what you're complaining about.

[Raiders]

To add to what I said above, think about how petty and depraved he comes across. How gleeful and delighted he is over having beaten Eli. It's funny because he is so ridiculously exaggerated about something that ultimately is meaningless. His son was what was important, but he swept that away. But when he gets the chance to rub his "victory" into Eli's face, he jumps at the chance with veracity. It only highlights the film's idea that Daniel is an empty man, constantly at war with people, to beat them, to be better. He is finally alone, but he finds purpose in that last scene in finally destroying the one foe that had evaded him until that moment. It is his retribution for the church scene, his aggrandized sermon on how he has won. His final act coupled with that speech just shows how inhuman and how obsessed with being on top (and being alone) he has become.

It is a perfect sequence in my opinion.

[Benny Profane]

It is a perfect sequence in my opinion.

It was too hammy.

[Ezee E]

Hmm... I guess by the time the murder happens, we forget the humor that was seen earlier, and immediately return to seeing the drunken man that can barely walk down the bowling alley. He remains miserable despite the small defeat, only to continue shooting a shotgun in his house.

This really has me at a standstill now. The humor may just be overdone a little bit as Benny Profane mentioned, like when Daniel marches around.

Hmm... I don't know.

Maybe a third time will be the charm. It'd be worth it as I fear how it'll play on a smaller screen.

[Raiders]

Damn, man. I was gettin' into that, too. Oh well, I'll take my response down.

[Sven]

Come to think of it, if there's anything that I don't like about Kane, it's the reveal of Rosebud. Talk about blunt reveal.

Edit: comment is still true, but now appears to be a complete non-sequitur in light of a deleted dialogue.

[Sven]

I thought your comments were pretty good, Rowls. As were yours, Raiders.

[Raiders]

Come to think of it, if there's anything that I don't like about Kane, it's the reveal of Rosebud. Talk about blunt reveal.

Blunt? Maybe, but it's so important by bookending the film with a picture of Kane's shortened, stunted youth. It shows the simplicity he wanted that contrasted with the web of grandiosity and lies he wound up weaving. It's all about the picture of the small house in the snow globe and the final shot of his childhood toy.

[Sven]

Blunt? Maybe, but it's so important by bookending the film with a picture of Kane's shortened, stunted youth. It shows the simplicity he wanted that contrasted with the web of grandiosity and lies he wound up weaving. It's all about the picture of the small house in the snow globe and the final shot of his childhood toy.

I do not think the idea of realizing its the sled is at all a mistake. However, it's like:

"I guess we'll never know what Rosebud is. Oh well, how can a man be defined by one elusive utterance anyhow. Let's stop trying to figure out what it was like to be Charles Foster Kane."

Cut to:

OMG, IT'S HIS SLED!

It was a little artless, which is a shame given the rest of the film's extraordinary handling of information.

[Rowland]

Damn, man. I was gettin' into that, too. Oh well, I'll take my response down.Yeah, I think that was just an outburst stemming from frustration, and my mind is getting boggled by reading so much exultant praise for the movie. I recognized almost immediately that I wasn't prepared to defend that, nor was I sure if I believed it. I might just keep my mouth shut until I see this again, because I hardly even know what I believe anymore, and peer pressure is a fucking bitch. :)

[Raiders]

I do not think the idea of realizing its the sled is at all a mistake. However, it's like:

"I guess we'll never know what Rosebud is. Oh well, how can a man be defined by one elusive utterance anyhow. Let's stop trying to figure out what it was like to be Charles Foster Kane."

Cut to:

OMG, IT'S HIS SLED!

It was a little artless, which is a shame given the rest of the film's extraordinary handling of information.

I think the reveal of it being the sled is as important as highlighting the destruction of the sled. Since they never found out what it is, his place in history will be solely up to those who probably never understood him. I think it is intentionally contrasted with their words because we realize now they will have the final say as far as history is concerned, and Kane's unfortunate longing for the simplicity and innocence of his childhood will never be known.

But, this may be getting OT. I mainly used the film as an example since Daniel and Kane are similar fellows and it seemed the most obvious rebuttal to Rowland's statement.

[Sven]

I think the reveal of it being the sled is as important as highlighting the destruction of the sled. Since they never found out what it is, his place in history will be solely up to those who probably never understood him. I think it is intentionally contrasted with their words because we realize now they will have the final say as far as history is concerned, and Kane's unfortunate longing for the simplicity and innocence of his childhood will never be known.

Putting it into a historical context is interesting, but it still feels like Welles is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Poor investigative schmucks, trying to figure a human being out. Then voila! Welles provides us, the audience, with the key to his life. So we're in the know, but history's out of the loop.

[Ezee E]

Putting it into a historical context is interesting, but it still feels like Welles is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Poor investigative schmucks, trying to figure a human being out. Then voila! Welles provides us, the audience, with the key to his life. So we're in the know, but history's out of the loop.
But I want to know... WHY did he call it Rosebud?

Dun dun dun!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I wonder if you're playing devil's advocate on that case iosos, because showing Rosebud at the end doesn't give you all the answers. It still took a little bit of interpretation. It's not subtle by anymeans, but its not hammering it on to you. It's about right.

[Spinal]

There's nothing wrong with the ending that couldn't be solved by recasting Paul Dano. :)

[Duncan]

There's nothing wrong with the ending that couldn't be solved by recasting Paul Dano. :)

I think I read somewhere that Dano was the recasted actor.

[Spinal]

I think I read somewhere that Dano was the recasted actor.

Oy.

[Qrazy]

Putting it into a historical context is interesting, but it still feels like Welles is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. Poor investigative schmucks, trying to figure a human being out. Then voila! Welles provides us, the audience, with the key to his life. So we're in the know, but history's out of the loop.

Um... no.

[dreamdead]

I think I read somewhere that Dano was the recasted actor.

Yeah, NPR reported this story when they interviewed Dano. I haven't seen his last two films (neither Little Miss Sunshine or this), but a good friend reacted quite negatively to his viewing of TWbB. I'm even more excited for this now. :)

[Duncan]

A lot of criticism about Citizen Kane nowadays actually contends that the investigator is right, and that he speaks for the filmmaker: you can't know a man from one object.

There're two hours of insightful character study preceding that reveal. A sled doesn't negate those hours, it just adds another piece to a puzzle that will remain unfinished.

[origami_mustache]

My friend sent me this interview with P.T. Anderson and Daniel-Day Lewis.

http://www.charlierose.com/guests/paul-anderson

Runtime of around 53 minutes...I found it enjoyable...

[Spinal]

My friend sent me this interview with P.T. Anderson and Daniel-Day Lewis.

http://www.charlierose.com/guests/paul-anderson

Runtime of around 53 minutes...I found it enjoyable...

Just watched a bit. This is great.

"Could Cate Blanchett play Eli maybe?"

:lol:

[origami_mustache]

Just watched a bit. This is great.

"Could Cate Blanchett play Eli maybe?"

:lol:

haha yes I got a laugh out of that too.

[Duncan]

I always take Walter Chaw with a grain of salt because it seems he twists every single movie to fit his own world view, but I like reading his writing. Review (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/therewillbeblood.htm). He touches on the Freudian stuff I was mentioning.

[chrisnu]

They're using "I drink your milkshake" in TV commercials! What the hell are you doing, man!

[Qrazy]

They're using "I drink your milkshake" in TV commercials! What the hell are you doing, man!

Draining?

[Sycophant]

My thoughts on this movie are all over the place, and I'm not going to be comfortable digging myself into an opinion until at least one more viewing. The film didn't engage me emotionally as much as I wish it did, but it was hauntingly beautiful (and yes, Duncan, distinctly American), Day-Lewis's performance was incredible (and I liked Dano, too), and sure had a hell of a score. Hmmm...

[Rowland]

My thoughts on this movie are all over the place, and I'm not going to be comfortable digging myself into an opinion until at least one more viewing. The film didn't engage me emotionally as much as I wish it did, but it was hauntingly beautiful (and yes, Duncan, distinctly American), Day-Lewis's performance was incredible (and I liked Dano, too), and sure had a hell of a score. Hmmm...Sounds like the same position I ended up at.

[Sycophant]

Sounds like the same position I ended up at.
Pretty much. I empathized with your plight as I progressed through the thread.

[Wryan]

Well, I sure as shit loved it. Not full-marks-loved-it, but close.

This thread has been interesting to skim through (no offense to any of the combatants), but I just want to describe what happened to me during the Baptism scene.

A few years ago, a few months after I made the conscious decision to "be a film buff" (actually read books about the artform, study its history and theory, and watch lots of films from many genres! imagine...), I sat down one lonely night to bask in the glow of newly-discovered TCM. Fred Niblo's Ben-Hur was on. I had seen Wyler's version fully only once before but haphazardly many times (it's bloated but still nifty). I loved this version so much. Gorgeous music and had remarkably restrained and subtle acting for a silent film (me only knowing the untrained stereotype then). The film is lean and mean. Ramon Novarro and Francis X. Bushman are terrific as the sparring leads. Late in the film, before The Chariot Race, the two men are behind the curtain so to speak but aren't aware of the presence of their hated enemy just yet. Some peons are walking around taking bets for the rich folks and Bushman, who plays the hulking Messala, overhears something about betting odds not going well in his favor and grabs the poor, weak man as if he's just been insulted. He begins to thrash the man about (I know, but there's really no other word for it), and Judah, being the strapping, bronzed hero-stud that he is, steps in to save the dude. In tearing the betmonger away from Messala's grip, the two men finally see each other, faces inches away. The ensuing stare ripped into me like a buzz saw. It probably only lasted about 3 seconds, but I could have sworn to you it lasted a good 15 before the camera cut to another angle. The power of that simple look was overwhelming, volcanic. I felt as if I might suffocate just watching them look at each other. It justified everything.

Until There Will Be Blood, I hadn't seen a moment of such ferocity and terror (mine) in a film, and that was a few years ago. In the Baptism scene, when Eli has Daniel kneeling, with no mercy in sight, and forces Daniel to turn himself inside out and throw his innards out onto the floor for "these people," I was certain there would be [early] blood. In a shot that lasts a second, when Plainview looks up at Eli, between anger-trembling shouts, I felt that same radiating power again. I was scared that the theatre I was watching the film in would explode, and I'm not talking about the audience. Physically, structurally, I felt as if the theatre would come down around me. The ridiculous lily-slaps and smug smile of Plainview after he repents were like a cold bucket of water on my chest, the only possible way such a high could be deflated, abrupt and fast.

I fuckin love having these moments, even if I have to wait several years between them.

[Robby P]

I thought the baptism scene was quite comical, actually. Not intended to frighten so much as amuse. But what do I know. I was the only person in my theater laughing at the ending as well.

[origami_mustache]

I thought the baptism scene was quite comical, actually. Not intended to frighten so much as amuse. But what do I know. I was the only person in my theater laughing at the ending as well.

It was amusing up until a certain point. At first Daniel is obviously being sarcastic and slightly resistant, doing his best to belittle Eli, but when his child is brought up it becomes similar to a public execution as Daniel is humiliated and forced against his will to confront his inner demons in front of a group of strangers.

[Sycophant]

I thought the baptism scene was quite comical, actually. Not intended to frighten so much as amuse. But what do I know. I was the only person in my theater laughing at the ending as well.That scene, like its counterpart at the end, was all over the map tonally, much like the most of the best moments in Anderson's films.

[origami_mustache]

That scene, like its counterpart at the end, was all over the map tonally, much like the most of the best moments in Anderson's films.

Do you mean that to be a bad thing? To me mixed tonality is more realistic, I rarely am overwhelmed by one emotion at any given moment and there is always plenty of comedy in the absurdity of human behavior even in the most tragic moments. (people overcrowding the gas stations and paying exorbitant amounts of money following the 9/11 incident just to name one)

[Sycophant]

Do you mean that to be a bad thing? To me mixed tonality is more realistic, I rarely am overwhelmed by one emotion at any given moment and there is always plenty of comedy in the absurdity of human behavior even in the most tragic moments. (people overcrowding the gas stations and paying exorbitant amounts of money following the 9/11 incident just to name one)
Good Lord, no. I'm one of the biggest advocates for tonal mixing you'll find (love me some The Host and any number of golden age Hong Kong films). I really mean that those tend to be the best moments in Anderson's films. I'm reminded of the scene in Punch-Drunk Love where Barry smashes his sister's window or the scene at Alfred Molina's apartment in Boogie Nights. In all four of the scenes (including those in TWBB), my jaw was already open in shock when I also laughed. Horribly tense, profoundly funny, sickeningly humiliating, and patently absurd. Love it.

[origami_mustache]

Good Lord, no. I'm one of the biggest advocates for tonal mixing you'll find (love me some The Host and any number of golden age Hong Kong films). I really mean that those tend to be the best moments in Anderson's films. I'm reminded of the scene in Punch-Drunk Love where Barry smashes his sister's window or the scene at Alfred Molina's apartment in Boogie Nights. In all four of the scenes (including those in TWBB), my jaw was already open in shock when I also laughed. Horribly tense, profoundly funny, sickeningly humiliating, and patently absurd. Love it.

OK good then...rep for you sir haha.

[Ivan Drago]

It's finally coming here on Friday. Can't. Wait.

[origami_mustache]

I really love the new TV spot with the baptism scene and the Oscar nominations.

[Ezee E]

I really love the new TV spot with the baptism scene and the Oscar nominations.
Wish these were online.

[Wryan]

I really love the new TV spot with the baptism scene and the Oscar nominations.

This isn't an oscar-themed spot, but it's paced beautifully and it rocks.

http://www.iklipz.com/MovieDetail.aspx?MovieID=f3483 c20-70c3-489a-ab84-0e80d45cc0d4

[chrisnu]

Watched it again, and my initial assumptions were wrong. It's really not mocking or belittling religion. It's actually very pitiful how Daniel lords his self-proclaimed victory over such a weaker person, no matter how Eli presents himself.

The mystery I most want to know is what Daniel said to Eli after the baptism. Eli recoils after hearing what he said.

[number8]

I think it has to do with Eli believing that by baptizing Daniel, he has humiliated him and took him over into his side, but Daniel then revealed something surprising to Eli, that by joining Eli's cause, Daniel has gained more supporters into his cause, therefore stealing Eli's congregation.

[Benny Profane]

I thought Daniel was just threatening Eli, like when he told the oil man he'd slit his throat for telling him how to run his family.

[ledfloyd]

i'm seeing this tomorrow. finally!

[Ezee E]

I thought Daniel was just threatening Eli, like when he told the oil man he'd slit his throat for telling him how to run his family.
That's what I assumed. I'm wondering if it was improv on his part as well.

[Cherish]

Watched it again, and my initial assumptions were wrong. It's really not mocking or belittling religion. It's actually very pitiful how Daniel lords his self-proclaimed victory over such a weaker person, no matter how Eli presents himself.

I agree!


The mystery I most want to know is what Daniel said to Eli after the baptism. Eli recoils after hearing what he said.

I was dying to know this, during this scene. But, did he really recoil? I thought he smiled. (Though it could have been a nervous smile I suppose.)

I have to see this movie again!

[Boner M]

9 days.

[Kurosawa Fan]

:pritch:

This opened here today!!!

[Ezee E]

Yeah. If you don't have it in theaters now, you'll probably never get it. It's in 1200+ now.

[lovejuice]

something funny happened today. i was talking with my boss about the growth of cloud drop, and he mentioned the comparison between condensation and milkshake sucking. i fast enough reminded him where he got this analogy from. (i knew he watched the movie, and actually liked it.) but he just didn't remember the lines. funny how innocent a non-movie geek can be!

[Spinal]

Is this going to be one of those lines that they show a clip of at every Oscar ceremony for the next 100 years?

"I coulda been a contender."
"They call me Mr. Tibbs!"
*shot of side of house falling over and nearly killing Buster Keaton*
"Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."
"I drink your milkshake!"

[Wryan]

Is this going to be one of those lines that they show a clip of at every Oscar ceremony for the next 100 years?

"I coulda been a contender."
"They call me Mr. Tibbs!"
*shot of side of house falling over and nearly killing Buster Keaton*
"Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."
"I drink your milkshake!"

Possibly, but I'd rather have something from Baptism scene myself. :)

[Spinal]

Possibly, but I'd rather have something from Baptism scene myself. :)

Awesome scene. And I think it works a smidge better than the final scene, which does get a wee bit OTT.

[DavidSeven]

Possibly, but I'd rather have something from Baptism scene myself. :)

Just caught the Oscar spot on TV with clips from the Baptism scene the other day. Great stuff. It might be the best "list of awards" TV spot I've ever seen.

[Benny Profane]

I think those TV ads give away the best part of the movie. Shame on them for making a whole trailer out of it. I think it would dilute its impact severely when people finally see the film.

[DavidSeven]

I think those TV ads give away the best part of the movie. Shame on them for making a whole trailer out of it. I think it would dilute its impact severely when people finally see the film.

It's not like there's a built in audience here that would have seen the film anyway. They have to do what they can to bring people in. If that means showing snippets of the film's best scene to get people to see the whole picture then I don't think you can fault them for that.

[Benny Profane]

It's not like there's a built in audience here that would have seen the film anyway. They have to do what they can to bring people in. If that means showing snippets of the film's best scene to get people to see the whole picture then I don't think you can fault them for that.

I'd agree with you if it didn't JUST expand to a lot more theatres, where people in those areas who WERE planning on seeing it have been subjected to the ad in the meantime.

[chrisnu]

Is this going to be one of those lines that they show a clip of at every Oscar ceremony for the next 100 years?

"I coulda been a contender."
"They call me Mr. Tibbs!"
*shot of side of house falling over and nearly killing Buster Keaton*
"Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."
"I drink your milkshake!"
"DRAAAIIIIIIINAGE!"

[ledfloyd]

hmm... i think my thoughts are a little muddled on this one. i wanted to like it more than i did, and as seems to be a motif with me and anderson, i wasn't completely won over until the final reel. i kinda agree with syncophant. though i think i'll wait until dvd to watch it again.

on first glance i'd say it's really really good but not deserving of the superlatives being thrown it's way. it will probably be in the middle of my year end top 10. i'm not there, zodiac, and NCFOM are all better in my view.

i think daniel day lewis' performance is likely the best of the year. i don't however think it's one of the greatest performances of all time.

also, i can't remember this much debated flashback at all. i did have a panic attack about two thirds of the way into the picture. maybe i missed it when i was attempting to calm myself down.

[Mysterious Dude]

Is this going to be one of those lines that they show a clip of at every Oscar ceremony for the next 100 years?

"I coulda been a contender."
"They call me Mr. Tibbs!"
*shot of side of house falling over and nearly killing Buster Keaton*
"Toto, I don't think we're in Kansas anymore."
"I drink your milkshake!"
I doubt it. I think maybe it's up there with "This! Is! Sparta!"

[Spinal]

I doubt it. I think maybe it's up there with "This! Is! Sparta!"

Well, they use that Gladiator clip. It's at least better than that.

[Spinal]

i think daniel day lewis' performance is likely the best of the year. i don't however think it's one of the greatest performances of all time.

I prefer his Gangs of New York performance, but this one is still awesome.

[ledfloyd]

I prefer his Gangs of New York performance, but this one is still awesome.
i agree. i've read in some blogs and other forums though that this performance is up there with brando and deniro's best. i really don't think it deserves even being considered that highly. though it is very good.

i have been walking around the house all night just randomly shouting "I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE! I DRINK IT UP!" it's fun.

i stand by my ***1/2 rating. i think it's my favorite of anderson's films, still though it suffers (slightly) from his weaknesses. it's a near-great film and one of the best of the year.

[Ezee E]

"Why don't I own this? WHY DON'T I OWN THIS!?"

[Watashi]

I want this t-shirt.

http://images.etsy.com/all_images/4/4b7/f08/il_430xN.18363809.jpg

NOW.

[Bosco B Thug]

I finally got to watch this again today, 3 long months after my first viewing.

Hopefully I'll be able to come up with something articulate about how this film has sooooo many problems. I'm not up to it now, I just wouldn't know where to start. :P

[Milky Joe]

I HAVE ABANDONED MY CHILD. I HAVE ABANDONED MY CHILD.

[Bosco B Thug]

By the end of the film, the character study has become something truly affecting because Day-Lewis' Daniel Plainview is so consistent and complete. His descent is perfectly mapped by himself and PTA. Plainview hates himself. He hates Eli because he sees himself in Eli, a fellow entrepreneur in deep personal repression. In Daniel is always a nagging sense of inadequacy due to all the shortcomings he feels in himself that eat away his strength. He can't "deal" with people. He judges everyone from afar but to no avail, for he knows they are, unlike him, confident or well-adjusted. He has no joy in life: he's had no women in his life, he's not easy-going, he "envies" people. His competition stems from the fact all he has got is his self-respect: his status, his power, his wealth, how others look at him.

It begins when HW is deafened and we see Daniel get tired of his son really fast, a son he might have felt love and affection for once, but a love he knows he feels fading due to a certain lack of, say, "emotional stamina." He now has lost his image as a normal "family man." Then his brother comes in. He gets tired of him, too, rather quickly. What Daniel Plainview is going through becomes most palpable in his scenes with his competitor Tilford. Daniel sees in Tilford that "easy-going-ness and confidence," and Daniel envies him for it. Daniel lashes out at him twice. Tilford takes it all with a humble passivity, but in his retract is a condescending bemusement, an acknowledgement of Plainview as a fool in his deeply rooted lack of social skills. In Plainview's desperate tirades is revealed a want to hide that nagging fear of other people and insecurity over "what they have that he doesn't have." The Tilford scenes, notably the "Lunch scene" when Tilford and an entourage enter the same restaurant Daniel and HW are at causing Daniel to launch into another very embarrasing display of "I'm a normal man, not a joyless prude, goddangit!", finally show us what is at hand in Daniel's ultimate resignation into his own pathological insecurity.

What's really interesting about Day-Lewis' performance in the film is that in pivotal scenes of supposed emotional duress, Day-Lewis is acting out Daniel, who himself is acting. His outlash on Eli he camoflouges with his remorse over his son's deafening; his baptism is him wanting to feel truly that he wants his son back to him, in that his remorse is making him feel better as well as proving himself against the true emotional swindler, Eli, who is fooled into believing he now has power over him; his welcoming his son back is again him wanting to feel for his son (as he maybe occasionally did). Then the final scene: Daniel has accepted his neurosis and his role as the the iosos-coined "Old Moneybags the Ye Olde Theatre Sociopath." This is the only way he will feel strong: alone and domineeringly wealthy and leering over sad sacks like his son and the translator and Eli. "Your my competitorrrrrrrr now," he tells his son in the most over-the-top growl of a delivery he could possibly do - he has fully inhabited his role as the power-hungry loony. He has found self-respect in his sociopathy, so he takes on the character now without reservation. It's like The Haunting of Hill House, Daniel as Eleanor, oil the ghosts. Day-Lewis is truly great in the last quarter of the film, and in this last scene he shows he's aware that this guy Daniel Plainview is as predisposed to the deliciously malicious menace of his line "I drink your milkshake!!!" as the viewer is.

--------------

Okay, now that I got out of the way that the film has something going for it - Daniel Plainview the character, Day-Lewis the actor, and PTA the director (I warmed up to his techniques this time around) - I can now say...

This movie has so so so so so so so so so many problems. It's so unbelievably shaky and presumptuous in its goals to appease with its grandiose "historic parable" of a Hell-on-American-Earth landscape, situated all so narrowly in this one man's self-destruction, that the film feels so many times on the brink of collapsing under all its stylistic padding.

We see Plainview go about his personal manifest destiny but as Dan Sallitt pointed out, there's no fabric behind these, given, very effective threads of personal longings PTA acutely whittles out of ambiguous pathologies (much like in Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love, although those films are more succesful at creating that fabric). PTA is best with emotional details, but he's balls at bringing in a fabric of society or collusion between scenes (thus the "film jumps from set piece to set piece" argument). The film ambles about with Daniel, focusing only on him. He's in pretty much every scene, every shot. It's unsatisfying when he walks out to a townhouse full of townspeople who all we see do is appear suddenly in groups and listen blank-faced. Sure it's purposeful, but it's still unsatisfying in its divorcing the film from breadth of perspective.

The film's a string of punchlines about how business-oriented and judgemental and self-righteous Daniel Plainview is. We laugh when Eli takes Daniel's hand in prayer. We laugh at how Plainview scoffs. Now he's showing up the religious Abel by speaking to a confused Mary about her abuse while Abel looks awkward. It's a pleasantly acerbic scene, yes, but why couldn't we have seen more of what Abel was feeling? What Mary was feeling? Every character outside of Daniel and maybe his son are role-players, stuck in a niche of pat emotions to display. We're not made to wonder or contemplate these people at the church lapping up Eli's monologue because that whole scene's a visual gag, we're only supposed to take in the absurdity and visual panache of the scene. The film's characterized by this method of using stingers and one-liners to convey topics that should be textured and not so palatable.

The music itself is a punchline. Daniel finishes off giving Eli the middle finger at the derrick ceremony and a celebratory flourish of secular classical music starts. Okay, again, pleasantly acerbic, but it's again a cheap punchline, especially since it's not diagetic. I thought there was a little chamber orchestra there at the ceremony until I realized its a full-blown orchestra playing. Aggressively percussive music chimes in as Plainview runs to shelter with his son in his arms. I'm not really feeling it until the music continues on in order to be the hellish background music to Plainview's big "He is now consumed by his obsession" scene. Very romantic, yes, but not edgy. The Shining's "consumed by madness" shot with the disonnant music is subversive in its subliminal "Ah. There it is. It was only a matter of time before nastiness was gonna win this American bastard over." There Will Be Blood's scene functions the same way, but in the film's blithe histrionics, we see it coming a mile away.

Going on, in that same scene Plainview acknowledges his son is "not okay" after the derrick explosion... ok, that's pleasantly revealing... but there's no fabric to it, there's no set-up. It's an appeal to pathos that isn't fully deserved. The twin "power play" scenes - the baptism and the bowling alley - show that the whole film is a punchline on the perverse apparatus of self-destruction that characterizes these two's weak-willed investments in their respective power institutions. It's appealing in its aggressive misanthropy, but it's hardly well-mounted.

Little things like that accumulate to really threaten bringing this picture down while it balances so precariously on its virtues of passionate - a bit stiff but still reelingly compassionate - filmmaking, and acute psychology.

Bwahahaha. Started last night, wrapped it up now. Cathartic.

[Ivan Drago]

I saw this last night. It was amazing.

But the weirdest thing about my experience seeing it - I go into the theater, and I see quite a few 8-12 year olds. And two of them were discussing the Academy Awards. I had to walk out and see if I was in the right theater.

And I downloaded the score off of Limewire, but the music used in the trailer (part of which is in excerpt 7 of the score earlier in this thread) isn't in the album, so now I can't find it anywhere.

[Ivan Drago]

Possibly, but I'd rather have something from Baptism scene myself. :)

I'VE ABANDONED MY CHILD! I'VE ABANDONED MY CHILD!

[Mysterious Dude]

I'm partial to:

"I AM A FALSE PROPHET AND GOD IS A SUPERSTITION!"

[Spinal]

BASTARD IN A BASKET!

[Mysterious Dude]

One kind of minor thing about the movie that bugged me: I wish the interpreter hadn't put so much inflection in his translation of H.W.'s words ("I thank God... that I don't have any of you in me"). He should have been more like the interpreter in Fail-Safe, speaking really flat and letting the words speak for themselves.

[monolith94]

I do not think the idea of realizing its the sled is at all a mistake. However, it's like:

"I guess we'll never know what Rosebud is. Oh well, how can a man be defined by one elusive utterance anyhow. Let's stop trying to figure out what it was like to be Charles Foster Kane."

Cut to:

OMG, IT'S HIS SLED!

It was a little artless, which is a shame given the rest of the film's extraordinary handling of information.
But they don't just show his sled, they show his sled being tossed into the fire, burning to a crisp. Revealing the sled on its own isn't as interesting as the poetry of the incineration itself. This post is reductionist.

[Milky Joe]

God, the baptism scene was so awesome. There's one look that DDL gives toward Eli as he keeps egging him on to be louder that is almost indescribable... basically the meanest, most vitriolic stare of pure hatred in the history of cinema. Then he moves from that into something that sort of hints at his approaching true regret just under the surface... unbelievable acting.

[Qrazy]

One kind of minor thing about the movie that bugged me: I wish the interpreter hadn't put so much inflection in his translation of H.W.'s words ("I thank God... that I don't have any of you in me"). He should have been more like the interpreter in Fail-Safe, speaking really flat and letting the words speak for themselves.

I didn't feel the interpreter in Fail-safe was flat. He just used cadence and pauses to express meaning and importance more than inflection.

[Mysterious Dude]

I didn't feel the interpreter in Fail-safe was flat. He just used cadence and pauses to express meaning and importance more than inflection.
Flat isn't the best word. I just liked that he wasn't adding a lot of unnecessary drama to the words.

"I ask you to believe... I wish it were not so."

Whereas I thought H.W.'s translator was a little to breathy and opinionated.

[Ivan Drago]

I'm still trying to find the music used during the scene where H.W. goes blind and the oil well catches fire. It was used in the trailer, too, but it's not on the soundtrack. Does anyone know where I can find it?

[Silencio]

I'm still trying to find the music used during the scene where H.W. goes blind and the oil well catches fire. It was used in the trailer, too, but it's not on the soundtrack. Does anyone know where I can find it?It's called "Convergence" from Greenwood's album Bodysong.

[Silencio]

Whereas I thought H.W.'s translator was a little to breathy and opinionated.This didn't bother me too much as it seemed that the translator was also affected by Plainview's attitude, calling him a dog and whatnot.

[Ivan Drago]

It's called "Convergence" from Greenwood's album Bodysong.

Thanks, man! :)

[number8]

Bastard in a basket is definitely my favorite.

[Spinal]

USA Today on the popularity of the milkshake line. (http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2008-02-03-blood-milkshake_N.htm)

[Sycophant]

Anderson concedes that he's puzzled by the phenomenon — particularly because the lines came straight from a transcript he found of the 1924 congressional hearings over the Teapot Dome scandal, in which Sen. Albert Fall was convicted of accepting bribes for oil-drilling rights to public lands in Wyoming and California.

In explaining oil drainage, Fall's "way of describing it was to say 'Sir, if you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake and my straw reaches across the room, I'll end up drinking your milkshake,' " Anderson says. "I just took this insane concept and used it."Wow.

I like to think to myself, by the way, that I can say this phrase pretty well, though I haven't tried it out on other people yet.

I knew of the line before I saw the film. Personally, I had really hoped that Daniel was going to drink the mlikshakes of one of the guys in the restaurant as an intimidation/domination tactic. The way it actually was was of course glorious and, yes, less absurd.

[Ivan Drago]

To me mixed tonality is more realistic

How is that? I'm curious.

[origami_mustache]

How is that? I'm curious.

I just don't feel that is black and white emotionally. I like to think life is a bit more complex than one tone.

[Spinal]

I have Daniel Day-Lewis line readings stuck in my head, much like one would have a song stuck in their head. This is a really weird feeling.

[ledfloyd]

I have Daniel Day-Lewis line readings stuck in my head, much like one would have a song stuck in their head. This is a really weird feeling.
i hear you there. it's been like that all weekend.

[Ivan Drago]

I have Daniel Day-Lewis line readings stuck in my head, much like one would have a song stuck in their head. This is a really weird feeling.

Same here. I have either said these out loud or had them stuck in my head since Saturday:

"Ladies and gentlemen, if I say I'm an oil man you will agree. I'm a family man. I run a family business - this is my son and my partner H.W. Plainview."

"You boys are a little late."

"What's this? Why don't I own this? WHY DON'T I OWN THIS?"

"I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I see the worst in people."

"I...drink...your...MILKSHAKE!"

"Whiskey for me and water for the boy. And goat's milk!"

"I'VE ABANDONED MY CHILD! I'VE ABANDONED MY CHILD!"

"I'm finished!"

"BASTARD IN A BASKET!"

"There, now that wasn't so hard, was it?"

[Kurosawa Fan]

Wow. I'm in awe. This was incredible, and I went in with expectations in check, assuming that it couldn't live up to all the hype. It felt like a classic epic with a very modern twist. The atmosphere was intense from start to finish. Daniel Day-Lewis consistently amazes me. He sinks into a character and just disappears. From the trailer I thought I knew what to expect from him, but as always he makes a character so complex and so distinct. The running time wasn't a problem at all. Too often I feel like a film that pushes close to 3 hours could have used some trimming, but I was so immersed in this universe that Anderson created that I was actually disappointed when I could feel the conclusion coming.

Oh, and I think my favorite line from DDL was the final line in the film. Brilliant closing. My audience had mixed reactions, to say the least.

[Duncan]

Wow. I'm in awe. This was incredible, and I went in with expectations in check, assuming that it couldn't live up to all the hype. It felt like a classic epic with a very modern twist. The atmosphere was intense from start to finish. Daniel Day-Lewis consistently amazes me. He sinks into a character and just disappears. From the trailer I thought I knew what to expect from him, but as always he makes a character so complex and so distinct. The running time wasn't a problem at all. Too often I feel like a film that pushes close to 3 hours could have used some trimming, but I was so immersed in this universe that Anderson created that I was actually disappointed when I could feel the conclusion coming.

Oh, and I think my favorite line from DDL was the final line in the film. Brilliant closing. My audience had mixed reactions, to say the least.
What was the line again? Was it "I'm finished" or "I'm done" because I remember people disagreeing about that earlier and I couldn't really be sure. They mean different things to me.

[Kurosawa Fan]

It was

I'm finished.

[origami_mustache]

My friend posted this on my facebook wall and I felt compelled to share it:

"Ladies and Gentlemen, I've traveled over half the great internets to be here this evening. I couldn't get away sooner because my new thread was coming in on GameFAQS and I had to see about it. That thread is now gathering posts at two thousands barrel rolls and it's paying me an income of five thousand ROFLs a week. I have two other threads on explosm, and 16 others on xkcd. So - Ladies and Gentlemen, if I say I'm an internet man, you will agree. You have a great chance here - but bear in mind: you can lose it all if you're not careful. Out of all men that beg for a chance to get on your top friends, maybe one in twenty will be internet men. The rest will be attention whores - men trying to come between you and the series of tubes - to get some of the lulz that ought by rights come to you. Even if you find one with captioned pictures of cats that means to fly a roflcopter, he'll maybe be epic fail and just post fads -- and then you're depending on a fad that's trying to rush the laugh through -- so he can be on another forum just as quick as he can. This is the way that it works. I photoshop my own funny pictures with the men who work for me, and they're men I know. I make it my business to be there and watch youtube with them. I don't lose my gifs in the recycle bin and spend months trying to salvage my hard drive; I don't botch the hosting and let artifacts into the image and ruin the whole picture. I'm epic win like no other company in this field and that's because my threads have all just been stickied -- I have the tools all ready to put to work... I can move every zig for great justice and have them here in a week. I have peer-to-peer connections so I can get music files synced to the image -- such things go by friendship in a rush like this. And this is why I can guarantee to start making facebook more amusing and put up the account bet to back my word. I assure you, whatever the others promise to do, when it comes down to the showdown, they won't be there..."

[number8]

This is getting out of hand. I'm watching the polling results on MSNBC and they just said that Obama drank Hillary's milkshake.

[Spinal]

This is getting out of hand. I'm watching the polling results on MSNBC and they just said that Obama drank Hillary's milkshake.

Not a pleasant mental image.

[Wryan]

Not a pleasant mental image.

But funny as shit.

[number8]

If anyone wants to hear it (http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/there-will-be-blood/news/obama-drinks-hillarys-milkshake.html).

[Mysterious Dude]

I bet Keith Olbermann is the only person at MSNBC who's seen the movie.

[lovejuice]

This is getting out of hand. I'm watching the polling results on MSNBC and they just said that Obama drank Hillary's milkshake.

as funny and out-of-context that may be, it's actually a testify how great and ringing-true this movie is. (or just how over-the-top-and-campy-as-hell DDL's performance is.)

[origami_mustache]

The Milkshake scene with added live audience:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JsjkhwAPIxI

without:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIj2cuSLWIM&NR=1

[Sven]

The Milkshake scene with added live audience:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JsjkhwAPIxI
That's good.

[Ezee E]

There's a David Spade spoof of where he makes fun of all the other nominees while portraying Daniel Plainview out somewhere.

[Rowland]

UK Critic Neil Young has just posted a review (http://www.jigsawlounge.co.uk/film/content/view/750/1/) that shares some of the concerns I expressed earlier in the thread regarding how self-consciously this movie feels like it's trying to be "a masterpiece," and whether or not Anderson successfully achieves such an ambition.

Michael Sicinski interprets it (http://academichack.net/reviewsFebruary2008.htm) as a metaphor for cinema, as he does every other movie.

[Raiders]

regarding how self-consciously this movie feels like it's trying to be "a masterpiece,"

I still don't know what the heck this actually means, and that poor review certainly didn't illuminate anything for me. Most of it had my head nodding that I found all of it (especially the grotesqueness of Plainview) quite brilliantly displayed in the film. At the end, the reviewer started rambling about failed experimentation, but this is easily the least experimental of all Anderson's work I would say. It's pretty straightforward in composition. I knew I probably should have stopped reading when he called PDL the most brilliantly made film he had ever seen.

[Rowland]

I still don't know what the heck this actually meansIn my case, I didn't think the movie came across as feeling entirely comfortable in its own shoes. Of course, I never did figure out exactly why I felt that... but yeah. And maybe I'm just cynical, but it feels so much like the sort of movie we are supposed to love that I don't really trust it. After the lovely idiosyncrasy of PDL, TWBB plays like PTA precociously striving for "respect," which is justified by all of the people commending it as his first mature movie. I can't help wondering how much of the overwhelming praise (#14 on IMDb top 250!) is merely a product of how the movie looks and feels. None of these are solid criticisms so much as personal misgivings that I'll come to terms with when I see the movie again.

And yeah, Neil Young is a pretty poor critic, but I like him.

[Spinal]

Why do we criticize films for trying to be a masterpiece and praise films for knowing and embracing the fact that they are crap?

[DavidSeven]

how self-consciously this movie feels like it's trying to be "a masterpiece," and whether or not Anderson successfully achieves such an ambition.

Didn't people use this criticism for Boogie Nights and Magnolia? I remember hearing things like "I wish he would stop trying to make The Great America Movie." Someone please inform me. Why exactly would we want him to stop trying to do this?

[Rowland]

Why do we criticize films for trying to be a masterpiece and praise films for knowing and embracing the fact that they are crap?Even though you say we, I'll assume that you're addressing me. I don't do that, and I hate to think that I give that impression.

[Rowland]

Didn't people use this criticism for Boogie Nights and Magnolia? I remember hearing things like "I wish he would stop trying to make The Great America Movie." Someone please inform me. Why exactly would we want him to stop trying to do this?Well, I'm not referring to those movies, but in this instance, the movie doesn't feel as organic as it should.

Lots of "feeling," I know. *sigh*

[lovejuice]

Well, I'm not referring to those movies, but in this instance, the movie doesn't feel as organic as it should.


understand. i actually feel the same thing about many other "masterpieces." schindler's list, the pianist, batman begin, for example. there will be blood however is a case in which the movie is genuinely good, and to hell with PTA trying to make a masterpieces.

[Spinal]

Even though you say we, I'll assume that you're addressing me. I don't do that, and I hate to think that I give that impression.

I wasn't specifically referring to you. It just seems like something I hear a lot. That it is better to have low aspirations and succeed than to have high aspirations and come up short. I don't agree with that.

Personally, the film didn't feel to me to be aspiring to anything beyond the capable grasp of Anderson and Day-Lewis. But even if it had, I don't really understand that as a criticism.

[DavidSeven]

Personally, the film didn't feel to me to be aspiring to anything beyond the capable grasp of Anderson and Day-Lewis.

I think it was D'Angelo that described it as being little more than formal mastery from Anderson and ferocious turn from Day-Lewis while giving the film a very high score (for him). Obviously, there's much more to be absorbed from the film, but that breaks down the "feeling" I have about this one at a very basic level.

Edit: I'm not even sure that I like the film that much, but I feel compelled to defend it. I really need to see it again.

[Ezee E]

I can understand something like a failed masterpiece, a movie that aspires to be great, and has moments of brilliance, but is mostly teh suck.

And I understand "trash, but good trash."

But I'd take a failed masterpiece anyday.

[Benny Profane]

understand. i actually feel the same thing about many other "masterpieces." schindler's list, the pianist, batman begin, for example.


HAHAHAHAHAH!

Uh....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Ezee E]

Batman had it just as tough with the Jews dude.

He had that moment in the camp where it was raining hard and he fought off all those guys.

Same thing happened in the 40's.

[lovejuice]

HAHAHAHAHAH!

Uh....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

just to be sure, you know, right?, that i actually don't dig all those films mentioned.

[Benny Profane]

just to be sure, you know, right?, that i actually don't dig all those films mentioned.

Yeah, I got it. I have just never heard masterpiece and Batman Begins mentioned in the same sentence before. Maybe a few fanboys would disagree, but it doesn't have the widespread accolades that, say, Schindler's List does. It was just the fact that you groupled BB with those films I found so surprising.

I meant no offense.

[lovejuice]

I meant no offense.

none taken. as a rabid anti-fanboy, i am more sensitive to people prasing the movie, so i have this impression of people's thinking highly of nolan's batmans. (in fact you can get that impression just by checking out the dark knight thread.)

[number8]

Why do we criticize films for trying to be a masterpiece and praise films for knowing and embracing the fact that they are crap?

I don't think any post has ever deserved a rep more than this.

[Boner M]

TODAY. :eek:

[origami_mustache]

It's playing in the Arclight Dome now, so I'm going to see it again tonight.

[Boner M]

It was awesome! I wish I'd known much less going into it though, I kept waiting for that supposedly bonkers last section, or wondering when the "I drink your milkshake" line was gonna come. Kinda lost it's spontaneity in that respect. Otherwise I loved how much of a journey through different tones and textures the film felt; in those departments I think PTA has no rival in American cinema today.

Will read the rest of this thread tomorrow as I need to go to sleep now, but one question that's been nagging me since seeing it:

Did anyone think there was space for us to interpret the final scene as a dream?

[Melville]

It was awesome! I wish I'd known much less going into it though, I kept waiting for that supposedly bonkers last section, or wondering when the "I drink your milkshake" line was gonna come. Kinda lost it's spontaneity in that respect. Otherwise I loved how much of a journey through different tones and textures the film felt; in those departments I think PTA has no rival in American cinema today.
I'm really glad I didn't read this thread until after seeing the movie. That last scene would definitely lose some of its revelatory nature if one was perpetually waiting for it.


Will read the rest of this thread tomorrow as I need to go to sleep now, but one question that's been nagging me since seeing it:

Did anyone think there was space for us to interpret the final scene as a dream?
I hope not.

[Sven]

I hope not.

Somebody did suggest the idea that the whole thing could be a hallucination of Daniel's when he's at the bottom of the well in the beginning of the film. Kinda far-fetched, but I dunno... there is some stark element at play that could give it the impression of a nightmare.

[Rowland]

Somebody did suggest the idea that the whole thing could be a hallucination of Daniel's when he's at the bottom of the well in the beginning of the film. Kinda far-fetched, but I dunno... there is some stark element at play that could give it the impression of a nightmare.The important question would be what use such an interpretation has. I can't think of how any "this or that was a dream" take on the movie would augment what's already there.

[Sven]

The important question would be what use such an interpretation has. I can't think of how any "this or that was a dream" take on the movie would augment what's already there.

I don't much buy it either, but looking at it through the idea that all cinema is in someway a dream and all characters and expressions are variant shadings of an individual psychosis ala Mulholland Drive. Or something. You know, everything that happens after the fall, from the discovery of the gold onward is like a fever dream, illustrating the drive for success, the subconscious impulses of greed and stuff.

But surely looking at it as a narrative covers it nicely enough. But it's fun to feel out a film in a more abstract way.

[Melville]

I don't much buy it either, but looking at it through the idea that all cinema is in someway a dream and all characters and expressions are variant shadings of an individual psychosis ala Mulholland Drive. Or something. You know, everything that happens after the fall, from the discovery of the gold onward is like a fever dream, illustrating the drive for success, the subconscious impulses of greed and stuff.

But surely looking at it as a narrative covers it nicely enough. But it's fun to feel out a film in a more abstract way.
But I don't think it makes any difference whether the entire movie's events are "literally" one character's dream. (I can see how it would make a difference if the final events alone were Daniel's dream, but I don't see any evidence for that in the actual movie.) The movie can be "like a fever dream, illustrating the drive for success, the subconscious impulses of greed and stuff" without being described as an actual dream. It's like arguing about whether the first section of Mulholland Dr. is "really" Diane's dream, or just a metaphorical representation of her desires/self-image/whatever. The character isn't a real person; it makes no difference to the meaning of the movie whether the dream is "really" a dream or not.

[Rowland]

I don't much buy it either, but looking at it through the idea that all cinema is in someway a dream and all characters and expressions are variant shadings of an individual psychosis ala Mulholland Drive. Or something. You know, everything that happens after the fall, from the discovery of the gold onward is like a fever dream, illustrating the drive for success, the subconscious impulses of greed and stuff.

But surely looking at it as a narrative covers it nicely enough. But it's fun to feel out a film in a more abstract way.Yeah, I was just thinking that the entire movie has this alienating vibe to it, so that interpreting any parts of it as a literal dream almost strikes me as redundant. The entire movie plays like a fever dream.

EDIT: Melville beat me.

[Spinal]

Yeah, I was just thinking that the entire movie has this alienating vibe to it, so that interpreting any parts of it as a literal dream almost strikes me as redundant. The entire movie plays like a fever dream.

My answer was going to be something close to this. Completely agree.

[Sven]

I agree I with all of you.

[origami_mustache]

I thought Daniel was just threatening Eli, like when he told the oil man he'd slit his throat for telling him how to run his family.

He told him he would EAT HIM!

[Boner M]

RE: my theory that I'm not really adamant about:
I thought the moment when Eli tries to wake Daniel up from his sleep was hinting at the possibility of the subsequent scene being dreamt by Daniel. Yes, the whole film has a fever dream quality to it, with moments that veer toward camp comedy, but there's nothing else in the film that's as all-out hysterical as that scene. If it is a dream, I see it as similar to the final shot of Beau Travail; which finally grants it's subject a sense of catharsis, letting him desperately flail until he's done ("I'm finished).

Speaking of which, it was interesting to compare the final scene to that of Boogie Nights. In that film, Dirk literally keeps on fighting even after the party's over; he doesn't really have a rise-and-fall because he keeps rising in his mind, while Plainview's ruthless ambition is brought to some sort of endpoint (in my eyes). Maybe Anderson is here being critical of the young-hotshot-egotism that was manifested in his earlier films? Either way, I looked at the film less from the 'hot topic' perspective, and saw it as a film about any sort of drive that can have a ruinous effect our lives or others.

Some other stuff I dug/found interesting:

-the shots where characters move further away from us visually, while their conversations grow louder on the soundtrack.

-the way Greenwood's score get all Hermann-in-horror-mode every time even the slightest foundations of industry are established.

-I'm surprised that no one's mentioned Tree of the Wooden Clogs when discussing Anderson's influences. The opening scenes, the focus on physical routines, the naturalism of the early scenes, their silent-film quality... all brought to mind Olmi's film, albeit Anderson's is obviously more exhilirating.

[origami_mustache]

Upon a second viewing I found myself being much more bothered by the child actor's performances as well as Paul Dano's. H.W. and Mary are usually fine until they deliver lines. As for Dano, I found his deliveries to be very unnatural and phony. I could argue that it fits with Eli's character since he basically is a putting on a facade, but something still seems off about it. I think these flaws as well as others were initially masked during my first viewing by the use of score as well as the DDL's overpowering performance. Conversely I also found many more subtleties that I admired about the film, such as Daniel's gimpy leg throughout the film, the sky reflecting in the puddle of oil, and the way the film holds on certain scenes for prolonged periods of time while transitioning to another scene as the dialogue overlaps. My favorite example of this is when Daniel is sitting on the train with baby H.W., while his oil man pitch begins.

[Boner M]

I thought the kid who played HW was excellent, actually. One of the better child performances I've seen as of late.

I didn't have a problem with Dano either, although I think the kid and Kevin J. Connor (Plainview's 'brother') are more worthy of the accolades he's been getting.

[origami_mustache]

I thought the kid who played HW was excellent, actually. One of the better child performances I've seen as of late.

I didn't have a problem with Dano either, although I think the kid and Kevin J. Connor (Plainview's 'brother') are more worthy of the accolades he's been getting.

I just have minor nit picky issues, nothing significant enough to sway my overall opinion of the film. I thought H.W. was great when he isn't speaking, but every time he delivers a line he puts on a trying face and often uses seemingly forced hesitations. I agree with you about Kevin J. Connor. I thought he was excellent.

[Boner M]

Did anyone else notice how dissonant the editing of Daniel's "Are you an angry man?" conversation with Henry was? Gave a real underlying tension to the standard shot/reverse-shot format, I thought.

[trotchky]

Third viewing. It's disappointing but unsurprising that the film that finally gets PTA the attention he deserves is his most traditional yet. This super-masculine character study is a far cry from the raw emotion of Magnolia or Punch-Drunk Love, and I interpret critics' praise of Anderson's newfound maturity as actual praise of his newfound masculinity. That another testosterone-fueled epic enters the American canon is frustrating when the director has done much more daring and unconventional work.

[Raiders]

Third viewing. It's disappointing but unsurprising that the film that finally gets PTA the attention he deserves is his most traditional yet. This super-masculine character study is a far cry from the raw emotion of Magnolia or Punch-Drunk Love, and I interpret critics' praise of Anderson's newfound maturity as actual praise of his newfound masculinity. That another testosterone-fueled epic enters the American canon is frustrating when the director has done much more daring and unconventional work.

I disagree with every single syllable of this post. I don't even think it was your third viewing.

[trotchky]

I disagree with every single syllable of this post. I don't even think it was your third viewing.
Sir, you have my word!!!

[SpaceOddity]

DDL picked up a Bafta last night.

*envies Bafta* ;)

[Bosco B Thug]

Third viewing. It's disappointing but unsurprising that the film that finally gets PTA the attention he deserves is his most traditional yet. This super-masculine character study is a far cry from the raw emotion of Magnolia or Punch-Drunk Love, and I interpret critics' praise of Anderson's newfound maturity as actual praise of his newfound masculinity. That another testosterone-fueled epic enters the American canon is frustrating when the director has done much more daring and unconventional work. I was disappointed with the movie, too, and it is more "traditional" in a sense than his other movies... but I would hardly call the film "testosterone-fueled" when it's about men sinking in a quagmire of their own inadequacy. Even Plainview's acts of brute masculinity always seem self-aware of their own insatiably needy desperation EDIT: desperation to be "testosterone-fueled," which belies the film itself being characterized by "testosterone."

[Spinal]

Though I don't know if I can express it in an articulate manner, I don't agree with the assertions that this film feels traditional. It has a unique rhythm that I don't think I've experienced before and a lead character who oftentimes is really kind of weird. I'm thinking specifically of the moment where he puts the napkin over his face to talk to the other table of men. It's also got 20 minutes at the beginning of the film without dialogue and an ideological battle between two forces, neither of which is particularly likable. It draws from history and realism, but often plays out like old school melodrama. The only way I can see using the word 'traditional' is if 'traditional' is a code word for 'the camera doesn't move as much'.

[number8]

Tomato, Tomahto. Traditional, Refined.

[trotchky]

I was disappointed with the movie, too, and it is more "traditional" in a sense than his other movies... but I would hardly call the film "testosterone-fueled" when it's about men sinking in a quagmire of their own inadequacy. Even Plainview's acts of brute masculinity always seem self-aware of their own insatiably needy desperation EDIT: desperation to be "testosterone-fueled," which belies the film itself being characterized by "testosterone."

"Testosterone-fueled" was probably the wrong way to describe it, but the hyper-masculinity of DDL's character definitely has a seductive quality, regardless of the film's "message." Like Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, or any number of films in this vein, there is romanticism in the lead's machismo. In other words, I don't believe the film would have gotten nearly as much mainstream attention had this element not been present.

[Raiders]

"Testosterone-fueled" was probably the wrong way to describe it, but the hyper-masculinity of DDL's character definitely has a seductive quality, regardless of the film's "message." Like Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, or any number of films in this vein, there is romanticism in the lead's machismo. In other words, I don't believe the film would have gotten nearly as much mainstream attention had this element not been present.

You think Charles Foster Kane has machismo? Really???

[DavidSeven]

You think Charles Foster Kane has machismo? Really???

Yeah, I don't know about this one. I know the "seductive" male character that he speaks of, but to me, Kane and Plainview don't fit that mold.

I think the film has garnered Anderson some unique attention because A) it's an incredibly intriguing piece in its own right and B) it was unexpected. Many of Anderson's peers, who emerged around the same time, are already running circles and repeating themselves.

Anyway, all of Anderson's films have been very well-received, and I don't think this is the one that got people to say "hey, we should be paying attention to this guy." That happened in 1997 with Boogie Nights.

[trotchky]

Yes, I think Kane has machismo. Comparatively, anyway. He might not be a Jake LaMotta but you can pretty much group all those characters together over here, and then have another group with Barry Egan and Quiz Kid Donnie Smith way over here.

[origami_mustache]

I think the film is certainly more traditional than Anderson's other films, although still experimental in some regards. However referring to the film as "more traditional" isn't all that far fetched in my opinion. PTA says his favorite films are those of the 40s in which the scripts are more direct, and I think this influence is most realized in There Will Be Blood yet not without it's own spin to it. The napkin scene was odd, but I think he did it so H.W. wouldn't realize what he was saying.

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

The napkin scene was odd, but I think he did it so H.W. wouldn't realize what he was saying.

I believe that's a nod to a popular political cartoon at that time period with a kid with a white cloth covering his face or something, I remember it from American History.

[origami_mustache]

I believe that's a nod to a popular political cartoon at that time period with a kid with a white cloth covering his face or something, I remember it from American History.

Interesting...have a link to the cartoon?

[Bosco B Thug]

"Testosterone-fueled" was probably the wrong way to describe it, but the hyper-masculinity of DDL's character definitely has a seductive quality, regardless of the film's "message." Like Citizen Kane, Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, or any number of films in this vein, there is romanticism in the lead's machismo. In other words, I don't believe the film would have gotten nearly as much mainstream attention had this element not been present. Hmm... I didn't think there was anything really charismatic about Plainview... I thought the film did really well portraying him as an insecure trainwreck waiting to happen, flailing about hazardously by picking fights with mirror images of himself.

But forgive me, I've probably made that same point at least twice now. :P What's important here is that we were both underwhelmed by TWBB... right? :pritch:

I liked the napkin part, thought it was in line with his character. He's feeling securely successful in his oil business at that point and thus can then comfortably go gradually off the deep end with absurd gusto.

[Boner M]

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d17/MalR2006/ddlmilkshake.gif

[Ezee E]

When I saw 15 minutes of the movie back at Telluride, all I thought about was how it seemed like a John Ford movie. It took place in a small town, where things were being changed. Its score was mostly classical in this particular portion, and there was a large family influence.

That's as close to "traditional" as I compare it. But I've already made my opinion on "mature, traditional" filmmaking.

[Dillard]

Point (Kathleen Murphy) / Counterpoint (Jim Emerson): Discussion (http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2008/DanielDayLewis) on Daniel Day-Lewis' performance in TWBB.

Salon's Stephanie Zacharek weighs in with her article (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2008/02/20/daniel_day_lewis/), "Daniel Day Lews, Too Great to Be Good."

[monolith94]

Who does Stephanie Zacharek think she is, do dictate how to act to Daniel Day Lewis? If there IS someone who I see loving themselves over their craft, it would be her, with that attention-grabbing, nonsense article.

[Winston*]

Liked it, didn't love it.

[number8]

Salon's Stephanie Zacharek weighs in with her article (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2008/02/20/daniel_day_lewis/), "Daniel Day Lews, Too Great to Be Good."

That makes no sense at all.

[Raiders]

As he sputters the movie's most memorable, and most idiotic line, "I drink your milkshake!" he's loving the moment, not living it.

So, what? Is Plainview not loving the moment?

This whole article feels like an attempt to go against the current in an attempt to create some division between the character and the performance. Most of what I got from the film, I got from the performance. The hatred, the grandiose arrogance, the need to be the center of a room because you can't stomach someone else dictating, etc. is all displayed through this anything-but-naturalistic performance. It is as if Zacharek is afraid of a performance that is in her face, one that doesn't cry quiet, seething mental anguish but a psychotic and distrustful rage. People can exist anywhere on the spectrum, and it seems as if she is attempting to keep a great actor like Day-Lewis confined to the realms of the inner torment of a Christy Brown.

[Rowland]

I haven't read Zacharek's piece (I'm sorta tired of reading about TWBB), but I found a comment over at THND (http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/2008/02/links-for-day-february-21st-2008.html) by "the hanged man" interesting:

"We read critics for the perceptions, for what they tell us that we didn't fully grasp when we saw the work. The judgments we can usually make for ourselves."

--Pauline Kael

"Normally I don't take Stephanie Zacharek that seriously, but I thought the essay on Daniel Day Lewis' "greatness" was one of her better pieces and a good example of how criticism works. Beginning with a subjective reaction ("Why don't I like this? What's keeping me from responding to it?"), Zacharek analyzes Lewis' performance and puts it in the context of both his body of work and the history of acting in an attempt to answer her query. Her personal reaction leads her towards defining her aesthetics and determining what is needed to make a performance "great."

I didn't have the patience to venture past the second or third page of reader's comments. The debate degenerated too quickly into the "you suck" blitzkrieg that typifies the internet at its worst. But this brings up something unique about There Will Be Blood. I can't remember the last mainstream film that inspired just passionate fervor among its fans. People seem to identify with this movie and seem to have invested something personal in its status as A Great Film. Many films have their passionate defenders, but There Will Be Blood's fans don't seem to tolerate any debate or even equivocation. It's a masterpiece. It's The Great American Film, and if you don't agree, you suck."

[Spinal]

Many films have their passionate defenders, but There Will Be Blood's fans don't seem to tolerate any debate or even equivocation. It's a masterpiece.

I can think of many films to which this has applied. Off the top of my head ... Eternal Sunshine, Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth ...

[Watashi]

I can think of many films to which this has applied. Off the top of my head ... Eternal Sunshine, Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth ...
I don't think any of those films are masterpieces.

[DavidSeven]

I can think of many films to which this has applied. Off the top of my head ... Eternal Sunshine, Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth ...

Yeah, there's films like this every year. Doesn't No Country for Old Men have a similar, if not stronger, base of fans who will battle tooth and nail for it? I've been ripped many, many times by defenders of so-called "masterpieces," and the stubborn nature of TWBB fans doesn't seem any different than others I have encountered.

[origami_mustache]

Many films have their passionate defenders, but There Will Be Blood's fans don't seem to tolerate any debate or even equivocation. It's a masterpiece. It's The Great American Film, and if you don't agree, you suck.

don't forget white people can't dance...

[Sven]

Yeah, if nothing else, I was going to suggest Pan's Labyrinth. You can research the reactions that the Match Cut crowd had to my disappointed reaction to it. It was pretty ridiculous.

But yeah, this film inspires a similar furor. With several people in the real world that I've talked about it, responses to my ambivalence (not even negative, ambivalent) have been that of near disgust.

[number8]

Bill Hader as Daniel Plainview (http://www.justpressplay.net/viewarticle/video-bill-hader-as-daniel-plainview/)

[origami_mustache]

Bill Hader as Daniel Plainview (http://www.justpressplay.net/viewarticle/video-bill-hader-as-daniel-plainview/)

That's a really good impression actually...too bad the sketch isn't funny.

[Ezee E]

http://www.cigarettesandredvines.com/twbb_2disc.jpg

Pretty cool.

[Sven]

http://www.cigarettesandredvines.com/twbb_2disc.jpg

Pretty cool.

If it wasn't for that obvious photoshop effect on the rope, I'd call it fake.

[Sxottlan]

Great cover. Looks like something the Criterion Collection would have done.

[Morris Schæffer]

Where to begin? I'd like to offer something worthwhile, but I'm pretty sure it's all been said already. I'm not in awe of Anderson's movie like most of you, but I'll be damned if certain portions haven't lingered long after seeing it. I guess one of the recurring complaints is that Plainview is, give or take a few ambiguous sequences, sans arc and that, as a general rule, the most interesting characters are those that undergo a noticeable change throughout the course of a motion picture. I think this is somewhat valid reasoning, but I'm not sure I'm able to apply it here. In the magnificent, wordless opening, it is already clear that our protagonist is driven to a maniacal degree.

In his relentless pursuit to unearth silver, Plainview virtually resembles a human version of Wall-E, a flesh and blood automaton relentlessly dedicated to the accumulation of wealth or at least the beginnings thereof. Unlike the Pixar droid, in "Blood," eyes aren't opened, the error of one's ways isn't acknowledged. Instead, the film barrels along its dark corridor until the finale. A finale which I didn't really find powerful, shocking or deep, but rather bizarre and certainly grotesque. And memorable too. It's just so unlike any other 2007 film I've seen. Or 2006 for that matter. Or 2005 etc... Which makes it hard to flatout dismiss. Memorable then, but why? The milkshake line? I get the feeling I'm forcing myself to love that moment because everyone else is euphoric about it. Is Plainview not a typical villain by this point spouting generic scenery-masticating jibber jabber? Okay, that's unfair. Lewis' toweringly intense (textured?) performance ensures that he's not, but still. Perhaps descent into madness was indeed one of the only logical outcomes, but I didn't love the ending. It's now been nearly three weeks since I've seen There Will Be Blood and in the days after it, enlightenment never really came. It kinda resonated, but besides the obvious attraction of seeing Lewis, I wasn't completely sure why. Because of it being unlike any other 2007 movie?

I recall a small argument on this board between Raiders and Iosos pertaining to the short flashback where we can see Plainview affectionately caressing his "son." I'm ambivalent towards that scene. Although I appreciated that small moment of affection it also made me wonder if a more traditional character arc might have been within the realm of possiblity. It was almost as if Anderson was saying "See! He used to be all right after all," but that scene was so short and unexpected that it practically felt unearned to me. Might as well go for broke with the darkness in other words. Am I willing this movie to be something that its helmer never intended it to be? Is there a point to this all? That sometimes evil is born period? I doubt it. Perhaps there are glimpses of Plainview's humanity that I've simply missed out on, that would have enriched the experience for me. Numerous folks have complained about the "brother" subplot so how about jettisoning that and coming up with a more satisfying character arc for Plainview? Inserting more glimpses of his humanity to render his eventual downfall more powerful?

This is kind of a ramble so go easy on me if I've somewhat criticized your masterpiece. ;)

[Watashi]

Plainview is similar to WALL-E?

The hell you talking about, son?

[Ezee E]

Plainview is similar to WALL-E?

The hell you talking about, son?
In Match Cut, any idea is possible.

[Morris Schæffer]

Plainview is similar to WALL-E?

The hell you talking about, son?

:)

Well, it's like those initial moments in the Wall-E trailer where the droid is doing what he's meant to be doing which is to dispose of garbage period. There Will Be Blood's Plainview seems to exist for a very singular purpose too, made clear in the persuasive opening, and that is to accumulate wealth and then alienate and antagonize the ones around him. Whereas Wall-E's eyes will eventually be opened, Anderson's film continues on its path of darkness without relent. I'll leave whether this is the point or not in the middle, but I didn't find it satisfying all across the board.

[Amnesiac]

I can't be the only one who doesn't think Zacharek's article is onto something.

At times, it feels she is criticizing the character more than the performance.



The character's self-loathing comes off, paradoxically and unintentionally, as a manifestation of an actor's self-love. Day-Lewis, one of the finest actors we've got, has every reason to love himself, but not at the expense of his audience. When he comes to us emotionally naked -- as he did in "My Left Foot," "In the Name of the Father," "The Ballad of Jack and Rose" and any number of other performances -- he's as resplendent as a king. But caught in the trappings of supposed greatness, he's just an actor, a puppeteer pulling a series of color-coded strings to make us think and feel.

I mean, what is this about? Daniel Day-Lewis is overly self-assured and used There Will Be Blood to stroke his allegedly over-confident ego? He phoned it in?

In The Name of the Father and My Left Foot didn't really demand the same brand of grandiose histrionics that finds a suitable home in There Will Be Blood. I mean, this is obvious enough, right? Does it feel right to anyone for her to criticize the performance as some overtly calculated exercise in vanity? Another person who is dying to throw down a contrarian gauntlet could strain hard enough and probably churn out a similarly nebulous write-up on Nicholson's performance in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest & The Shining or Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence and Opening Night or Peter Finch in Network. Aren't these all films which demand a brand of character which, while adorned with the proper subtleties and detail that allow for a certain realistic breadth, also necessitates a certain histrionic, eccentric, idiosyncratic channeling of madness? Or would she pessimistically strain to find overt calculation and vanity in these works, too? Do these characters have no merit simply because their stories don't demand them to channel the comparably quieter trials and anguish of characters such as Gerry Conlan (In The Name of the Father)?


But even this scene comes off as more absurd than operatic; it's overly pleased with its manufactured grimness. In these last moments of the movie, meticulously calibrated for maximum shock and dismay, Day-Lewis slouches toward some penultimate revelation, but he's crippled in a way his Christy Brown never was. As he sputters the movie's most memorable, and most idiotic line, "I drink your milkshake!" he's loving the moment, not living it.

Again, what? Loving it, not living it? There's that puzzling vanity accusation again. A moment in the film where an incredibly vain, madly egocentric and hateful character is getting his much coveted vindication ... and Day-Lewis' performance somehow didn't meet this mark? It seems immature to lodge such an accusation at the actor and while not considering the psychology of the character which Day-Lewis is trying to remain faithful towards. It's one thing to criticize the script for apparently working towards some distinct train-wreck and wearing it's motivations on it's sleeve (I'd question that criticism, too, though) but it's another entirely to pin the blame on an actor meeting the demands of the script and really taking it somewhere.

Whatever fraudulence or failure she's seeing in the performance, I just can't quite get on the same page as her. Her article keeps coming across as some nebulously contrarian gesture, really.


What I long for in the character of Daniel Plainview, and don't get, are contradictions, elusive trails that might lead us into some hidden cave of thought, memory or desire. The performance is all intention, no exploration -- a conclusion instead of a set of questions.

Here's where she really loses my sympathy. The contradictions and elusive trails are exactly what made the performance so memorable for me. Seriously, now - no one ever felt guided into some hidden cave of memory, thought or desire in regards to Plainview? Preposterous notion, if you ask me. And yet she's seeing some transparently calculated and premeditated performance that somehow lacks spontaneity and depth.


This is also the kind of turn that often wows moviegoers precisely because they don't know what to make of it. It's suitably mysterious ("Why is he doing that? I have no idea, but it's cool!") even as we can see its craftsmanship on display.

And there's a touch of insult and condescension to this comment. So, those who enjoyed Day-Lewis' turn as Plainview are astounded by the apparently enigmatic and unique behavioral tics of the character? There wasn't much about Plainview's performance that was entirely baffling - and I don't think he's been given accolades for acting as bafflingly un-human as humanly possible. It's more delightfully idiosyncratic. Sure, this is a performance which necessitates a certain dark and inhumane energy - but it's not a freak-show of zany and confounding physicality. That is to say, his performance contained sparks of mystery and appropriately off-putting intensity and life but it wasn't an amalgam of quirky 'unrealistic' behavior. Sure, it was histrionic, and he was a man virtually bankrupt of benign humanity, and Plainview was larger-than-life, and ... yeah, so what?

[Adam]

Just watched this again for the first time in like a year and something stood out to me that I don't remember catching the first couple times around and I don't think it's been mentioned in this thread, either

Was Plainview doinking the little girl, Mary?

[Derek]

Was Plainview doinking the little girl, Mary?

I'm not sure what evidence you have of this, but the two instances I can think of (where he told her she wouldn't be beaten by her father again and later when he chose her over Dano in his speech at the oil derrick opening) were clearly to exert power over others (the father, then Dano) not a sign of pedophilia.

[Adam]

Hmmm, I dunno, there were just a few lingering moments where I kinda got the impression. And if that is the case, it does add a hilarious new layer to the final conversation with his son

[Qrazy]

I'm going to go with no.

[Ezee E]

No Adam. No.

[Adam]

Now you guys are just making me feel like a creep. There's definitely at least one scene where it's almost obvious: When Plainview's sitting at that table and he grabs her, holding onto her a beat too long, and then when he lets her go, she sorta recoils. I mean it makes sense in the context of the movie's grand metaphor, because it's demonstrating how capitalism is so pervasive that it ultimately wants to kill God and seduce our children. And on a character level, Plainview loves kids because they're uncorrupted and they lack all the other characteristics he claims to hate in people. It's telling that his relationship with his own son deteriorates once HW is no longer a child, too

[Dukefrukem]

This is next on my watch list... prolly get to it tonight

[Kurosawa Fan]

Adam, that feeling you have? The creepy one? It's appropriate, considering this conversation.

[Melville]

Was Plainview doinking the little girl, Mary?
http://planetsmilies.net/confused-smiley-17420.gif

[Pop Trash]

I always got the feeling that Plainview was more or less asexual. Perhaps it's a bit like Raging Bull where he was impotent and angry about that but put any sexual frustrations he had into his drive for work and to destroy others that got in his way. This is purely speculation of course but it makes more sense to me than him being a pederast.

[Eleven]

Was Plainview doinking the little girl, Mary?

I. THINK. YOU'RE. MILKSHAKEN [MISTAKEN]!

I apologize.

[Raiders]

I always got the feeling that Plainview was more or less asexual. Perhaps it's a bit like Raging Bull where he was impotent and angry about that but put any sexual frustrations he had into his drive for work and to destroy others that got in his way. This is purely speculation of course but it makes more sense to me than him being a pederast.

Yeah, the film certainly makes Plainview an impotent figure.