There Will Be Blood

[Boner M]

New trailer that I can't watch on my comp. :mad:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_vantage/therewillbeblood/

[Duncan]

Great trailer, though I am wary of Dano's performance.

[Derek]

Great trailer, though I am wary of Dano's performance.

Let's not forget the performance he got out of Sandler in Punch-Drunk Love. I have faith Dano will be great or, at the very least, be giving the exact performance PTA wants.

And yes, the new trailer is great. I'm so glad I can watch it whenever I want...

[MadMan]

With every trailer I see for this film I grow more and more impatient for it to be released. It just looks awesome. Daniel Day-Lewis is the man, plan and simple.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Yeah, at this point I'm ridiculously excited for this film.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, at this point I'm ridiculously excited for this film.

Duh.

[Ezee E]

The music in each trailer is unreal. The newer trailer seems like something from The Shining. And that's a ridiculously great thing.

[Ivan Drago]

Daniel Day-Lewis.

Paul Thomas Anderson.

This will be great.

[DSNT]

The music in each trailer is unreal. The newer trailer seems like something from The Shining. And that's a ridiculously great thing.
Greenwood's score is exceptional. It was streaming here (http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/index.html) for a couple days, but looks like they've taken it down for now.

[Ezee E]

Daniel Day-Lewis.

Paul Thomas Anderson.

This will be great.
Again. Duh.

[Ezee E]

Greenwood's score is exceptional. It was streaming here (http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/index.html) for a couple days, but looks like they've taken it down for now.
Damn.

Although I kinda want to go into the movie without hearing the score. I'm sure it'll be available when the movie is out.

[Boner M]

Greenwood's score is exceptional. It was streaming here (http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/index.html) for a couple days, but looks like they've taken it down for now.
LOOPHOLE!1!1!!!! Here's some excerpts for y'all:

http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/songs/01_twbb.mp3
http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/songs/02_twbb.mp3
http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/songs/03_twbb.mp3
http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/songs/04_twbb.mp3
http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/songs/05_twbb.mp3
http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/songs/06_twbb.mp3
http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/songs/07_twbb.mp3
http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/songs/08_twbb.mp3
http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/songs/09_twbb.mp3
http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/songs/10_twbb.mp3
http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/songs/11_twbb.mp3
http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/songs/12_twbb.mp3

[chrisnu]

Boner, you're a genius.

The music and the trailer are wonderful. I can't wait for this.

[Boner M]

Don't thank me. Thank the Earth's gravitational pull. And some guy from another forum.

It's weird how much less audience-friendly the second trailer is. Usually the later versions are more accessible. Either way, my anticipation is through the fucking roof.

[Boner M]

Can't stop listening to those excerpts... tracks 6 and 7 (the latter was the one used in the previous trailer) can only be scoring something amazing.

[Bosco B Thug]

So... I saw There Will Be Blood last night in SF. I am still pretty psyched about it.

Pretty damn fantastic. It's something special alright. The film is absolutely majestic at points, with the spectacle of oil bursting from arid landscapes surpassed even by the spectacle of Daniel Day-Lewis' insane performance. Day-Lewis has created a monster, and the film succeeds in making Daniel Plainview a fascinating variation on the megalomaniac.

Sorry, semi-spoilery, nuance-revealing blathering now. I like feedback, but this is of course the one drawback from seeing a film TWO MONTHS EARLY WHOOO!
Although embodying the never satisfied, always-wanting-more business machine, he is not the ideal charismatic or corporate Lothario - instead he is the prude, revealing a fundamental setback in his dreams of ever-gaining confidence achieved solely through the business world: his psychological incompatibility within the interpersonal machine. His insular sense of superiority; his disgust with everything that gives people pleasure, from sentimentality to indulgence; his loathe, distrust, and jealousy of everyone, from a virtuously passive (in comparison to him) fellow businessman to his brother who can actually find pleasure in the whorehouse - they all represent his mental incapacity to be happy with his "superior 'outsider'" self, which he realizes and tries to compensate for with his entrepreneurial fever. The same might be able to be said about Paul Dano's Eli Sunday. The dynamic between Day-Lewis and Dano is a shrewdly funny portrait of the clash of "entrepreneur insecurity," embodied by two sorts of socially questionable pricks - the wimpy religious nut and the bluenose.

BUT! The film's not perfect. In fact, it didn't give me all that I wanted from it.

The first hour or so of the film is too busy trying to be an aural-visual mood piece, a la Kubrick, that it forgets to effectively internalize (in this early portion of the fim) its characters, their worldview, or its own worldview.

Perhaps its the "settling in" effect, but I seriously was not feeling the film for some initial portion of the time. PTA beautifully creates menacing, hellish pastorals with a droning electric score, but this is the thing: PTA isn't Kubrick yet. Kubrick had a particular cerebral idea behind his directing, a philosophy or point-of-view behind his methodology behind the camera. Auteurs like Kubrick and Hitchcock - their camera embodied the film's thematic ground. PTA's camera still moves in his very virtuoso manner, but I did not get the feeling there's a cohesive rhyme and reason or structure in his directorial composition. He's still very much a visual romantic, but his stylistic experimenting is rather empty here. So alas, no, I am not going to say this is the best most brilliant film in decades as has been rumored. :)

But the film has its turning point when the film forgets about its choppy, free form pretensions and forced idiosyncratic stylistics that I felt failed to contribute to the thematic subtext. The movie eases itself now into a brilliant character study, switching to high-gear and becoming both more intimate and ferocious than any of the languorous, intransparent-characters Malick-ing and expressionistic Ford Coppola-ing he does earlier. His directing becomes more in service of striking storytelling and character nuance, which is what he can handle for now, and the film picks up in spades due to it.

So yeah, awesomeness. Day-Lewis is something. And get this, I haven't seen any of his movies before this. Must fix that. 8.5/10. Probably my 2nd favorite of the year, behind Zodiac.

[DSNT]

I may pee myself in anticipation.

[Bosco B Thug]

I may pee myself in anticipation.
Oh, certainly, couldn't blame you.

Two more things:

Unfortunately, the dialogue in the brilliant teaser trailer for the film isn't as effective in context. I was disappointed in that respect, as unfair as it may be.

The film's dedicated to Robert Altman.

[number8]

I forgot about the Castro screening. I am stupids.

Had class until almost 7 anyways. Le sigh.

[Ezee E]

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

Good God, that music is great.

[Ezee E]

The soundtrack has been leaked. ANd I've got it.

[megladon8]

While it looks great and the music is fantastic, I find some of the footage I have seen with Daniel Day Lewis looks like he is playing Bill the Butcher again.

[Doclop]

Saw it this morning at the MPAA building. Totally epic and supremely fascinating. It's dark dark dark and feels so fresh. I really enjoyed the existential thread that seems to permeate the film, offering an extremely complicated look on religion and atheism. Daniel Day-Lewis is enthusiastically fierce and Paul Dano, while he certainly does his fair share of scene-chewing, didn't annoy me as much as I thought he would.

P.T. Anderson's direction feels different to me this time around, it's not as sweeping, but is instead more subtlety elegant and ominous. It all feels so controlled and Anderson seems to have mastered visual storytelling, creating sequences that are so wonderfully visceral. Still, I felt detached during parts of the film and I think the story is often a little too fragmented; however, I think this is a film that will sit very well with me.

It's a really unusual and engrossing experience that goes places I didn't expect. Certainly a smart step for Anderson and it's easy to understand why many will consider There Will Be Blood to be an instant classic.

[number8]

P.T. Anderson's direction feels different to me this time around, it's not as sweeping, but is instead more subtlety elegant and ominous.

Yeah, everyone I saw this with agreed about this too. It's totally a different style from any of his previous work.

No long tracking shots, for once.

[Ezee E]

Good lord. When everyone sees this, the discussion shall be glorious.

:eek:

Really, I don't know where to start on this one.

[krazed]

Does anyone know what the fuck is up with the awkward release schedule? It screened in Dallas and Austin for one night at midnight over the weekend and the Angelika/other theater sites don't even list it in their upcoming releases.

Ugh.

[trotchky]

If you wanna be generous, it's PTA's second masterpiece. I guess we have proof that he's an auteur now too lol because he expands on the themes that were central to Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love and I guess were even present in Boogie Nights. PTA looks to the past to explain why people like Quiz Kid Donnie Smith are how they are, with the rise of commercialism and all the alienating, dehumanizing effects associated with it. PTA treats religion and capitalism, the guiding forces behind USA's development as a nation, as two halves of the same coin, but whereas he finds value in the self-determinism of the 'frontier' mentality (despite it being fundamentally sociopathic) he condemns a stagnation of American industry starting with the model-T, mass production, etc etc. Consumption ultimately overcomes religion as the primary force in American society, rising as a decadent, perverse version of the self-determinism of old. Kill capitalism, says, PTA before it kills you.

[number8]

My review (http://www.justpressplay.net/movies/there-will-be-blood/review/)

[Ezee E]

SPOILERS ABOUND:


This movie is practically set in hell, with some sort of fire or heat vapors in nearly every frame of the movie. Each character is incapable of achieving happiness once they become mature, wanting money and land over everything else. But even then, they still never become happy. There are hardly any women out there, and it's pretty interesting that the one in the movie is always wearing white, and is also the only one that may legitimatly care about some people, and that other people respect.

All of this makes me wonder if Daniel Plainview dies in the first scene of the movie. Out by himself, he apparently drags himself to receive money for silver (right?) that leads him to the oil drilling.


Anyways, it's easy to say that this is another masterpiece from Paul Thomas Anderson. After five movies, he's got three under his belt, and his other two movies would still make a yearly top ten list. It's said that if Boogie Nights resembles Scorsese, that Magnolia resembles Altman, Punchdrunk Love resembles Tati, and that this resembles Kubrick. However, I cannot think of a Kubrick movie that has such a great conflict between characters, much less a fascinating character like Daniel Plainview.

[Sven]

Punchdrunk Love resembles Tati

It does?

[Ezee E]

It does?
Although there's more of a character in Adam Sandler then in the roaming character in Playtime, they certainly share their resemblances. There's even a similar color scheme I think.

Plus, I think he's even said it himself.

[Boner M]

Yeah, PTA said at the Cannes press conference that he was trying to make a Tati film with PD-L. Although, outside of a few of the slapstick gags and the bright colors, I don't see much of a semblance.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, PTA said at the Cannes press conference that he was trying to make a Tati film with PD-L. Although, outside of a few of the slapstick gags and the bright colors, I don't see much of a semblance.
The same could be said for all his movies where he uses homages. I would say Boogie Nights resembles Scorsese more then any of his other movies resembling others. The same could be said for There Will Be Blood and Kubrick, because of the use of music. Outside of that, I wouldn't make that many resemblances either.

Must see this again on Friday.

[Boner M]

It seems to me that each film he makes is less burdened by his influences and IMO better for it... Hard Eight is basically a reasonably compelling riff on Bob Le Flambeur, Boogie Nights is a rockin' Scorsese/Altman/Cassavetes mashup, Magnolia is Short Cuts only operatic instead of jazzy, Punch-Drunk Love has shades of Tati and Demme's Something Wild but you can't call it derivative in any way... which leaves me super-duper-a-trillion-times excited to see where he's gone with TWBB.

[Ezee E]

It seems to me that each film he makes is less burdened by his influences and IMO better for it... Hard Eight is basically a reasonably compelling riff on Bob Le Flambeur, Boogie Nights is a rockin' Scorsese/Altman/Cassavetes mashup, Magnolia is Short Cuts only operatic instead of jazzy, Punch-Drunk Love has shades of Tati and Demme's Something Wild but you can't call it derivative in any way... which leaves me super-duper-a-trillion-times excited to see where he's gone with TWBB.
There's so many comparions you can make if you wanted to. John Ford, Terrence Malick, Stanley Kubrick... But I would say it's almost more of a coincidence then anything.

Oh yeah, it's not really true at all, but the funniest comparison I've heard someone make of this was: Little House on the Prairie + A Clockwork Orange

[Sven]

I guess the problem I have with the Tati comparison is that Boogie Nights echoes Goodfellas (and Casino) in soooooo many ways (roaming camera, non-stop soundtrack, narrative - rags-to-riches social underbelly saga, surrogate family, etc) and Magnolia echoes Short Cuts in soooooo many ways (gigantic ensemble, LA, ending with a natural phenomenon that ties it all together, rapturous melancholy, etc) that it seems like there's nothing about Punch-Drunk Love that I can directly relate to the work of Tati other than a hero that doesn't say much. The camera moves are different, the color schemes are kiiiiiiiinda similar I guess, the plots are different, etc. P-DL doesn't feel like Tati at all.

[Ezee E]

I guess the problem I have with the Tati comparison is that Boogie Nights echoes Goodfellas (and Casino) in soooooo many ways (roaming camera, non-stop soundtrack, narrative - rags-to-riches social underbelly saga, surrogate family, etc) and Magnolia echoes Short Cuts in soooooo many ways (gigantic ensemble, LA, ending with a natural phenomenon that ties it all together, rapturous melancholy, etc) that it seems like there's nothing about Punch-Drunk Love that I can directly relate to the work of Tati other than a hero that doesn't say much. The camera moves are different, the color schemes are kiiiiiiiinda similar I guess, the plots are different, etc. P-DL doesn't feel like Tati at all.
I guess you can just take what boner said in that every movie he is less and less then the director he intends to mirror. It's still there, but becoming more of an inspiration then just tracing paper.

[number8]

I thought Magnolia was trying to be Nashville rather than Shortcuts.

[Sven]

I thought Magnolia was trying to be Nashville rather than Shortcuts.

I'm not sure why you'd think that. There's no political assassination in Magnolia. However, there is a climactic disaster and it is set in LA. I suppose music plays a more significant part in Nashville than Short Cuts.

[Raiders]

I thought Magnolia was trying to be Nashville rather than Shortcuts.

Really? The connection to the latter always seemed pretty obvious to me. I think you could say it was PTA's most obvious "Altman film," but if you're going to pick a particular one, I would definitely lean the strongest to Short Cuts.

[Ezee E]

Yeah, Magnolia is much more Short Cuts then anything else he's done. Hell, it's even got Julianne Moore, only without the bush.

[Rowland]

Yeah, Magnolia is much more Short Cuts then anything else he's done. Hell, it's even got Julianne Moore, only without the bush.You see Julianne Moore's bush in Short Cuts?

I've been meaning to see that movie.

[Ezee E]

You see Julianne Moore's bush in Short Cuts?

I've been meaning to see that movie.
Well, think Boogie Nights, but a few years earlier.

I guess PTA checked that off his Altman checklist, so he didn't have to do it again in Magnolia.

[number8]

Nevermind, I got my own opinion confused because yesterday I just had a discussion with a co-worker about Magnolia's merits and I kept comparing it to various Altman movies and how much PTA wanted to emulate it. :sad:

Thinking more clearly now, I'd say Boogie Nights is more his Nashville and Magnolia is his Short Cuts. But the argument I was using yesterday was that PTA didn't successfully interweave the stories for me, only doing so with a thematic end, unlike something like Nashville which handled the multiple plots more coherently. I was also comparing it with how much more successful Boogie Nights was in doing it. Short Cuts got in there somehow, I forgot.

[number8]

Of course, all of those are dwarfed by the masterpiece that is There Will Be Blood. :P

[Ezee E]

Nevermind, I got my own opinion confused because yesterday I just had a discussion with a co-worker about Magnolia's merits and I kept comparing it to various Altman movies and how much PTA wanted to emulate it. :sad:

Thinking more clearly now, I'd say Boogie Nights is more his Nashville and Magnolia is his Short Cuts. But the argument I was using yesterday was that PTA didn't successfully interweave the stories for me, only doing so with a thematic end, unlike something like Nashville which handled the multiple plots more coherently. I was also comparing it with how much more successful Boogie Nights was in doing it. Short Cuts got in there somehow, I forgot.
idiot.

[Ezee E]

Of course, all of those are dwarfed by the masterpiece that is There Will Be Blood. :P
genius.

[trotchky]

Sometimes I think There Will Be Blood feels more like an attempt to imitate a Very Serious Character Study than a very serious character study. And sometimes I think it's a masterpiece. I guess I'm still kind of conflicted about this movie; although, I'm pretty sure I want it to be a masterpiece more than I actually think it's a masterpiece. Maybe I'm almost ready to come to terms with There Will Be Blood's mediocrity?

[chrisnu]

BASTARD IN A BASKET!!!

Need to think more about this. However, it's definitely a keeper. Daniel Day-Lewis is completely transparent, as expected. There's an epic power to scenes that makes you feel the tension, bubbling under the ground.

[Ezee E]

Sometimes I think There Will Be Blood feels more like an attempt to imitate a Very Serious Character Study than a very serious character study. And sometimes I think it's a masterpiece. I guess I'm still kind of conflicted about this movie; although, I'm pretty sure I want it to be a masterpiece more than I actually think it's a masterpiece. Maybe I'm almost ready to come to terms with There Will Be Blood's mediocrity?
Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.

[trotchky]

Sorry, but this doesn't make any sense.
I reckon you're right. I guess I just haven't made up my mind about the movie yet; although, I'm leaning more towards 'not so good'! I don't know man, it doesn't 't really feel genuine to me; people are saying that Anderson reaches artistic maturity here, but it seems to me like his showiness eclipses his material, more so than in any other film! As Ed Gonzalez put it, it feels like he's trying to "make this century's Citizen Kane" rather trying to express something sincere and personal; it feels less personal than any of his past film, I guess. I don't know man; why do you think it's a masterpiece?

[chrisnu]

I think I can understand what you're getting at. For all its stylistic grandeur, it's very cold. How well do we get to know Daniel Plainview? This may be part of the point, that he does not allow himself to be vulnerable with anyone, or at least he tries.

I actually found the Henry Plainview storyline, where a charlatan ingratiates himself upon a king of charlatans, similar to Harry Caul in The Conversation. Two masters of isolationism wanting someone to get in so badly that they allow for a chink in their armor. I think this is precisely why Daniel feels he needs to destroy that vulnerability.

As absurd and macabre the Eli storyline may appear, I don't think the film plumbs the depravity behind Eli using religion to accomplish the same goals Plainview accomplishes through vampiric capitalism. Yes, it hammers home its point, but I don't think we really get to understand how Eli does what he does, how he came to that place.

Also, I was reading around on the IMDb forum for the film, and it was suggested that there's an environmentalist subtext to it. Oil = evil, essentially. I suppose this could be supported by the fact that this film was a carbon-neutral production, but I'm not sure I agree with that.

Anyway, I think it needs a re-watch in the near future, hopefully when it expands into more theaters.

I think the film has far and away the best music composed for any film this year.

[trotchky]

I think I can understand what you're getting at. For all its stylistic grandeur, it's very cold. How well do we get to know Daniel Plainview? This may be part of the point, that he does not allow himself to be vulnerable with anyone, or at least he tries.

That is part of it. Kubrick is cold too, though, and Barry Lyndon is still one of the most passionate films I've seen. For PTA it seems like the craft is more important than the content, which is disappointing considering how well he merged the two in Magnolia. I don't know, it's a movie that seems completely aware that it's a movie; it doesn't feel organic or full-blooded but rather a "film school in a box."


I think the film has far and away the best music composed for any film this year.

I agree with this. The music is a screeching, throbbing thing with a pulse, expressing the characters' inner torments in ways Punch-Drunk Love only hinted at. Musically it's a really nice progression from PDL, actually.

[Bosco B Thug]

Sometimes I think There Will Be Blood feels more like an attempt to imitate a Very Serious Character Study than a very serious character study. And sometimes I think it's a masterpiece. I guess I'm still kind of conflicted about this movie; although, I'm pretty sure I want it to be a masterpiece more than I actually think it's a masterpiece. Maybe I'm almost ready to come to terms with There Will Be Blood's mediocrity? Yes. Please! :)

Though "mediocrity" is kind of harsh. I'd go with "shortcomings."

Yeah, PTA's craft does eclipse his material. The narrative strikes me as awfully quaint and tidy, the grandeur covering up a lack of storytelling breadth and strong intellectual dissertation. His vision of an "austere mood piece" is admirable, but I felt little intuitive political-philosophical voice behind everything. It's a rather straight-forward drama, and I felt while he's trying his best to capture the austere intellectual voice of Kubrick, or the elegantly sardonic social "bite" of Citizen Kane, or the philosophical malaise of Malick, all he can really muster here is a mildly affecting character study with delightful bark but less-than-satisfactory biting undercurrents.

And while I agree with chrisnu that the film fails to plumb the depths of why these characters are so drawn to consumption, I actually kind of liked the one-dimensionality left inhabiting the two main characters. I like seeing the film as a picture of how pathological prickishness and the inadequacy plumb from that is all that it takes to lead the world into institutionalized corruption and decay. I love how women are completely absent, then

in the brothel scene, we only see shadows of them cavorting across Plainview's face, full of distaste and judgment.

The Salon.com review (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2007/12/26/blood/index1.html) closes in on the film's problems very well. 1st paragraph and 2nd paragraph on the 2nd page, especially.

I think if I had to tackle this film's problem in one adjective, it would be "conservative." Sometimes it seems just as prudishly withdrawn from the rough-and-tumble world as its main character.

[Boner M]

Philosophical malaise? Wha?!

I dunno... I usually hate iosos-ing films and reviewing them before they're seen, but some of the complaints I've read in this thread mirror my own when I saw Punch-Drunk Love for the first time, and it seems that all the limitations of TWBB are so inextricably linked with the main character itself that Anderson has uncannily worked the flaws of the main character into the form of the film itself, rather than fallen short or outreaching his grasp. Not that that diffuses any potential criticism, but maybe the meticulous style is where the substance is at?

[Bosco B Thug]

Philosophical malaise? Wha?! What I do? :sad: It is a vague sequence of words, huh...


I dunno... I usually hate iosos-ing films and reviewing them before their seen, but some of the complaints I've read in this thread mirror my own when I saw Punch-Drunk Love for the first time, and it seems that all the limitations of TWBB are so inextricably linked with the main character itself that Anderson has uncannily worked the flaws of the main character into the form of the film itself, rather than fallen short or outreaching his grasp. Not that that diffuses any potential criticism, but maybe the meticulous style is where the substance is at? But no. :P

Watch the film first! Then read the following paragraph. You'll really like it, don't go ruining your viewing with my downer thoughts (although feel free to lower your expectations). :)

If the film is appropriating Plainview's world, that doesn't excuse the film feeling like glossy set-pieces without the continuities of real world wastelands. It seems like the only wasteland there is is Plainview's soul, but that's far from the truth - if the film wants to be an allegory for "the evils of capitalism," it needs to branch out of Plainview's pathology. It's also no excuse for the film feeling like a blank check for showing Plainview's fairy-tale descent into "capitalist madness." It's effective as that, but there's no such metatextual or tonal craft there, at least not that I saw in my first viewing two months ago.

[Boner M]

Yeah, I'll try and keep my pre-viewing input here to... a minimum. :)

As for 'philosophical malaise', well it just struck me as an odd way of characterising Malick's films, though I never thought of it as referring to the ways his characters try to express in words what remains intangible, so I guess the term works.

[number8]

Cinematical posted something interesting.

If you read page 80 of the final shooting script (downloadable in their FYC page here (http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/FinalScript_TWBB.pdf)), there's a scene cut from the film of Daniel admitting that he's impotent. That puts an interesting perspective on how his sexual conquest is replaced by greed, I must admit.

[Bosco B Thug]

Cinematical posted something interesting.

If you read page 80 of the final shooting script (downloadable in their FYC page here (http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/FinalScript_TWBB.pdf)), there's a scene cut from the film of Daniel admitting that he's impotent. That puts an interesting perspective on how his sexual conquest is replaced by greed, I must admit. Coool. Can't decide whether the film is better off leaving it implied like it is or not, though.

[chrisnu]

The Salon.com review (http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/review/2007/12/26/blood/index1.html) closes in on the film's problems very well. 1st paragraph and 2nd paragraph on the 2nd page, especially.
Upon a first viewing, I agree with Stephanie Zacharek's thoughts. Blank is an appropriate word. The character study doesn't lack operatics, it lacks incisiveness, definition, particularly of Eli Sunday. I think it takes assumptions about the manipulative possibilities in religion for granted. Part of that may be due to the lack of backstory for Sunday. We're shown, albeit briefly, how Plainview came to be where he is, how the fabric of his character was established. I don't think that's adequately provided for Eli Sunday, particularly given how the film juxtaposes Sunday and Plainview.

[Sven]

I dunno... I usually hate iosos-ing films and reviewing them before they're seen, ...

I never!

[Boner M]

I never!
But your quirks are best left to yourself, sweetie.

Also, what's with everyone changing their minds about the film in this thread? Goddammit, like the film I haven't seen but have been hyping up to myself for the last few years, dammit! :frustrated:

[Ezee E]

I'm not changing my mind at all. There's a lot more to it then just capitalism vs. religion. That's the focus of the movie with Plainview VS. Sunday, but then there's the fatherhood, the town that changes when Plainview branches out, the brother, and everyone's greed for money. And that's just scraping the themes.

It's an incredibly dark movie, and yet, it manages to throw in some humor from time to time that actually works. The first time when we see Sunday force Plainview to attend his Church, it's pretty funny, despite it being sad at the few moments when Plainview confesses that he abandoned his child. Then, a few scenes later, the roles are switched, and we are shocked at what Plainview forces Sunday to do. Hell, we even laugh a few times there because of the shock of it all. Did anyone else see that coming?

[Derek]

It's an incredibly dark movie, and yet, it manages to throw in some humor from time to time that actually works.

"I drink YOOOOOUR milkshake!"

[Sven]

Plainview is the most remarkable movie performance since Eddie Murphy’s Norbit trifecta.

He didn't like the movie overall, however.

[Raiders]

I was so friggin' set to see this after the thoroughly middling The Orphanage, but we had to go to some stupid party I was unaware existed. Now I can't see it until next weekend. My friend who did see it, and whose taste is similar to mine and who shares my ambivalence toward PTA, left me a text message declaring it the best film of the decade.

:|

[Ivan Drago]

GAHHH!!! This is coming out in Carbondale on January 25th. I WANT TO SEE IT NOW, DAMMIT!!!!!!!

[lovejuice]

the whole film might be too slow and redundant in some part especially the brother section.

structurally i know it has to be there -- so there is a time lapse between the boy going away and coming back -- and it yields some really interesting results. yet the brother himself is not convincing to begin with, and i don't enjoy the dynamics between plainview and this character. i wish they investigated more the relationship between plainview and his sub-ordinated.

but the conclusion is wonderful. as doc mentioned, very existential, and i'll add, almost to the point of being nihilistic.

[lovejuice]

Cinematical posted something interesting.

If you read page 80 of the final shooting script (downloadable in their FYC page here (http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/FinalScript_TWBB.pdf)), there's a scene cut from the film of Daniel admitting that he's impotent. That puts an interesting perspective on how his sexual conquest is replaced by greed, I must admit.

hmm...i don't like that one bit. seem like an easy way out to rationalize evil. it cuts the ambiguity between plainview and his son which i like. is it in the novel?

[Derek]

the whole film might be too slow and redundant in some part especially the brother section.

structurally i know it has to be there -- so there is a time lapse between the boy going away and coming back -- and it yields some really interesting results. yet the brother himself is not convincing to begin with, and i don't enjoy the dynamics between plainview and this character. i wish they investigated more the relationship between plainview and his sub-ordinated.

but the conclusion is wonderful. as doc mentioned, very existential, and i'll add, almost to the point of being nihilistic.

But there is no relationship between Plainview and his subordinated. He trusts no one except his son, who is the only one who attends business dealings with him until the brother shows up. I think that character was meant to feel suspect from the start and while Daniel is at first suspicious, once he sees a simple letter, he gives in because, as he says, he's tired of doing this on his own. The brother is his last chance to have a true connection and become somewhat human again, but his ultimate betrayal sends him into unstoppable downward spiral that at least may have been tempered by his continued presence. The relationship isn't explored in great detail b/c there wasn't much of a relationship to be had. He's around for a while, but Daniel catches him during one of their first talks about anything non-business related.

Setting that scene at the beach, directly following their baptismal cleansing in the ocean is inspired. Anderson allows us to breath, only for a moment, and have a fleeting feeling of hope for Daniel before immediately pulling the rug out from under us.

[lovejuice]

i just read 8's review, and am confused.

are paul and eli actually the same person? i thought they are two brothers played by the same actor for symbolic meaning. at the end plainview mentioned paul went on and built his own company. (this is not in the original script.) so i assume they are two people. there is also the dining table scence in which eli mentioned paul in front of his father, calling him a stupid son.

[Derek]

i just read 8's review, and am confused.

are paul and eli actually the same person? i thought they are two brothers played by the same actor for symbolic meaning. at the end plainview mentioned paul went on and built his own company. (this is not in the original script.) so i assume they are two people. there is also the dining table scence in which eli mentioned paul in front of his father, calling him a stupid son.

It's intentionally left unclear. At the end, Plainview is flat-out lying to Eli to make him feel worse (remember he also said he gave Paul $10,000 rather than the actual $500) and to stress that he's nothing but a fraud and a false prophet. Eli's mention of Paul at the dinner table does make it seem likely that there was another brother, but considering the father is fairly stupid and Eli's a little wacky himself, it could be that he's schizophrenic. I'm not convinced one interpretation is better than the other since both would fit in just as well in the film's overall themes.

[lovejuice]

It's intentionally left unclear. At the end, Plainview is flat-out lying to Eli to make him feel worse (remember he also said he gave Paul $10,000 rather than the actual $500) and to stress that he's nothing but a fraud and a false prophet. Eli's mention of Paul at the dinner table does make it seem likely that there was another brother, but considering the father is fairly stupid and Eli's a little wacky himself, it could be that he's schizophrenic. I'm not convinced one interpretation is better than the other since both would fit in just as well in the film's overall themes.

indeed i'm actually fine with both interpretations.

[number8]

I don't think it's left unclear at all. He's not literally schizo, but he invented the Paul persona to justify his "business" side, away from his pure Christian side. Thematically, it is about the schizo nature of religion. When Eli called Paul a stupid son, it was because Daniel just swindled him off the money he promised to pay in the previous scene. He was calling himself stupid for trusting Daniel, but as "Paul" because it was Paul who made the deal. Otherwise, why would he be so angry?

Remember Daniel's first meeting with Eli at the ranch? They shook hands and looked at each other like they've already met. Then Dano said "My name is Eli Sunday," and Daniel had this wide grin. He knew immediately what the game was.

[number8]

hmm...i don't like that one bit. seem like an easy way out to rationalize evil. it cuts the ambiguity between plainview and his son which i like. is it in the novel?

Hmm, explain? What ambiguity are you referring to and why does that cut it?

[Derek]

I don't think it's left unclear at all. He's not literally schizo, but he invented the Paul persona to justify his "business" side, away from his pure Christian side. Thematically, it is about the schizo nature of religion. When Eli called Paul a stupid son, it was because Daniel just swindled him off the money he promised to pay in the previous scene. He was calling himself stupid for trusting Daniel, but as "Paul" because it was Paul who made the deal. Otherwise, why would he be so angry?

Remember Daniel's first meeting with Eli at the ranch? They shook hands and looked at each other like they've already met. Then Dano said "My name is Eli Sunday," and Daniel had this wide grin. He knew immediately what the game was.

I agree with all that, but the fact that the father, nor anyone else in the family, reacts to Eli's mention of Paul does make it seem possible that he existed. Also, when Daniel first met Eli, only Daniel (and H.W.) knew something was up while Eli maintained a straight face.

Basically, I do agree with your interpretation, but I think the thematic purpose of the two brothers (which is in part, as you mentioned, the dual nature of the church needing capitalism/commerce to support their own cause) gets through whether Paul is real or a construct of Eli. Either way, as soon as Daniel shows up, Eli tries to get him to fund the church from the very first meeting.

[Derek]

Hmm, explain? What ambiguity are you referring to and why does that cut it?

I think he means that if we know Plainview is impotent, then we'd know for sure that H.W. wasn't his son before the final act.

[number8]

Huh? I wasn't ware that that was even in question. We knew that from the beginning. He adopted H.W. after the real dad got killed in the oil well accident.

[lovejuice]

Huh? I wasn't ware that that was even in question. We knew that from the beginning. He adopted H.W. after the real dad got killed in the oil well accident.

aahh...good point.

i sort of remember the miner who plays with the baby at the beginning is not daniel.

i can quite buy that h.w. is absolutely not daniel's son -- that doesn't mean i like the impotance bit -- but i have a hard time cutting out the possibility of there existing paul. i agree with derek though that thematically it works either way.

[MacGuffin]

Is it fair to hop on the bandwagon and call this an American classic? I'm convinced in thirty years we'll look at it the same way that we do The Godfather.

[Sven]

Can I hop on the backlash bandwagon and call this the biggest disappointment of the year?

Not terrible. But I'll be damned if I can find anything outside of two trey excellent performances by Day Lewis and Dano that make it remarkable.

However, I will go as far as to say that I thought it was boringly directed. It was too flat and symmetrical: the desert looked like desert (compare it to the Coens' work on No Country, where they transform the desert into a Dantean diorama), the shot-reverse shot dialogue shooting was unimaginative, the camera is always roaming but never expressing anything with its movements, it's all way, way, way too obvious. Seriously, a flashback showing us that he really loved his son after all... laaaaaame. I love Elswit and there's an occasional flourish here and there, but for the most part, the movie looked lifeless.

On thing that really is bugging me, and it could very well tip my opinion of the film over into "terrible" territory is this feeling that Eli's murder at the end somehow felt like a victory. Not for Daniel, who is far from a victorious position at the end, moral or otherwise, but for the audience. The film smirks at the naivety of religious devotion, setting it a notch below capitalistic entrepreneurship (the film goes great lengths to compare the two enterprises). When Daniel is coerced into getting baptized, we are disgusted at the backhandedness of the religious cheating for an upper hand. Daniel shouldn't be dragged so low. So somehow, at the end, when he forces Eli to confess that he's a false prophet (because Eli needs the money because while religion may be morally equivalent to capitalism, it is far less fiscally responsible), we are somehow elated. Haha! Schedenfreude, right? Anderson is patting us on the back for recognizing our superiority to the religious all along. That ridicule culminates in Eli's brutal murder and, while it is shocking, it feels like the film's final release, setting up this dichotomy of God and Money, only to have one murder the other in a fit of insanity. It feels like pandering to a crowd that wants to be shown that humanity is hopeless, stinking, writing in the bottom of an oil barrel waiting to be shot. I don't know if I'd call it anti-human (both God and Capitalism are constructs), but it definitely feels nasty and hopeless. Which is definitely not my kind of thing.

[MacGuffin]

Can I hop on the backlash bandwagon and call this the biggest disappointment of the year?

Damn. There's a backlash bandwagon for this movie? :sad:

[transmogrifier]

I feel relieved.

[Raiders]

Iosos disappointed? Everyone else splooging? This year's Pan's Labyrinth, I guess.

[chrisnu]

On thing that really is bugging me, and it could very well tip my opinion of the film over into "terrible" territory is this feeling that Eli's murder at the end somehow felt like a victory. Not for Daniel, who is far from a victorious position at the end, moral or otherwise, but for the audience. The film smirks at the naivety of religious devotion, setting it a notch below capitalistic entrepreneurship (the film goes great lengths to compare the two enterprises). When Daniel is coerced into getting baptized, we are disgusted at the backhandedness of the religious cheating for an upper hand. Daniel shouldn't be dragged so low. So somehow, at the end, when he forces Eli to confess that he's a false prophet (because Eli needs the money because while religion may be morally equivalent to capitalism, it is far less fiscally responsible), we are somehow elated. Haha! Schedenfreude, right? Anderson is patting us on the back for recognizing our superiority to the religious all along. That ridicule culminates in Eli's brutal murder and, while it is shocking, it feels like the film's final release, setting up this dichotomy of God and Money, only to have one murder the other in a fit of insanity. It feels like pandering to a crowd that wants to be shown that humanity is hopeless, stinking, writing in the bottom of an oil barrel waiting to be shot. I don't know if I'd call it anti-human (both God and Capitalism are constructs), but it definitely feels nasty and hopeless. Which is definitely not my kind of thing.
You know, I feel the same way about the ending. :)

It feels glib and smug, almost mocking religion as a form of stupidity, and that the victory of capitalism over religion is something to be celebrated. It also feels smug in delivering on the title. It could be seen as a poetic touch, or as arrogant.

[number8]

Wow, I got the exact opposite impression.

I thought Anderson was commenting on capitalism's greed, to the point where man is so arrogant and so into commerce that they're willing to literally kill God, in the form of Eli. I didn't see the end as a victory. I saw it as further condemning Daniel.

The film is about Danile losing touch with humanity. He starts the film alone, in the desert, mining by himself, and millions of dollars later, he's still the same. First he finds solace in a brother, who he kills. Then he shuns away his own adopted son. Then the one character that the entire film spends comparing him to, showing that they're two sides of the same coin, he kills in cold blood. Anderson was making a point that true greed has no allies.

[Derek]

Wow, I got the exact opposite impression.

I thought Anderson was commenting on capitalism's greed, to the point where man is so arrogant and so into commerce that they're willing to literally kill God, in the form of Eli. I didn't see the end as a victory. I saw it as further condemning Daniel.

I'd hate to say to say this is the only interpretation, but it is the one I'd expect from a rational human being.

[Watashi]

Damn Barty! Seeing this movie before me! :frustrated:

[DavidSeven]

Hm... I'm not sold on the brother section. Regardless of how essential it is to the narrative and themes, it felt laborious. This section could have been executed better.

Overall, I don't know. There's a bit of brilliance here and also a few things that didn't quite work. I'm tempted to say that it's my least favorite of the five PTA films, but at the same time, a knockout in terms of Anderson's growth as an artist. It's a ballsy, ambitious, and incredibly unique picture. However, I can't quite bring myself to say that it's among the best of Anderson's career or of 2007.

[Sycophant]

Can I hop on the backlash bandwagon and call this the biggest disappointment of the year?

Not terrible. But I'll be damned if I can find anything outside of two trey excellent performances by Day Lewis and Dano that make it remarkable.
You know, I'm relieved that I have someone IRL to talk to if I don't enjoy this film. Among my circle of friends, this has pretty much already been declared the best film of the year. Guess I'm seeing it Friday.

[Bosco B Thug]

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!



Iosos disappointed? Everyone else splooging? This year's Pan's Labyrinth, I guess. I see the similarities. I like There Will Be Blood and Pan's Labyrinth about the same. They're both technically immaculate and visually stunning films, with moments of cinematic and emotional brilliance, but ultimately they share an overly mannered and overtly gestured roteness. Pan's Labyrinth, though, I'd say fares a lot better.


the camera is always roaming but never expressing anything with its movements I don't agree with all you're problems with PTA's directing (his vision of turn of the century Southern California is thoroughly engaging, I'd say) but yeah, totally on this point. The camera does all this weird roaming, weird hand-held roaming, weird manic tracking, etc. and it does the same things over and over to achieve its formalist austerity, but while in (as mentioned before in this thread) Barry Lyndon the formalist tonality pushes its caustic and wry themes, here there's little challenging about its cinematic composition, and that's bad when there's little juicily detailed about its narrative development, either. It's all broad strokes, even 'Lyndon' mixes things up now and then.

[DavidSeven]

I liked the steady roaming on shots that might have otherwise been pedestrian. They didn't seem weird at all and generally felt pretty purposeful. For example, the shift from Daniel to H.W. and then back to Daniel near the beginning of the film really sets the whole thing up for us. It lets us know that H.W. will be a crucial element of this story, and it gets us to start considering his thought process immediately. This is fairly important for a character who has just a few lines but is one of the three most important characters in the entire film. I'm sure there could be a lot more read into that camera roam and the others as well.

[Bosco B Thug]

I liked the steady roaming on shots that might have otherwise been pedestrian. They didn't seem weird at all and generally felt pretty purposeful. For example, the shift from Daniel to H.W. and then back to Daniel near the beginning of the film really sets the whole thing up for us. It lets us know that H.W. will be a crucial element of this story, and it gets us to start considering his thought process immediately. This is fairly important for a character who has just a few lines but is one of the three most important characters in the entire film. I'm sure there could be a lot more read into that camera roam and the others as well. The one that pans in closer to Daniel then skews left to show HW briefly then continues in closer to Daniel as he talks? Haha, I remember that shot explicitly! And how it ushered in my suspicion of the film's mannered directing as rather forced attempts at idiosyncrasy. :twisted:

[DavidSeven]

The one that pans in closer to Daniel then skews left to show HW briefly then continues in closer to Daniel as he talks? Haha, I remember that shot explicitly! And how it ushered in my suspicion of the film's mannered directing as rather forced attempts at idiosyncrasy. :twisted:

Well, what you see as forced idiosyncrasy, I see as a happy medium between Anderson's flowing aesthetic and the more stagnant approach suited for this story. I guess it just depends on how much you like the shots.

[Bosco B Thug]

Well, what you see as forced idiosyncrasy, I see as a happy medium between Anderson's flowing aesthetic and the more stagnant approach suited for this story. I guess it just depends on how much you like the shots. Well, the shot was striking. And I admit calling into question the film's "cinematic substance" 15 minutes into the film was a bit specious of me... or was it?????

But your defense of the shot makes complete sense. I guess I'll try to keep my TWBB ragging to a minimum until I give it a second view. :P

[krazed]

As long as I can drunkenly smoke cigarettes and shoot at shit inside my own house without anyone saying something to me, i'll have achieved something in life.

[DavidSeven]

Well, the shot was striking. And I admit calling into question the film's "cinematic substance" 15 minutes into the film was a bit specious of me... or was it?????

But your defense of the shot makes complete sense. I guess I'll try to keep my TWBB ragging to a minimum until I give it a second view. :P

I hear ya. I'm not sold on the film after the first viewing either. It's definitely good, but I'm not convinced on just how good it is yet.

[Barty]

The last forty minutes are amazing. Everything else before it is very good, often excellent, with some masterstrokes.

The most interesting part for me was the religious undertones. I'm almost motivated to write up an analysis of it.

[lovejuice]

Hm... I'm not sold on the brother section. Regardless of how essential it is to the narrative and themes, it felt laborious. This section could have been executed better.


my thought exactly. i wonder how it's handled in the book. for one thing i think they miscast (or misinterpret) the role. perhaps he should be more daniel-like.

[NickGlass]

Iosos disappointed? Everyone else splooging? This year's Pan's Labyrinth, I guess.

No, it's definitely better than Pan's Labyrinth.

[Derek]

Well, the shot was striking. And I admit calling into question the film's "cinematic substance" 15 minutes into the film was a bit specious of me... or was it?????

But your defense of the shot makes complete sense. I guess I'll try to keep my TWBB ragging to a minimum until I give it a second view. :P

For me, that shot is emblematic of the nervous tension that PTA creates between Daniel and every other character in the film. For all the talk of Kubrick, that shot reminded me more of Altman, using the zoom as a way of constantly redefining the meaning of what's in the frame and forcing us to consider the true relationship between the characters in the frame and those off-screen. For the most part, there's not much Altman in the style, but Bandy and Tilford are very Altmanesque characters, smug and self-assured, yet awkward, enigmatic and seemingly unknowable...like Daniel. Anyway, PTA doesn't always create this tension stylistically as he did in that shot b/c with DD-L, he's able to linger on his facial expressions to tell us everything we need to know. But again, I think the framing is pretty crucial in setting that up as well. This anxiety and imbalance runs through the very fabric of the film though, from the performances and direction to the score and cinematography. It's often asymmetrical when the audience expects the opposite - narratively, consider the off-balanced relationship b/w capitalism v. religion; visually, look at the shot above or the one with the train tracks in the center as the car slowly emerges along the right side of the screen. It's off-putting and occasionally frustrating, but that's exactly what Anderson is after. I think the suggestion that his direction is lazy or the film lacks style is absurd, because he seems to be expressing something with nearly every shot.

As for your ragging on the film Bosco, am I crazy or did you give it an 8.5?

[Ezee E]

The crowd I was with gave the opposite reaction. They were laughing when Daniel was being forced to scream in the Church, and became shocked when he did it to Eli.

[Derek]

The crowd I was with gave the opposite reaction. They were laughing when Daniel was being forced to scream in the Church, and became shocked when he did it to Eli.

Which to me, shows Anderson's humanity in the way he constructs these scenes. The first is humorous b/c Eli and Daniel are getting what they want - Eli getting to slap Daniel around and prop himself up in front of his congregation after the embarrassment of never receiving the $5,000, while Daniel has completed his monopoly over the region - whereas the second is disturbing and tragic b/c it's so unnecessarily cruel and rooted in self-hatred (for Eli's principles are much like Daniels, only he dangles a cute son and cunning wordplay in front of the people he swindles rather than God) that it is epic in its tragedy and profoundly sad. The film shows how religion relies on commerce and capitalism, yet the capitalists only tolerates religion insomuch as it meets their needs. Once Daniel began unearthing the town's oil, he has no use for Eli or religion since he has already won the townspeople over to get what he wants. I find PTA being much harsher on capitalism than religion - the latter being naive, hypocritical yet ultimately harmless while the prior is bloodthirsty and competitive to the point of craving the ultimate destruction of anything that stands in the way of profit. Even years after Eli tried to stand up to him, Daniel still holds a deep desire to see him suffer and perish and, in the isolation of his mansion, he can finally see to it without fear of any consequences. How someone can mistake this as being meant to elate the audience who is somehow rooting for Daniel over Eli is not only baffling, but actually somewhat disturbing.

[Bosco B Thug]

As for your ragging on the film Bosco, am I crazy or did you give it an 8.5? I did. But it was 8 in my signature. But now I'm thinking more like 7.5. :)

PTA's directing is definitely not lazy, but I didn't think it thought outside its box too much. Anderson's attentions are relatively simple and not the tapestries Altman creates, and the tension he musters in TWBB is no where near as palpable and interactive. I remember I finally began to settle into the film once Anderson nicely sets up Plainview and Sunday's percolating antagonism, but then I stopped being surprised by any of the moves it makes - especially the ending.

[Sven]

I'd hate to say this is the only interpretation, but it is the one I'd expect from a rational human being.

Your tendency toward glib kneejerk insults speaks volumes about why you liked this movie! ;)


How someone can mistake this as being meant to elate the audience who is somehow rooting for Daniel over Eli is not only baffling, but actually somewhat disturbing.

PTA spends the whole film smirking condescendingly at religion, Eli forces Daniel to compromise his position, dragging him down into the impurity of baptism (at least, Daniel believes he is compromising his ethic by following a "false prophet"). Daniel is finally given a chance to equalize his position in relation to Eli by forcing him to renounce his ethic. But this is only an equilibrium... Daniel (and the audience, by way of PTA's condescension) long for an upper hand, which Daniel gets through Eli's murder (Darwinian dominance--survival of the fittest). Cue whimsical line delivery--"I'm done"--cue ironic music.

It's shocking, narratively. Aesthetically, it's also shocking--that knocking sound of the bowling pin is a doozy (the film's sound design overall was very good). Thematically, I'd like to think that PTA had everything you say in mind, but logistically, I don't think that's what's communicated. I'm not suggesting that the audience wants Eli dead, or that Daniel achieves a victory, but that it somehow felt like Daniel "wins" at the end. Of course, PTA isn't evil, so I imagine he's just trying to score chic nihilism points. It's just way too easy to show how low people can go.

That's why I love all his other work. I think PTA is enormously talented and at his best when he's being hopeful and ebullient (**** - Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love; *** - Hard Eight), but I think he was a little overambitious and careless with his subtext here. I never said he was lazy or styleless, just flat and inexpressive most of the time. Altman is never so literal or heavy-handed.

[Ezee E]

I don't think people are really cheering on Plainview. Especially since that scene comes right after what he does to his son.

[Derek]

Your tendency toward glib kneejerk insults speaks volumes about why you liked this movie! ;)

Pssh, and I can only assume you're trying to bait me by following a negative review of this film with a positive one for the piece a shit Little Children. ;)


PTA spends the whole film smirking condescendingly at religion, Eli forces Daniel to compromise his position, dragging him down into the impurity of baptism (at least, Daniel believes he is compromising his ethic by following a "false prophet"). Daniel is finally given a chance to equalize his position in relation to Eli by forcing him to renounce his ethic. But this is only an equilibrium...Daniel (and the audience, by way of PTA's condescension) long for an upper hand, which Daniel gets through Eli's murder (Darwinian dominance--survival of the fittest). Cue whimsical line delivery--"I'm done"--cue ironic music.

But it's not an equilibrium and PTA never sets it up as one. Religion is merely one of the many barriers (albeit the largest, along with family) that prevent Daniel from expanding his empire and profiting off the land. His act is far more extreme and unwarranted than Eli's, which is why I found the film far more critical of the death drive of capitalism than the naivety of religion. You seem to be saying that b/c Daniel is the protagonist, the audience is automatically cheering him on simply b/c he's also condescending towards religion. But this is absurd reasoning that ignores the fact that he also spends the entire film charting the brutality and insanity of Daniels actions. PTA is speaking out against Darwinian dominance (I didn't even think it was debatable since it's made so obvious), which would logically make Daniel's final act of murder something that condemns him, not something to be celebrated.

[Mal]

No, it's definitely better than Pan's Labyrinth.

totally.

[origami_mustache]

Speaking of all these comparisons...I was reminded of Orson Welle's Touch of Evil or even Citizen Kane in terms of unforgettable character studies.

the posters perhaps even hint at it:
http://www.dvdzap.ca/dvd-imgs/1709d0/citizen-kane-pochette-avant.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a5/There_will_be_blood.jpg

I've just had DDL monologues running through my head all day haha.

[Teecee]

This is by far the best film I've seen this year -- it's, really, the only movie I've seen this year that feels alive.

[number8]

http://idrinkyourmilkshake.com/

[Yxklyx]

Really, people like this stuff? Lewis gave an outstanding performance of overacting - and that's it. There's nothing left to look at. 5/10

[Spinal]

This is by far the best film I've seen this year -- it's, really, the only movie I've seen this year that feels alive.

Teecee = Timotei Centea?

[chrisnu]

http://idrinkyourmilkshake.com/
http://www.mcnblogs.com/thehotblog/archives/2008/01/draaaaaainage.html

[Yxklyx]

http://idrinkyourmilkshake.com/

I'm certain that voice byte was swiped from Silvester in one his Looney Tunes.

[Bosco B Thug]

http://idrinkyourmilkshake.com/ Oh my.

[Raiders]

Without a doubt, my favorite PTA film. I'm just unsure to the extent of which I loved it. I'll mull it over, but I certainly have some things I want to say about it, almost all of them positive.

[Raiders]

Seriously, a flashback showing us that he really loved his son after all... laaaaaame.

When the flashback first started, I was ready to have the same reaction. But, by the end, I don't think that was the point of it at all. Look at the final shot. It has H.W. going off with Mary and Daniel walking solemnly off to the oil site. I think it shows his own realization that in life, he chose this fate long ago. I was actually surprised at how effective I found this moment.

[Qrazy]

The flashback wasn't about whether or not he really loved his son. The viewer should have known he loved him already from a lot of other cues... the time they spent alone together including the oil on the shoe, cradling him after he became deaf, etc. The flashback was too demonstrate that he finally lost himself and his capacity for love after his son went deaf. He felt responsible for what he did to the only person he seemed to care about. He internalized this guilt and it destroyed him. Before the accident he was a greedy business man, after the accident he became a monster. Discovering his brother was a fake was another nail in the coffin but he was buried as soon as his son was deafened. This man hates others because he hates himself. When his son is deafened he still feels irresistibly drawn to the oil, to the profit, to the blood of the earth. He knows the boy isn't OK yet he still can't stop himself from running after the oil. He despises both this desire within himself as well as the weakness he shows when he runs away from his son.

The centerpieces of the film... the performance, the character and the character arc are superb. However, I personally had problems with the window dressing. For instance, the voice acting of the extras during crowd scenes in this film was pretty bad. Right after the first monologue... We can't trust you! Blah blah blah... the scene didn't sell itself because of poor crowd execution. I'm divided over how effective the opening of the film was. Granted PTA recreates well mise-en-scene and music cues to get across important narrative moments for Daniel... but other elements of the opening still seem a little arbitrary. Overall the craftsmanship from beginning to end makes this a very good, perhaps even great film... but certainly not a masterpiece.

[Watashi]

My review:

Ratawhat?

[MacGuffin]

My review:

Ratawhat?
:rolleyes:

[Qrazy]

:rolleyes:

*slap*

You have no idea what he's trying to communicate, do you?

[MacGuffin]

*slap*

You have no idea what he's trying to communicate, do you?

Yeah, I do.

I guess that's what you get when you base your overall thoughts on a movie on your expectations for it.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I do.

I guess that's what you get when you base your overall thoughts on a movie on your expectations for it.

Look at his sig oil baron.

[MacGuffin]

Look at his sig oil baron.

I know... I was refering to Ratatouille.

[Qrazy]

I know... I was refering to Ratatouille.

What does that have to do with anything? He loves Ratatouille and is saying he prefers Blood to that.

[MacGuffin]

What does that have to do with anything? He loves Ratatouille and is saying he prefers Blood to that.

Well, "Ratawhat" sounds like dismissal to me, especially after all they hype he has given it, but if that's not the case to your far more knowledgeable and definitely superior eyes, then I apologize, and I hope you do forgive me. I don't know what I'd do not seeing your consistently witty and observant posts acting as my posts' shadows every day!

[Qrazy]

Well, "Ratawhat" sounds like dismissal to me, especially after all they hype he has given it, but if that's not the case to your far more knowledgeable and definitely superior eyes, then I apologize, and I hope you do forgive me. I don't know what I'd do not seeing your consistently witty and observant posts acting as my posts' shadows every day!

I'm really not purposely trying to shadow you man. I'm just very outspoken about my disagreements. I'll try to back off a bit.

[MacGuffin]

I'm really not purposely trying to shadow you man. I'm just very outspoken about my disagreements. I'll try to back off a bit.

It's quite alright. :)

[origami_mustache]

I'm not suggesting that the audience wants Eli dead, or that Daniel achieves a victory, but that it somehow felt like Daniel "wins" at the end. Of course, PTA isn't evil, so I imagine he's just trying to score chic nihilism points. It's just way too easy to show how low people can go.


I actually felt the opposite. He becomes a monstrous self loathing alcoholic misanthrope who pushes out the only person he really cares about; truly a shell of a human being with nothing left in the end but his hatred. I don't see him as winning anything other than the petty triumph over Eli, who is equally as corrupt and greedy in his own way. Sure it's easy to show how low someone can go, but it's not so easy to achieve it this well. Besides just being a character study, which I found fascinating enough, DDL's character is a rather obvious allegory for the ugliness of capitalism and America itself, although perhaps limited, but very relevant, when considering the accusations of oil hunting in the Middle East.

[number8]

Were you two actually arguing over Wats liking TWBB over Ratatouille? :confused:

[Ezee E]

So Wats has to redo his Top 50 already. Awesome.

[transmogrifier]

Were you two actually arguing over Wats liking TWBB over Ratatouille? :confused:

Slow weekend, I guess.

[Qrazy]

Were you two actually arguing over Wats liking TWBB over Ratatouille? :confused:

No, I was trying to clarify that that's what Wats was saying.

[Raiders]

After much deliberation and thought, I have decided to join the bandwagon that does not include iosos.

[Sven]

I have decided to join the bandwagon that does not include iosos.

Har har.

Seriously, though, I want to hear your thoughts on this. Neither o_m or Derek has convinced me that my impression is legitimately incorrect; they have merely offered their own opinions that don't do anything to disprove my approach.

And I'm certainly uninterested in any parallels to Iraq business, the likes of which o_m tried to sell. I haven't come across any that hold up... PTA may've had the administrations love of black gold in mind when deciding to adapt Sinclair's book, but as far as any political or even social comparisons go, it's all superficial at very best.

Regarding the flashback to his son, that interpretation is still awfully obvious, don't you think? I'm not opposed to such literal-mindedness. But what could've been sentimental becomes kind of whimpering. We're not given the context of the flashback, but I see nothing wrong with him dividing up his time between playing with the boy (which he was doing) and work (which he was doing). It's such a literal presentation that it feels like dishonest disassociation, banking entirely on image stripped of meaning.

[Qrazy]

Regarding the flashback to his son, that interpretation is still awfully obvious, don't you think? I'm not opposed to such literal-mindedness. But what could've been sentimental becomes kind of whimpering. We're not given the context of the flashback, but I see nothing wrong with him dividing up his time between playing with the boy (which he was doing) and work (which he was doing). It's such a literal presentation that it feels like dishonest disassociation, banking entirely on image stripped of meaning.

I have no idea what you're trying to communicate here.

[Derek]

Har har.

Seriously, though, I want to hear your thoughts on this. Neither o_m or Derek has convinced me that my impression is legitimately incorrect; they have merely offered their own opinions that don't do anything to disprove my approach.

And I'm certainly uninterested in any parallels to Iraq business, the likes of which o_m tried to sell. I haven't come across any that hold up... PTA may've had the administrations love of black gold in mind when deciding to adapt Sinclair's book, but as far as any political or even social comparisons go, it's all superficial at very best.

Regarding the flashback to his son, that interpretation is still awfully obvious, don't you think? I'm not opposed to such literal-mindedness. But what could've been sentimental becomes kind of whimpering. We're not given the context of the flashback, but I see nothing wrong with him dividing up his time between playing with the boy (which he was doing) and work (which he was doing). It's such a literal presentation that it feels like dishonest disassociation, banking entirely on image stripped of meaning.

I, uh, responded directly to your qualms on the last page to which you never responded. Your interpretations don't make much sense to me, so it's kinda hard to refute something that, to me, is so clearly wrong (ie, the final act being a victory for Daniel and the audience). But you complained about it's condescension towards religion and that's exactly what I responded to.

[Sven]

I have no idea what you're trying to communicate here.

The application of the shot is stripped of context. We never saw the bit that is played for us. But we look at it and are assuming that what's being communicated is the father playing with (and therefore loving) his son, then he gets up to go check on the oil rig. We have no idea why he needs to check the oil rig, but are supposed to gather from the flashback's placement that his going to check on the rig is significant somehow of his not caring about his son as much as he cares about oil. I'm arguing that the flashback is unsuccessful in communicating that because it doesn't give the subject of the flashback any context. It's banking on the image alone without giving the image any meaning.

[Derek]

The application of the shot is stripped of context. We never saw the bit that is played for us. But we look at it and are assuming that what's being communicated is the father playing with (and therefore loving) his son, then he gets up to go check on the oil rig. We have no idea why he needs to check the oil rig, but are supposed to gather from the flashback's placement that his going to check on the rig is significant somehow of his not caring about his son as much as he cares about oil. I'm arguing that the flashback is unsuccessful in communicating that because it doesn't give the subject of the flashback any context. It's banking on the image alone without giving the image any meaning.

Perhaps I'm remembering it wrong, but it didn't look to me like Daniel was really playing with H.W. in that scene. I thought he was talking to business associates and patted him on the head as he went off to play with Mary. Would this not be in line with Daniel caring for him, while still keeping him around more as a prop to help expand his empire than as a true son?

[transmogrifier]

After much deliberation and thought, I have decided to join the bandwagon that does not include iosos.

But I hear that bandwagon has plenty of leg room....

[Qrazy]

The application of the shot is stripped of context. We never saw the bit that is played for us. But we look at it and are assuming that what's being communicated is the father playing with (and therefore loving) his son, then he gets up to go check on the oil rig. We have no idea why he needs to check the oil rig, but are supposed to gather from the flashback's placement that his going to check on the rig is significant somehow of his not caring about his son as much as he cares about oil. I'm arguing that the flashback is unsuccessful in communicating that because it doesn't give the subject of the flashback any context. It's banking on the image alone without giving the image any meaning.

Ah got ya now, but if you read my spoilered text up the page a bit, I don't think the purpose of the flashback is to show his caring for his son. It's to give the audience a sense of the turning point in his life, the point of no return... just prior to the deafening.

[Qrazy]

But I hear that bandwagon has plenty of leg room....

But no floor to stand on.

[Sven]

I, uh, responded directly to your qualms on the last page to which you never responded.

You didn't really say anything that countered anything I said. It amounted to a "Nuh-uh, here's my opinion." Which is interesting and all (you're smart... you've got good opinions), but I didn't think a response was needed. But here I go anyway:


But it's not an equilibrium and PTA never sets it up as one... Religion is merely one of the many barriers (albeit the largest, along with family) that prevent Daniel from expanding his empire and profiting off the land.

I illustrated how it was set up as one. Where you see a movie about capitalism, I see a movie that climaxes with two forces (yes, because by the end, Daniel is clearly capitalism, Eli clearly religion) at battle. Clearly Daniel has the upper hand at the end, but it is not a matter of barricades. It is a clash. Flipsides of the same coin, to use a phrase. Nothing you have said has proven otherwise.


His act is far more extreme and unwarranted than Eli's, which is why I found the film far more critical of the death drive of capitalism than the naivety of religion.

Of course. Daniel (aka capitalism) is the main character, after all. Although, if you think about it, isn't having your naive religious avatar brutally murdered the ultimate criticism?


You seem to be saying that b/c Daniel is the protagonist, the audience is automatically cheering him on simply b/c he's also condescending towards religion. But this is absurd reasoning that ignores the fact that he also spends the entire film charting the brutality and insanity of Daniels actions.

If you actually read what I wrote, I have noted a couple of times that I don't mean "victory" as in "to be celebrated". Of course we look at Daniel with shock and disgust. But it's not treated as an impulsive action or even as the climax of insanity--it's treated like a personal victory for Daniel, finally putting an end to the snivelling demands of the religious who complicated his goals by making him compromise himself for a pipe.


PTA is speaking out against Darwinian dominance (I didn't even think it was debatable since it's made so obvious), which would logically make Daniel's final act of murder something that condemns him, not something to be celebrated.

I don't know if he's speaking out so much as wallowing in it. I'm not even sure that capitalistic ambition is being skewered. It's not what drove Daniel mad. Lack of a strong family bond, basic anti-philanthropic impulses (that he admits to his brother by the fire that I don't think were successfully tied to the idea of entrepeneurship), and probably alcohol are what did him in. If PTA is speaking out against anything, it appears to be cruelty and insanity. Which is, like the rest of the film, way too obvious.

You know, though, the more I think of it, the more I may be liking the movie as a purely visceral character exercise for Dano and Day Lewis. Because they were both pretty bloody phenomenal. It's when I start thinking about all this political stuff that I start to really waver. I don't know. I'm still thinking about things.

[Sven]

Perhaps I'm remembering it wrong, but it didn't look to me like Daniel was really playing with H.W. in that scene. I thought he was talking to business associates and patted him on the head as he went off to play with Mary. Would this not be in line with Daniel caring for him, while still keeping him around more as a prop to help expand his empire than as a true son?


Ah got ya now, but if you read my spoilered text up the page a bit, I don't think the purpose of the flashback is to show his caring for his son. It's to give the audience a sense of the turning point in his life, the point of no return... just prior to the deafening.

I still think the idea posed in your reading, Derek, even if it be the case that his hair-ruffling is to be interpreted as an extension of the son-as-prop, is too taken out of context.

Qrazy, your idea is interesting, but I don't think I get it. Mostly because we don't know that HW is deaf at that point, not to mention that it implies a very definite "Turning Point" of Daniel (being the deafening), which seems still trite. That what turned Daniel into an insane murderer was his adopted son becoming deaf. Bit of a stretch.

[transmogrifier]

But no floor to stand on.

Snap! I wish I had seen the movie so I could be 100% sure I disagree on iosos on this, but what's 5%?

[Sven]

Snap! I wish I had seen the movie so I could be 100% sure I disagree on iosos on this, but what's 5%?

That's okay. I'm not in a rush to agree with anyone that thinks Curse of the Golden Flower is better than No Country for Old Men. :)

[transmogrifier]

That's okay. I'm not in a rush to agree with anyone that thinks Curse of the Golden Flower is better than No Country for Old Men. :)

Two words: Little Children. :crazy:

;)

[Derek]

I illustrated how it was set up as one. Where you see a movie about capitalism, I see a movie that climaxes with two forces (yes, because by the end, Daniel is clearly capitalism, Eli clearly religion) at battle. Clearly Daniel has the upper hand at the end, but it is not a matter of barricades. It is a clash. Flipsides of the same coin, to use a phrase. Nothing you have said has proven otherwise.

You didn't illustrate anything. You simply describe how the final scene pits Daniel vs. Eli as a clash between capitalism and religion...well, duh. But just because a film climaxes with a battle between these two forces doesn't mean that it's equally concerned with both of them throughout the film. Yes, the natures of capitalism and religion are often shown to be flip sides of the same coin, but it's made very clear that they're never on the same level as one another. PTA structures the film in a way that often keeps Eli on the fringes of the story and includes scenes throughout that illustrate Daniel's complete dominance (both mental and physical) over Eli. If you think that's an equilibrium, than there's not much more I can say to convince you otherwise.


Of course. Daniel (aka capitalism) is the main character, after all. Although, if you think about it, isn't having your naive religious avatar brutally murdered the ultimate criticism?

The ultimate criticism of Daniel in the film? Yes.


If you actually read what I wrote, I have noted a couple of times that I don't mean "victory" as in "to be celebrated". Of course we look at Daniel with shock and disgust. But it's not treated as an impulsive action or even as the climax of insanity--it's treated like a personal victory for Daniel, finally putting an end to the snivelling demands of the religious who complicated his goals by making him compromise himself for a pipe.

A personal victory which leaves him a broken shell of a man, unable to move from the bowling alley as he waits for his servant to clean up his mess? Considering the amount of time that's passed since he last saw Eli, it's obvious that he hasn't tried to destroy him in the meantime or prevent him from becoming a (at least briefly) successful radio preacher. The scene is less about Daniel finally fulfilling his desire to destroy Eli than it is about showing his complete lack of compassion and humanity. It mirrors the earlier scene where Eli slapped Daniel around, but even there Eli was only doing his best to combat a force he had no real control over. It was somewhat cruel of Eli, but he did it to get what was rightfully his and to get Daniel back for smacking him around earlier. In other words, it was understandable yet still showed Daniel's dominance over him (he still never received the $5,000, Daniel still never had anything to do with the church, he got the land he needed, etc.). When Daniel "returns the favor", in the final scene, it is solely out of hatred for his fellow man, any man that asks anything from him or intrudes on his isolationist paradise. The only victory Daniel achieves by killing Eli is that he can be left the fuck alone forever. How the audience is supposed to see this as a victory for Daniel is beyond me and you haven't come close to explaining how it is.


I don't know if he's speaking out so much as wallowing in it. I'm not even sure that capitalistic ambition is being skewered. It's not what drove Daniel mad. Lack of a strong family bond, basic anti-philanthropic impulses (that he admits to his brother by the fire that I don't think were successfully tied to the idea of entrepeneurship), and probably alcohol are what did him in. If PTA is speaking out against anything, it appears to be cruelty and insanity. Which is, like the rest of the film, way too obvious.

Anti-philanthropic behavior that mirror that of unbridled capitalism. I mean, Jesus, you make it sound like you need PTA to connect all the dots for you in order to make what should be a pretty obvious parallel. His hatred of competition and use of devious tactics to manipulate others and get what he wants, including steamrolling over religion and family bonds are all related to the cruelty and insanity of the untempered capitalistic impulse.

[Derek]

I still think the idea posed in your reading, Derek, even if it be the case that his hair-ruffling is to be interpreted as an extension of the son-as-prop, is too taken out of context.

Qrazy, your idea is interesting, but I don't think I get it. Mostly because we don't know that HW is deaf at that point, not to mention that it implies a very definite "Turning Point" of Daniel (being the deafening), which seems still trite. That what turned Daniel into an insane murderer was his adopted son becoming deaf. Bit of a stretch.

Well, the scene is purposefully vague, yet you're faulting it for not providing one single clear interpretation. That seems kinda silly to me. Obviously a short flashback to scene we haven't seen is "out of context".

[Sven]

I don't want to spend another hour deliberating over my thoughts about this (what once used to be a tenacious drive in me is now a rather exhausted affair most of the time). Let it be known that I usually appreciate your lengthy responses (when you keep condescending comments in check) and you've given me much to chew on. So, in brief:


You didn't illustrate anything. You simply describe how the final scene pits Daniel vs. Eli as a clash between capitalism and religion...well, duh. But just because a film climaxes with a battle between these two forces doesn't mean that it's equally concerned with both of them throughout the film. Yes, the natures of capitalism and religion are often shown to be flip sides of the same coin, but it's made very clear that they're never on the same level as one another. PTA structures the film in a way that often keeps Eli on the fringes of the story and includes scenes throughout that illustrate Daniel's complete dominance (both mental and physical) over Eli. If you think that's an equilibrium, than there's not much more I can say to convince you otherwise.

All this is saying "Daniel is the main character of the film, thereby capitalism is the main focus of the story." Of course. I don't deny that. However, that does not proclude comparisons and likenings, which I think the film goes to great lengths to include, particularly to religion. Yes it gives capitalism the attention, but that doesn't mean he's not comparing it to religion.


The ultimate criticism of Daniel in the film? Yes.

I think about it like a painting. Say you've got a painting of a crazy-looking uncle Moneybags braining a priest with an axe. That painting would be unable to avoid accusations of being critical about religion. And I think that the setpiece nature of the sequence and totality of its emphasis on Eli and the God-Money relationship permits that kind of snapshot to be taken.


The scene is less about Daniel finally fulfilling his desire to destroy Eli than it is about showing his complete lack of compassion and humanity.

I don't think that's the only thing being conveyed. On a character level, sure, but on a metaphorical level (which exists, because we've been arguing about it this whole time), I think it conveys something else entirely.


The only victory Daniel achieves by killing Eli is that he can be left the fuck alone forever.

Which is exactly what he wanted.


How the audience is supposed to see this as a victory for Daniel is beyond me and you haven't come close to explaining how it is.

See above.


Anti-philanthropic behavior that mirror that of unbridled capitalism. I mean, Jesus, you make it sound like you need PTA to connect all the dots for you in order to make what should be a pretty obvious parallel. His hatred of competition and use of devious tactics to manipulate others and get what he wants, including steamrolling over religion and family bonds are all related to the cruelty and insanity of the untempered capitalistic impulse.

I don't need all the dots to be connected. I just need there to be less confusion about where the dots even are. You say he hates competition. Is that the case? Moreso, is that the case of the "untempered capitalistic impulse"? I believe that competition is one of the fundamental tenants upon which capitalism thrives. He hates his competitors, which is another thing entirely (he says he wants to see them fail). That's a different root altogether. We never see where this anti-humanism begins. From the beginning, Daniel is a representation, so we never see where any of these feelings come from, which is PTA stating that the entrepreneurial spirit, even from the beginning, is corrupt. Which I think is a terribly naive and obvious speculation.

Anyway, whew. This is fun. I always like testing my thoughts on paper, especially with you, you ol' reactionary! :) Fire away!

[Sven]

Well, the scene is purposefully vague, yet you're faulting it for not providing one single clear interpretation. That seems kinda silly to me. Obviously a short flashback to scene we haven't seen is "out of context".

I fault it for having nothing but muddled interpretations. "Out of context" is not bad, but I do wish it were clearer about what we see.

Which leads me to another point about the movie that I thought fell flat on its wind-swept and desolate ass, which is that of the Eli-Paul "ambiguity". Talk about a red herring. Do we need to go into that right now?

[origami_mustache]

We never see where this anti-humanism begins. From the beginning, Daniel is a representation, so we never see where any of these feelings come from, which is PTA stating that the entrepreneurial spirit, even from the beginning, is corrupt. Which I think is a terribly naive and obvious speculation.


Do we really need to see the origin of his misanthropy though? I think there is enough going on in the film, that the ambiguous back story and apparent falling out with his family is sufficient enough. Showing this kind of exposition would have been formulaic and detrimental to the film in my opinion.

[Sven]

Do we really need to see the origin of his misanthropy though? I think there is enough going on in the film, that the ambiguous back story and apparent falling out with his family is sufficient enough. Showing this kind of exposition would have been formulaic and detrimental to the film in my opinion.

The film was already formulaic enough... a little more wouldn't've hurt. Personally, I think it would've gone a long way to humanizing some of the more off-puttingly metaphorical action. Cheers to Day Lewis for pulling out a great performance from such vague material.

[Qrazy]

I still think the idea posed in your reading, Derek, even if it be the case that his hair-ruffling is to be interpreted as an extension of the son-as-prop, is too taken out of context.

Qrazy, your idea is interesting, but I don't think I get it. Mostly because we don't know that HW is deaf at that point, not to mention that it implies a very definite "Turning Point" of Daniel (being the deafening), which seems still trite. That what turned Daniel into an insane murderer was his adopted son becoming deaf. Bit of a stretch.

He is not deaf at that point. The juxtaposition of how he's acting there both in the flashback and in the film in general with how he begins to act after the deafening is the point. And I'm not saying it was a turning point in that he went from being a good man to an evil one in an instant. But after the deafening he crossed a threshold and he began his true descent through hell. Another turning point was when his partner died at the beginning of the film and he adopted the boy. Another when he killed his fake brother. And another when he received his fraudulent and unrepentant baptism. Note the repeated mise-en-scene and character action... the kneeling in front of the fire-y oil, the kneeling at the baptism... the look over the shoulder at the beach and when his first partner is killed in the beginning of the film... the sting in the score during the burial to tie it to the beginning of the film. Also note how the first instances of pain and blood were brought about by accidents in the mechanisms of modernity. These accidents set off the guilt mechanism which finally leads to murder.

This is a complex film which deals with complex emotions. Just as the flashback isn't meant to just be a 'oh he loved his son moment'... when Daniel says that he used his son only to sell oil, that isn't true either. That was only one motivating factor. And he tells his son this because he hates himself and feels endlessly guilty and responsible for deafening his boy in the first place... evidence: his reaction to being told how to run his family... evidence: how he responds when his grown up son won't speak to him... he interprets this as condemnatory silence. Aside from the religious element, Daniel hates Eli because he sees himself in Eli. Eli uses faith for profit, Daniel uses family for profit. But neither of them can face this. Eli wants to believe he is a saint just as Daniel wants to believe he is a family man. To borrow a term from Sartre, they are lost in bad faith. They need to believe their own lie. Daniel in particular despises the drive in himself which pushes him away from his loved ones. He does genuinely want a family. His is lonely. He needs to be loved too... evidence: reaction while reading his brother's diary... evidence: bringing his son back to see the pipeline. What purpose does accumulated wealth serve if you have no one to spend it on or with? Why does Daniel have two bowling alleys if he really just wants to be left alone? What does he do with his time now that he has no one to hunt with? He sits alone and shoots at bottles. Do you think he feels fulfilled? He is hurt when he feels his son is abandoning him...

Really, I don't see how feeling guilty for the damaging of a loved one by extension of your work (to some degree undertaken to provide for that loved one)... and then feeling shame when in your loved one's time of need, you turn your back on them in favor of your work, is remotely trite. I think it's an ever present theme and reality throughout the course of human history... especially in the modern age.

[Sven]

He is not deaf at that point. The juxtaposition of how he's acting there both in the flashback and in the film in general with how he begins to act after the deafening is the point. And I'm not saying it was a turning point in that he went from being a good man to an evil one in an instant. But after the deafening he crossed a threshold and he began his true descent through hell. Another turning point was when his partner died at the beginning of the film and he adopted the boy. Another when he killed his fake brother. And another when he received his fraudulent and unrepentant baptism. Note the repeated mise-en-scene and character action... the kneeling in front of the fire-y oil, the kneeling at the baptism... the look over the shoulder at the beach and when his first partner is killed in the beginning of the film... the sting in the score during the burial to tie it to the beginning of the film. Also note how the first instances of pain and blood were brought about by accidents in the mechanisms of modernity. These accidents set off the guilt mechanism which finally leads to murder.

This is a complex film which deals with complex emotions. Just as the flashback isn't meant to just be a 'oh he loved his son moment'... when Daniel says that he used his son only to sell oil, that isn't true either. That was only one motivating factor. And he tells his son this because he hates himself and feels endlessly guilty and responsible for deafening his boy in the first place... evidence: his reaction to being told how to run his family... evidence: how he responds when his grown up son won't speak to him... he interprets this as condemnatory silence. Aside from the religious element, Daniel hates Eli because he sees himself in Eli. Eli uses faith for profit, Daniel uses family for profit. But neither of them can face this. Eli wants to believe he is a saint just as Daniel wants to believe he is a family man. To borrow a term from Sartre, they are lost in bad faith. They need to believe their own lie. Daniel in particular despises the drive in himself which pushes him away from his loved ones. He does genuinely want a family. His is lonely. He needs to be loved too... evidence: reaction while reading his brother's diary... evidence: bringing his son back to see the pipeline. What purpose does accumulated wealth serve if you have no one to spend it on or with? Why does Daniel have two bowling alleys if he really just wants to be left alone? What does he do with his time now that he has no one to hunt with? He sits alone and shoots at bottles. Do you think he feels fulfilled? He is hurt when he feels his son is abandoning him...

Really, I don't see how feeling guilty for the damaging of a loved one by extension of your work (to some degree undertaken to provide for that loved one)... and then feeling shame when in your loved one's time of need, you turn your back on them in favor of your work, is remotely trite. I think it's an ever present theme and reality throughout the course of human history... especially in the modern age.

Very, very awesome post, with many a novel thought. I will ponder, and give you rep.

[Qrazy]

I illustrated how it was set up as one. Where you see a movie about capitalism, I see a movie that climaxes with two forces (yes, because by the end, Daniel is clearly capitalism, Eli clearly religion) at battle. Clearly Daniel has the upper hand at the end, but it is not a matter of barricades. It is a clash. Flipsides of the same coin, to use a phrase. Nothing you have said has proven otherwise.

If you actually read what I wrote, I have noted a couple of times that I don't mean "victory" as in "to be celebrated". Of course we look at Daniel with shock and disgust. But it's not treated as an impulsive action or even as the climax of insanity--it's treated like a personal victory for Daniel, finally putting an end to the snivelling demands of the religious who complicated his goals by making him compromise himself for a pipe.


Beyond being representative symbols of ideologies Daniel and Eli and above all characters. You are imposing a one to one ideological symbolic reading on the film, which I find to be a general problem when it comes to most literary political critique. Characters and people should be viewed as ends in themselves. There is certainly a clash of ideologies but it's not just religion or even Christianity versus Capitalism or atheism. More than that it's one form of greed against another, one type of person against another. Daniel wins the final round because he 'knows the oil business'... he therefore has the upper hand when it comes to both accumulating wealth and realizing the oil has already been taken from the unbought plot.

Secondly I don't think it's a personal victory for Daniel. I think it's his descent into the final circle of the hell he has created for himself. He doesn't say I'm done. He says I'm finished. And he is most assuredly finished. He's finished his meal. He's finished his murder. He's finished his character arc. He's finished his story. And he's finished off any chance he had for redemption. All he's 'won' is his own complete destruction as a human being.

[Qrazy]

Very, very awesome post, with many a novel thought. I will ponder, and give you rep.

Why thank you kind sir. :)

[Qrazy]

Snap! I wish I had seen the movie so I could be 100% sure I disagree on iosos on this, but what's 5%?

Well I do think Iosos has the right to critique the film (both as a general right but also because I think the film has critique-able flaws). I have complaints about the movie as well, more than I voiced in my other post. I don't think it's a masterpiece.

[Mysterious Dude]

I didn't like the "brother" cul-de-sac.

[Qrazy]

When Daniel "returns the favor", in the final scene, it is solely out of hatred for his fellow man, any man that asks anything from him or intrudes on his isolationist paradise. The only victory Daniel achieves by killing Eli is that he can be left the fuck alone forever. How the audience is supposed to see this as a victory for Daniel is beyond me and you haven't come close to explaining how it is.


I agree with the hatred bit but not that he has actually established a paradise. He established what he thought would be paradise, but came to realize (if only emotionally) that it was really just a spiritually empty Xanadu. Or rather I agree with you that he thought he wanted to be left alone, but what he really wanted was his son, love and family.

[Sven]

He doesn't say I'm done. He says I'm finished. And he is most assuredly finished.

I'm 90% positive he says "I'm done." Not that it matters to what you're saying, but it's a little less literal.

[Qrazy]

I don't want to spend another hour deliberating over my thoughts about this (what once used to be a tenacious drive in me is now a rather exhausted affair most of the time). Let it be known that I usually appreciate your lengthy responses (when you keep condescending comments in check) and you've given me much to chew on. So, in brief:


You're Henry! Burn hiiiiiiim! He ways the same as a duck! Burrrrrrrn hiiiim!!

[Sven]

I agree with the hatred bit but not that he has actually established a paradise. He established what he thought would be paradise, but came to realize (if only emotionally) that it was really just a spiritually empty Xanadu. Or rather I agree with you that he thought he wanted to be left alone, but what he really wanted was his son, love and family.

Yeah, this is a good point, one that I neglected to nod to Derek from earlier. One of the strongest aspects of the film is Daniel's striving for the want of a family. All of that felt pretty spot on. I was just mentioning to Mrs. iosos the other day about how I have no idea what it feels like to have a father. None whatsoever. The concept is such an alien thing to me. And I can see that energy transforming into a monstrous emptiness. So all that feels right.

[Qrazy]

Do we really need to see the origin of his misanthropy though? I think there is enough going on in the film, that the ambiguous back story and apparent falling out with his family is sufficient enough. Showing this kind of exposition would have been formulaic and detrimental to the film in my opinion.

Yeah, I also agree that not providing him with clear cut motivating backstory for his misanthropy was a good choice. It forces the viewer to have to take the harder task of trying to empathize with a greed-driven murder... without excusing his actions, his choices, based upon what his parents did or did not do to him.

[Derek]

I don't want to spend another hour deliberating over my thoughts about this (what once used to be a tenacious drive in me is now a rather exhausted affair most of the time). Let it be known that I usually appreciate your lengthy responses (when you keep condescending comments in check) and you've given me much to chew on. So, in brief:

All this is saying "Daniel is the main character of the film, thereby capitalism is the main focus of the story." Of course. I don't deny that. However, that does not proclude comparisons and likenings, which I think the film goes to great lengths to include, particularly to religion. Yes it gives capitalism the attention, but that doesn't mean he's not comparing it to religion.

Sorry, I get angry when people claim victory (no one has countered my points yet so clearly they're right!) they haven't deserved and say others haven't addressed points when they have. I'm sure you're not doing it on purpose, but it seems like you're going out of your way here to misinterpret my posts and take a reductionist approach to them and the film. I mean, of course the film sets capitalism and religion against one another and draws comparisons and I've said as much. That was never even up for debate. What you originally said is that film is harsher on religion than capitalism, leading to my saying that capitalism is shown as more powerful and brutal, hence it's given more focus over the marginalized Eli character. I never said the film doesn't speak against religion or compare it to capitalism...that's just you putting words in my mouth and getting all hussy when I get frustrated by it.


I think about it like a painting. Say you've got a painting of a crazy-looking uncle Moneybags braining a priest with an axe. That painting would be unable to avoid accusations of being critical about religion. And I think that the setpiece nature of the sequence and totality of its emphasis on Eli and the God-Money relationship permits that kind of snapshot to be taken.

See above. I never said the film isn't critical of religion, quite the opposite. You're reading from my posts what you want to read, which is exactly what it seems like you're doing with the film.


Which is exactly what he wanted.

So a character getting exactly what he wants is automatically a victory for the audience? And I think Qrazy already showed that he's not even getting what he wants in that scene either.

Also, you were right about my saying Daniel hates competition. That was a typo on my part - he thrives on competition and wishes to destroy his competitor, which seems pretty clearly in line with the attitude of unbridled capitalism.


Anyway, whew. This is fun. I always like testing my thoughts on paper, especially with you, you ol' reactionary! :) Fire away!

Your reductionism makes me reactionary...maddening! :frustrated:

:lol:

[Sven]

So, so, so many times could I point out where you're doing exactly the same thing to me ("going out of your way to misunderstand my posts and take a reductionist approach to them")! I could point to several reductions in your last post alone, but I will not, for I am not in the right state of mind to try and wrestle my thoughts around into something coherent (some would argue that I'm NEVER in that state of mind, L. O. L., right?).

Plus, did you read that post of Qrazy's? It's qrazy interesting and touches on many outside factors that shade this discussion (mostly in your favor). I must do some pondering. I'm all confused.

Sigh. If only I didn't feel like I was wasting my time writing these huge 20 minute posts, only to find that I'm not communicating myself nearly as fully as I think I am while I'm writing them.

[Sven]

...which is exactly what it seems like you're doing with the film.

...here you are inferring that I wanted to dislike the film. The contrary is true. I wanted to love it. Of course I wanted to love it. But I didn't. I didn't hate it, but I was confused at much of it and disappointed and I'm trying to figure out why. Plus, this statement also implies that subjective response to a film is wrong. Funny you should accuse me of this, because Armond says that this film is open to such an interpretation (he uses Kael's comment about Days of Heaven as an example--that you can hang whatever metaphor you want on it).

[Derek]

...here you are inferring that I wanted to dislike the film. The contrary is true. I wanted to love it. Of course I wanted to love it. But I didn't. I didn't hate it, but I was confused at much of it and disappointed and I'm trying to figure out why. Plus, this statement also implies that subjective response to a film is wrong. Funny you should accuse me of this, because Armond says that this film is open to such an interpretation (he uses Kael's comment about Days of Heaven as an example--that you can hang whatever metaphor you want on it).

No, all it implies is that you're reducing the film to things I don't think it is. That's only my opinion and doesn't invalidate your interpretations. I simply don't understand how anyone watching the film can interpret some things the way you did, so unfortunately my confusion has turned into frustration. And you somehow twisted my thoughts about how the film is more critical of capitalism than religion into my saying that it doesn't even compare the two.

Anyway, it's clear that neither of us are on the same page anymore, which I'm sure is almost as much my fault as it is yours. ;)

[chrisnu]

Don't watch if you haven't seen the movie:

There Will Be Milkshakes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCCdZmHk5Fk)

DRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAINAAAAAGE!

And how about this:

http://tinyurl.com/3ans8r


Speaking of Day-Lewis and his all-consuming turn as a turn-of-the-century oilman in Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood, where did that whole maniacal "I drink your milkshake!" speech come from at the end of the film?

Turns out that it came from the Congressional Record - from a 1924 hearing in the wake of the Teapot Dome scandal.

"You can't make this stuff up, honestly," says Anderson, who adapted Upton Sinclair's Oil! - inspired in part by the exploits of Teapot Dome-tainted petro-king Edward Doheny - and spent years researching the era, before filming Blood in Texas in 2006.

"I read the transcripts of the congressional hearings," the writer-director says, "and all these guys had to defend their honor and describe what drainage was. There was essentially a lot of shady stuff going on, and there was drainage going on from the U.S. naval fields, these reserve fields that had been set aside for the U.S. Navy.

"Anyway, I don't remember who it was - maybe it was [New Mexico senator] Albert Fall - but someone had to get up there and describe what drainage was, and his 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.'

"It was more or less like that," says Anderson, who reworked the speech into the crazed lecture delivered by Day-Lewis. "But just the idea that somebody would be describing it as a milkshake was so absurd, I thought that's too good to pass up!"

[Rowland]

I'm disappointed...

Time to read the thread.

[Watashi]

I'm disappointed...

Time to read the thread.
Boo-urns.

[Spinal]

Don't you mean 'time to post a bunch of dissenting reviews from online bloggers'?

[Rowland]

Don't you mean 'time to post a bunch of dissenting reviews from online bloggers'?Haha, very funny.

No, I don't think I'll be contributing anything. Besides, I don't outright dislike the film, so I don't feel as desperate for support here as I did for, say, Juno. To sum up my impression, it's a bold cinematic vision that is too obvious and lacks a soul. I respect the hell out of it, but I didn't feel much of anything while watching it besides occasional awe. It's too soon to say (I will probably see the movie again), but TWBB may be my least favorite effort by Anderson.

[Mysterious Dude]

Is it just me, or does Paul Thomas Anderson like it when his characters beat somebody half to death?

Or, in some cases, all the way to death.

[chrisnu]

Found a few clips on YouTube, and I'm thinking I need to revisit this, and particularly my original reaction to the ending. I don't think it's mocking religious faith in general as much as illustrating the possible consequences of absolute power without accountability. Daniel accomplishes this through capitalism, Eli accomplishes this through the abuse of religion. The first scene in the Church of the Third Revelation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA910dsowqo

The first thing I noticed: no Bibles. It's all show and sensationalism, people willing to buy into whatever Eli says out of a need to feel something significant. Eli has his sermon, and Daniel has his, promising prosperity in the region, which will be abandoned once it has been pilfered. I don't think it's directly religion that Daniel hates, it's that Eli's found his own way to sucker people into doing anything he wants.

Daniel and Eli's first major confrontation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2RN3-A31QI

What I'm reminded of is when Jesus referred to the Pharisees as whitewashed sepulchres. Daniel's son becoming deaf appears to be a turning point where he becomes increasingly self-loathing. He seeks to destroy Eli as a means of destroying what he hates in himself. This leads to their second confrontation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOrtQoELxH8

There's absolutely a desire for penitence, that Daniel allows to show through his greed, if only for a moment. Penitence for, in his mind, destroying something he allowed himself to cherish.

Their final confrontation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJxLsOwc0jk

Is not an exercise of power as much as Daniel's final act of cowardice. He has completely cut out everyone who would cause him to face his own regrets, what he hates about himself. He's free to live his lobotomized life into oblivion.

[Barty]

Chrisnu, you are dead on the money. I think a lot of the film can be understood through the Biblical references.

For example, the title "There Will Be Blood" is take from a passage in Exodus, and it's used in a context to reference the conflict between religion and economy. Just as the issue of economy was the dividing issue between Moses and Pharaoh; Pharaoh wanted the Hebrew slaves for his labor, Moses wanted him to let them go for religious purposes. Because of the conflict, there literally was blood throughout the land.

Also, the names of Daniel and Eli are important. They have a double meaning. Both names could be used in a negative or positive sense.

Eli means in Hebrew either "My God" or "Ascension", the later being ascension in the sense of higher position or power, which is exactly what Eli desires. Not to be righteous, but famous, and have power.

Daniel in Hebrew means "God is my Judge". On one hand, it could be a positive name if the person is righteous, and the judgment is in favor of the person. On the other hand, an unrighteous person would receive a judgment of condemnation.

There Will Be Blood isn't condemning religion, or capitalism, but condemning the perversion of these two systems that so often permeate people, and often societies.

[origami_mustache]

What's wrong with being "obvious". I am typically impressed when everything from the script, character arcs, and performances, to the production design, compositions, subtext, motifs, etc. are carefully calculated to support and communicate the vision of the writer/director so well. Should the filmmakers disguise the ideas they want to convey? I really don't get this argument.

[Qrazy]

What's wrong with being "obvious". I am typically impressed when everything from the script, character arcs, and performances, to the production design, compositions, subtext, motifs, etc. are carefully calculated to support and communicate the vision of the writer/director so well. Should the filmmakers disguise the ideas they want to convey? I really don't get this argument.

Origami help me pimp Aleksei German in Y Tu Film Discussion k? The guy needs more viewers/respect.

[origami_mustache]

Origami help me pimp Aleksei German in Y Tu Film Discussion k? The guy needs more viewers/respect.

Yeah, I want to see more from him as well. It's really a shame My Friend Ivan Lapshin doesn't have a proper DVD release in the states. According to the writeup on KG it was voted the best Soviet film of all time in a national poll of film critics in 1987. I'm excited to see Hard To Be God now...it sounds really fascinating.

[Rowland]

What's wrong with being "obvious". I am typically impressed when everything from the script, character arcs, and performances, to the production design, compositions, subtext, motifs, etc. are carefully calculated to support and communicate the vision of the writer/director so well. Should the filmmakers disguise the ideas they want to convey? I really don't get this argument.I suppose I don't think it's a very interesting idea, at least as it's expressed here. That probably isn't expressing myself right either. The movie just left me feeling kinda empty. When I see it again, maybe I'll get a better hold on why, or hopefully I'll feel differently.

That said, I feel the vision here is muddled. It all feels carefully calculated, almost stiflingly so, but the more I think about it, the more mixed messages I pick up.

[megladon8]

Wow, the new critic for the Ottawa Citizen said it was good, but nothing brilliant.

He basically said it's a study of greed, lust, religion, power, etc. and how they all intertwine, but it's all done through a character who is utterly loathsome, and that he just didn't find it overly enjoyable to watch.

He gave it ***1/2 out of *****.

And I'm ticked that it's only playing in one theatre in Ottawa, and it's on the other side of the city.

I am hoping the local AMC eventually gets it. Lately they've been pretty tardy with releases.

[Rowland]

Wow, the new critic for the Ottawa Citizen said it was good, but nothing brilliant.

He basically said it's a study of greed, lust, religion, power, etc. and how they all intertwine, but it's all done through a character who is utterly loathsome, and that he just didn't find it overly enjoyable to watch.

He gave it ***1/2 out of *****.So why is that a wow? Does the Ottawa Citizen usually love everything?


And I'm ticked that it's only playing in one theatre in Ottawa, and it's on the other side of the city.That's not an excuse! I drove 45 minutes to the very opposite end of my city to see it. Hell, I even got lost on the way home. Maybe that's partly the cause for my reaction to the movie... :lol:

[megladon8]

So why is that a wow? Does the Ottawa Citizen usually love everything?

No, they usually HATE everything, but it's easy to know which ones they will love.

I was expecting a 5/5 "holy goddamn shit this is the best movie ever made in the history of the universe!" review. I was surprised it wasn't that highly rated.

Atonement got ****1/2 / *****, which I think is the highest rating they've given out since the *****/***** for Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.



That's not an excuse! I drove 45 minutes to the very opposite end of my city to see it. Hell, I even got lost on the way home. Maybe that's partly the cause for my reaction to the movie... :lol:

I would take the trek if it was the only thing out that I want to see, but there are still a couple of movies at the local AMC which I would like to see first - Atonement, for example.

[Derek]

and how they all intertwine, but it's all done through a character who is utterly loathsome, and that he just didn't find it overly enjoyable to watch.

He's not a poster, but it's Saturday so drink I say!

[Ezee E]

Anything before There Will Be Blood? Psh.

[megladon8]

He's not a poster, but it's Saturday so drink I say!

What??

[Rowland]

This is settling really well. Despite my initially lukewarm reaction, I can't wait to see it again. What that means exactly... *shrug*

[megladon8]

This is settling really well. Despite my initially lukewarm reaction, I can't wait to see it again. What that means exactly... *shrug*


I think it means that Day-Lewis drank your milkshake.

And you liked it.

[Bosco B Thug]

This is settling really well. Despite my initially lukewarm reaction, I can't wait to see it again. What that means exactly... *shrug*
You're realizing it has the craft and drama to deserve a 3/4. Buuuut simultaneously realizing Sweeney Todd actually deserved a 3.5/4...

[Rowland]

You're realizing it has the craft and drama to deserve a 3/4. Buuuut simultaneously realizing Sweeney Todd actually deserved a 3.5/4...On the flipside, Sweeney Todd hasn't settled well. I may demote it to a solid **½ in my log. :P

[Bosco B Thug]

On the flipside, Sweeney Todd hasn't settled well. I may demote it to a solid **½ in my log. :POh, you. *shakes fists, embraces Hostel II*

[Spinal]

This was great! Daniel Day-Lewis is still awesome. Paul Dano still sucks. I never want to see him in another movie again ever. But, still, so many great moments and a film that really doesn't feel like anything else I've seen before. It just has its own particular rhythm and personality.

[Benny Profane]

Saw this yesterday. Lots to admire and think about, but as for a gut reaction there was no oomph. I think the hammy ending left a sour taste, but overall I was very impressed by many phases and aspects of the film. I just think it failed to build into a cohesive whole. But very ambitious and "cinematic".

[Raiders]

Paul Dano still sucks. I never want to see him in another movie again ever.

I don't know. Every scene with him made me hate his character. He was so meek and slimy. Very good, I thought.

[Rowland]

I don't know. Every scene with him made me hate his character. He was so meek and slimy. Very good, I thought.This was one aspect of the movie I didn't like. I think it would have benefited from a more nuanced portrayal of Eli.

[Raiders]

This was one aspect of the movie I didn't like. I think the movie would have benefited from a more nuanced portrayal of Eli.

By more nuance do you mean a vision less villified? Do you mean more screen time? I just don't quite understand. He's different in almost every scene. Some scenes he stands quiet, and in his church he is righteous and violent, with Daniel he is meekly threatening. The film makes no qualms about making him the villain to Daniel, the lesser and opposite force trying to build himself up on the back of big business. The final scenes show us his weakness and perhaps as a false prophet (he quickly relents his religious indignation for the chance at money). I don't think it is needed to show his life story because he is not the film's focus and too much exposition on his character would only muddle the film's narrative. He is an antagonist, and in this function he is exactly what the film needs him to be.

[Rowland]

By more nuance do you mean a vision less villified? Do you mean more screen time? I just don't quite understand. He's different in almost every scene. Some scenes he stands quiet, and in his church he is righteous and violent, with Daniel he is meekly threatening. The film makes no qualms about making him the villain to Daniel, the lesser and opposite force trying to build himself up on the back of big business. The final scenes show us his weakness and perhaps as a false prophet (he quickly relents his religious indignation for the chance at money). I don't think it is needed to show his life story because he is not the film's focus and too much exposition on his character would only muddle the film's narrative. He is an antagonist, and in this function he is exactly what the film needs him to be.I still think the conflict between the two, as well as the ending itself, would have had more dramatic impact if he wasn't such a cliche. The movie's function as an allegory would probably feel less glib as well.

[Rowland]

Oh, and I love how Paul Dano appears to have aged maybe a few years in the epilogue, whereas H.W. is a full grown adult. I recognize that this was for the purpose of dramatic license, so I'm really just making an observation, but it did tickle me.

[Raiders]

Oh, and I love how Paul Dano appears to have aged maybe a few years in the epilogue, whereas H.W. is a full grown adult. I recognize that this was for the purpose of dramatic license, so I'm really just making an observation, but it did tickle me.

Well, between 10 and 30, people's looks change much more considerably than between 20 and 40. Same really with 40 and 60. I imagine in real life Eli wouldn't have looked a whole lot different if he had taken good care of himself.

[Rowland]

Well, between 10 and 30, people's looks change much more considerably than between 20 and 40. Same really with 40 and 60. I imagine in real life Eli wouldn't have looked a whole lot different if he had taken good care of himself.It's still a rather unconvincing leap, given that he doesn't look any different than he did when boarding the train at the close of the second act. I imagine they didn't want us overly distracted by obvious aging makeup.

[Benny Profane]

I thought Eli was about 15 or 16.

[Rowland]

Thank you THND (http://mattzollerseitz.blogspot.com/) for the link to this review (http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A166877) for the Independent Weekly written by Godfrey Chesire. I'm not outright negative on the film like he is, but I find myself kinda half-nodding with several of his points, especially regarding how the movie's first hour, climaxing with the oil fire, looms dauntingly over the rest of the picture in virtually every regard, rendering its remaining length redundant in most respects, as well as how it grows increasingly absurd, assaultive, and reductionist to diminishing returns. I just wish he devoted more of his review to elaborating on his points, without all of the tired commentary regarding Anderson the filmmaker.

And also, Chesire doesn't talk about this, but I wasn't entirely satisfied with how the "brother" section played out. I can imagine justifications for it on an intellectual/literary level, but on the screen it didn't have much of an impact.

[Watashi]

*drink*

[Sven]

*drink*

You need to enhance your vocabulary, bud.

[Derek]

You need to enhance your vocabulary, bud.

Repped!

[Sven]

Never mind, you were drinking for the critic review link.

*drink*

[Melville]

I'm still collecting my thoughts, but it's definitely settling in nicely. The structure was very interesting, with most of the film hovering, almost statically, in a state of apocalyptic foreboding, before finally coalescing in a grand finale in which the narrative, as well as the protagonist himself, suddenly reaches an almost cathartic self-annihilation. The score was especially magnificent in aiding this structure, as it was largely responsible for the apocalyptic foreboding and lent a beautifully ironic tone to the final pseudo-catharsis.

Another thing I liked was the kind of mythic ambiguity of it: the archetypal characters come from nowhere, never seem to be involved with a larger social context, and in one case even have their identities conflated. (Regarding the two brothers played by Dano, I loved how they lent a certain Biblical uncertainty to the story, reminding me of the differing versions of the Gospels and of God's creation in Genesis.) That mythic ambiguity, which made the story seem to come from a time long buried by history, reminded me a lot of Faulkner's Absalom, Absalom!, with Plainview taking the place of Sutpen.

As for Plainview's character arc and the religion versus capitalism debate, it seems to me that Plainview's murder of Eli isn't just about capitalism's "victory" over religion, but about Plainview's "victory" over society, and even over meaning in general. Plainview loathes people and society as a whole, purposely isolates himself from them, but the success that he craves is obviously inspired by common social goals of family and wealth. Yet, because of his loathing, "the competition in him", he won't accept that these goals are part of a larger society, that they are a tie to that society; instead, he perverts them by insisting that they must be his alone, that they must be part of a society that is solely for him. He craves personal relationships, with his son and his brother, but those relationships must be on his own terms; as soon as they are not his, they are intolerable. He wants to build a house just like one in his home town, a symbol of success, but he wants it to bear no resemblance to the original—which, because it is another's and not his, makes him sick. Of course, once removed from their meaning in a societal context, his social goals become meaningless. He draws his desires from society, but his hatred for that society makes him loathe to accept the mores that accompany those desires. And he is certainly aware of this dilemma, as evidenced by his guilt at being accused of abandoning his son. But, despite this awareness, he refuses to accept the values of the people around him, which leaves him in a perpetual state of nihilism. However, another view runs counter to this within Plainview: he actually does value what society does. He agrees with society's ideals, but he is disgusted by its failure to live up to them; hence, his distaste for old man Sunday's physical abuse of his daughter. Thus, the society that he wants for himself is just the idealized one, unsullied by the failures of actual people.


Within this context, Plainview's disdain for religion has multiple facets: He hates it because it is false—which, as a nihilist, he thinks of all beliefs, even as he simultaneously pines for society's ideal. He hates it because its members know it is false—which he wants to believe of all their beliefs. And most importantly, he hates it because it successfully ties the community together—which threatens his view of that community and its beliefs as loathsome, and which makes him all the more intent on insisting that it's false. When he forces Eli to admit to being a false prophet, he is not only getting revenge for his baptism: he is also forcing Eli to admit that the values that tie society together are false, and hence that he is right to refuse them; and he is forcing Eli to admit that society doesn't live up to its own ideals. Then, when Eli has admitted that religion, and hence society as whole, is a lie, that it is a scheming manipulation of its own rules, Plainview feels free to eradicate it completely, because any moral restriction has been removed by Eli's admission of the falseness of that restriction and of its believers. But, because Plainview's goals were always based upon society, Plainview finally kills those goals along with Eli. With this completed, Plainview truly is finished: he has annihilated society, and hence has annihilated himself.
Regarding the specifics of the earlier argument between iosos and everybody else, I don't have much to say.

I think about it like a painting. Say you've got a painting of a crazy-looking uncle Moneybags braining a priest with an axe. That painting would be unable to avoid accusations of being critical about religion. And I think that the setpiece nature of the sequence and totality of its emphasis on Eli and the God-Money relationship permits that kind of snapshot to be taken.
I didn't notice any response to this, so I'll provide one: such a painting would definitely not suggest a criticism of religion to me. It would look like a metaphor for capitalism killing religion, certainly, but that would suggest that religion is an innocent victim of capitalism's mania. If the murderer was presented in a heroic light, rather than as a crazy-looking uncle Moneybags, then that would be different.

As for the flashback, Raiders' interpretation seems obviously correct to me; it was definitely what I was thinking when viewing the scene, anyway. And although the flashback is a little weak for its obviousness, I think it fits perfectly well within the larger structure of Plainview's self-loathing that Qrazy described.

[Rowland]

Are we drinking shots of milkshake for this occasion?

*drink*

[Rowland]

Given all my mining for negativity, how about something positive.

What is everyone's favorite shot? There are so many that are indelible, it's hard to choose. If I had to pick one though, as of my first viewing, I'd go with the single-take of H.W.'s return from San Francisco while Daniel oversees the oil piping being laid down. Anderson stages it with stunning elegance, as how he shoots it and the very context of the scene itself is delightfully thick with meaning.

[Ezee E]

I found nothing cliche about Eli. By remaining a quiet man during town meetings, and only expressing throughts when alone with Daniel, it remained pretty unique to me. Each scene that he's in seems to be a standout, and are the highlights of the movie, minus the rig explosion.

I see nothing wrong with his performance.

[Ezee E]

Given all my mining for negativity, how about something positive.

What is everyone's favorite shot? There are so many that are indelible, it's hard to choose. If I had to pick one though, as of my first viewing, I'd go with the single-take of H.W.'s return from San Francisco while Daniel oversees the oil piping being laid down. Anderson stages it with stunning elegance, as how he shoots it and the very context of the scene itself is delightfully thick with meaning.
I'd have to think about it some more as no particular shot really wowed me. I'm going to see it again sometime this week.

[Rowland]

I'd have to think about it some more as no particular shot really wowed me. Really? If I was going to praise one element of the movie without reserve, it would be Anderson's direction. I have so many shots/images etched into my mind's eye.

[Sven]

Given all my mining for negativity, how about something positive.

What is everyone's favorite shot? There are so many that are indelible, it's hard to choose. If I had to pick one though, as of my first viewing, I'd go with the single-take of H.W.'s return from San Francisco while Daniel oversees the oil piping being laid down. Anderson stages it with stunning elegance, as how he shoots it and the very context of the scene itself is delightfully thick with meaning.

Maybe one reason I'm so frustrated with the film is that I found the look pretty unremarkable in the context of PTA's other stuff. There's nothing as delightful as the opening shot of Boogie Nights in this, nor is there anything as elegant as the bit in Hard 8 where PBH sees the blood on his cuff, nor is there anything as geographical as the winding halls of the television station in Magnolia, nor is there anything as ecstatic as the pink and blue light refractions in Punch-Drunk Love. I saw little more than a whole lot of desert and a whole lot of wandering camera movement that didn't amount to any kind of palpable expression.

Maybe my favorite shot was any shot focusing on Day-Lewis's face, because he totally controlled that friggin' movie.

[Ezee E]

Maybe one reason I'm so frustrated with the film is that I found the look pretty unremarkable in the context of PTA's other stuff. There's nothing as delightful as the opening shot of Boogie Nights in this, nor is there anything as elegant as the bit in Hard 8 where PBH sees the blood on his cuff, nor is there anything as geographical as the winding halls of the television station in Magnolia, nor is there anything as ecstatic as the pink and blue light refractions in Punch-Drunk Love. I saw little more than a whole lot of desert and a whole lot of wandering camera movement that didn't amount to any kind of palpable expression.

Maybe my favorite shot was any shot focusing on Day-Lewis's face, because he totally controlled that friggin' movie.
Hmm... I'll still need to see this a second time as mentioned, but you may be on to something here. The movie is more classical in its presentation, never one to really attempt the work that PTA has done in his previous movies. Is this a bad thing? Not necessarily, as the movie is still great to watch as a whole. It is the greatness of the screenplay, and the acting that kept me interested the entire way.

I can't wait to watch this again. Probably tomorrow.

[origami_mustache]

Maybe one reason I'm so frustrated with the film is that I found the look pretty unremarkable in the context of PTA's other stuff. There's nothing as delightful as the opening shot of Boogie Nights in this, nor is there anything as elegant as the bit in Hard 8 where PBH sees the blood on his cuff, nor is there anything as geographical as the winding halls of the television station in Magnolia, nor is there anything as ecstatic as the pink and blue light refractions in Punch-Drunk Love.

Maybe my favorite shot was any shot focusing on Day-Lewis's face, because he totally controlled that friggin' movie.

I was a little underwhelmed by the look of the film initially as well, but I think you have to separate it from the context of Anderson's filmography. This is the kind of film, stylistic flare would interfere with and distract from the more interesting aspects. The most notable flaws I found were several brief moments where the character's are slightly out of focus which bothers me more than the lack of extravagant shot selections, although not enough to significantly alter my overall opinion.

[Bosco B Thug]

I found nothing cliche about Eli. By remaining a quiet man during town meetings, and only expressing throughts when alone with Daniel, it remained pretty unique to me. Each scene that he's in seems to be a standout, and are the highlights of the movie, minus the rig explosion.

I see nothing wrong with his performance. I felt Dano came off a bit stilted... but it works with the character. This is one of those cases where the actor's abilities are custom suited for the role given him.

Though I'd say the reason his scenes stand out to us is because they are always the most explosive and theatrical... not an entirely good thing.


And also, Chesire doesn't talk about this, but I wasn't entirely satisfied with how the "brother" section played out. I can imagine justifications for it on an intellectual/literary level, but on the screen it didn't have much of an impact. Yeah, the scene is sort of flat, especially how streamlined and stagey its following of the two men's

"guy's night out" - they're in the brothel for a single atmosphere "brooding" shot, then they're drinking so Plainview can spill his guts, then they're at the beach giving us more brooding atmosphere shots and glares, then all of sudden they're in the middle of nowhere so Plainview can kill him, etc. (I know, chronology is probably way off)

... but that segment does finally bring in a little bit more to the picture (women, for instance, as well as the brother, enacting a more underprivileged form of money-whoring).

My problem with the film is the film has no personality outside of its (given, compelling) parable with Plainview and Sunday. For instance, the towns Plainview accomodates, his competitors, his crew... opportunities for breadth, but all they do is background and play off Day-Lewis.


Given all my mining for negativity, how about something positive.

What is everyone's favorite shot? There are so many that are indelible, it's hard to choose. If I had to pick one though, as of my first viewing, I'd go with the single-take of H.W.'s return from San Francisco while Daniel oversees the oil piping being laid down. Anderson stages it with stunning elegance, as how he shoots it and the very context of the scene itself is delightfully thick with meaning. That's a good one, loved his "breakout." The son was probably the film's next biggest asset as a character after Plainview and Sunday.

[MacGuffin]

It's upsetting that the milkshake quote is going to become to most iconic part of this wonderful movie. I dislike it when people mistake the over the top energized performances for comedic intentions. Discuss.

[Watashi]

I'm pretty sure the milkshake line is suppose to be funny.

[Rowland]

I felt Dano came off a bit stilted... but it works with the character. This is one of those cases where the actor's abilities are custom suited for the role given him.Shouldn't he be persuasively charismatic and unstilted, given the nature of his character as a sort of seducer? That said, I thought he was fine in the role, given that it was written as fairly one-dimensional and slimy.


Yeah, the scene is sort of flat, especially how streamlined and stagey its following of the two men's

"guy's night out" - they're in the brothel for a single atmosphere "brooding" shot, then they're drinking so Plainview can spill his guts, then they're at the beach giving us more brooding atmosphere shots and glares, then all of sudden they're in the middle of nowhere so Plainview can kill him, etc. (I know, chronology is probably way off)Speaking of this section, I fucking adored the shot of Daniel floating in the waves after gathering that his supposed brother may be an impostor. That shit shrieked of menace.

[Rowland]

I dislike it when people mistake the over the top energized performances for comedic intentions. Discuss.Who's to say this widely perceived tone in the closing reel wasn't intentional? It's so freakishly absurd that laughs are justified.

[Spinal]

Yeah, gotta agree. I don't think it takes anything away from the scene for there to be laughs. It is tense, horrific and comedic all at once.

[Bosco B Thug]

Shouldn't he be persuasively charismatic and unstilted, given the nature of his character as a sort of seducer? That said, I thought he was fine in the role, given that it was written as fairly one-dimensional and slimy. Well, there's a reason he's as aggressively entrepreneuristic as Plainview. They both have deep-seated insecurities. Sunday's a wimpy little dweeb. He uses religion because its easy to make people his sheep even with his weaknesses.


Speaking of this section, I fucking adored the shot of Daniel floating in the waves after gathering that his supposed brother may be an impostor. That shit shrieked of menace. Pffft, Day-Lewis being a scary-ass mutha? Give me something else, movie!

[Derek]

Yeah, the scene is sort of flat, especially how streamlined and stagey its following of the two men's

"guy's night out" - they're in the brothel for a single atmosphere "brooding" shot, then they're drinking so Plainview can spill his guts, then they're at the beach giving us more brooding atmosphere shots and glares, then all of sudden they're in the middle of nowhere so Plainview can kill him, etc. (I know, chronology is probably way off)

... but that segment does finally bring in a little bit more to the picture (women, for instance, as well as the brother, enacting a more underprivileged form of money-whoring).

Your chronology being off isn't that important, except that you make it sound like a random progression of events. Daniel spills his guts in an attempt to bond, then they go to the Bandy estate together (which extends to the water) where both the beach and murder scenes occur.

[Melville]

Yeah, I think the humor added to the grotesqueness of the scene.


The most notable flaws I found were several brief moments where the character's are slightly out of focus which bothers me more than the lack of extravagant shot selections, although not enough to significantly alter my overall opinion.
I actually liked that; it added to the mythic ambiguity that I mentioned. I especially liked the shot that Rowland mentioned, with the reunion of Daniel and H.W. in the distance and the oil pipeline in the foreground. Besides the obvious thematic resonance of having the pipeline dominate the human figures, the figures are out of focus, reinforcing the ambiguous intentions and meaning behind their reunion.


Maybe one reason I'm so frustrated with the film is that I found the look pretty unremarkable in the context of PTA's other stuff. There's nothing as delightful as the opening shot of Boogie Nights in this, nor is there anything as elegant as the bit in Hard 8 where PBH sees the blood on his cuff, nor is there anything as geographical as the winding halls of the television station in Magnolia, nor is there anything as ecstatic as the pink and blue light refractions in Punch-Drunk Love. I saw little more than a whole lot of desert and a whole lot of wandering camera movement that didn't amount to any kind of palpable expression.

Maybe my favorite shot was any shot focusing on Day-Lewis's face, because he totally controlled that friggin' movie.
I thought the restrained cinematography worked very well to create the sustained, quasi-static sense of doom.

Also, iosos, any thoughts on my thoughts?

[Rowland]

Well, there's a reason he's as aggressively entrepreneuristic as Plainview. They both have deep-seated insecurities. Sunday's a wimpy little dweeb. He uses religion because its easy to make people his sheep even with his weaknesses.Nevertheless, he would need to at least be able to successfully feign those traits to so unabashedly win people over. Unless the movie is saying that any loud-mouthed evangelist slimeball can grease his way to the hearts and minds of many through mere histrionics, which is a hell of a cheap shot.

[Derek]

Yeah, gotta agree. I don't think it takes anything away from the scene for there to be laughs. It is tense, horrific and comedic all at once.

Yup. It's a very quotable performance thanks to both the script and DD-L's performance. I was even dropping lines on my roommate's dog - I'd pet her and say "That does me good" when she was well-behaved and poke her saying "You sniveling ass" when she was bad.

[Derek]

Nevertheless, he would need to at least be able to successfully feign those traits to so unabashedly win people over. Unless the movie is saying that any loud-mouthed evangelist slimeball can grease his way to the hearts and minds of many through mere histrionics, which is a hell of a cheap shot.

What in the film makes you think it is saying that? That's like saying that Plainview's character faults extend to every competitive businessperson out there.

[Watashi]

Yup. It's a very quotable performance thanks to both the script and DD-L's performance. I was even dropping lines on my roommate's dog - I'd pet her and say "That does me good" when she was well-behaved and poke her saying "You sniveling ass" when she was bad.
Let's hope you never say "Now run along and play, and don't come back" to her.

[Rowland]

I actually liked that; it added to the mythic ambiguity that I mentioned. I especially liked the shot that Rowland mentioned, with the reunion of Daniel and H.W. in the distance and the oil pipeline in the foreground. Besides the obvious thematic resonance of having the pipeline dominate the human figures, the figures are out of focus, reinforcing the ambiguous intentions and meaning behind their reunion. Furthermore, the camera tracks over from piping that has been laid down to the path still being dug up (all in the foreground as you noted), signifying the instability and uncertainty for the characters on an emotional front as well as the groundwork having been laid for the inevitable future fate that hangs over their bittersweet reunion.

[origami_mustache]

I actually liked that; it added to the mythic ambiguity that I mentioned. I especially liked the shot that Rowland mentioned, with the reunion of Daniel and H.W. in the distance and the oil pipeline in the foreground. Besides the obvious thematic resonance of having the pipeline dominate the human figures, the figures are out of focus, reinforcing the ambiguous intentions and meaning behind their reunion.


Hmm, I suppose I can buy that reading, although I'm not convinced it was always intentional.

[Rowland]

What in the film makes you think it is saying that? That's like saying that Plainview's character faults extend to every competitive businessperson out there.This approach is from a broad sociological allegory perspective, which the movie is ripe for and comes across to me as virtually begging to be read as.

[Bosco B Thug]

Your chronology being off isn't that important, except that you make it sound like a random progression of events. Daniel spills his guts in an attempt to bond, then they go to the Bandy estate together (which extends to the water) where both the beach and murder scenes occur. Right, I know... but I guess my antagonizing of the movie is getting the best of me. I saw the movie two months ago, and I think I'm starting to diminish my problems with the whole film onto single parts of it. The problem here I had was a sort of "set piece"-y feel to the whole movie, I guess best shown by the jump to

Plainview suddenly owns and lives alone in a big scary mansion.

Feel free to call me out here, I'm not sure I'd be able to defend this criticism... but anyone who happens to agree, you can pipe in too.


Nevertheless, he would need to at least be able to successfully feign those traits to so unabashedly win people over. Unless the movie is saying that any loud-mouthed evangelist slimeball can grease his way to the hearts and minds of many through mere histrionics, which is a hell of a cheap shot. Eh, I'm okay with that. What're we arguing about again? Dano's performance? I'll concede: he was very charismatic in his stiltedness. :P

[Rowland]

Feel free to call me out here, I'm not sure I'd be able to defend this criticism... but anyone who happens to agree, you can pipe in too.I felt the movie absolutely came across as a string of setpieces. That said, I'm not so sure this necessarily implies a criticism, at least from my perspective, though whether or not this somehow contributed to my increasingly diminished engagement from a dramatic perspective in the second half is worth considering.

[Sven]

Also, iosos, any thoughts on my thoughts?

About the painting snapshot? Well, yeah, you basically countered that real good, although I have to step in and admit that I may not have given the most descript metaphor for what I was trying to describe. Because I don't think the film is, in totality, SOLELY about Daniel (aka, capitalism) - it is also about Eli (aka, religion). By making religion out to be the faceless victim in the painting metaphor, I didn't do my point a service. I just want to somehow make clear the level of criticism towards religion that I got out of the movie, which I believe is a substantial amount (equatable, arguably, to its depictions of capitalism's ills).

As I said, the more I think about this one, the more I'm alright with it and I'd really like to see it again. I'm sure a second viewing would help, although I still think that the Coens this year have the much better expression of desert desolation. It's hard not to compare the two.

[Melville]

The problem here I had was a sort of "set piece"-y feel to the whole movie, I guess best shown by the jump to

Plainview suddenly owns and lives alone in a big scary mansion.

That did kind of bother me while watching the movie, but the last scene was so great that it seemed to justify everything that came before it. And in hindsight I think the style works with the archetypal characters and mythic narrative.

[Melville]

About the painting snapshot? Well, yeah, you basically countered that real good, although I have to step in and admit that I may not have given the most descript metaphor for what I was trying to describe. Because I don't think the film is, in totality, SOLELY about Daniel (aka, capitalism) - it is also about Eli (aka, religion). By making religion out to be the faceless victim in the painting metaphor, I didn't do my point a service. I just want to somehow make clear the level of criticism towards religion that I got out of the movie, which I believe is a substantial amount (equatable, arguably, to its depictions of capitalism's ills).
Well, I was wondering more what you thought of my general take on the film, since it seems somewhat different from the other readings that disagreed with yours.


As I said, the more I think about this one, the more I'm alright with it and I'd really like to see it again. I'm sure a second viewing would help, although I still think that the Coens this year have the much better expression of desert desolation. It's hard not to compare the two.
Funny, the more I think about the two, the more I like TWBB and the less I like No Country.

[Derek]

This approach is from a broad sociological allegory perspective, which the movie is ripe for and comes across to me as virtually begging to be read as.

There's a difference between approaching the film from an allegorical perspective (which obviously I agree makes sense) and extending it to the degree that any slimeball preacher like Eli can work his way to the top. I think it's more appropriate to see Eli's character as the early 20th Century version of the televangelist, using religion as a front for the backwards capitalist methods used to con innocent people out of their money. His condemnation of Eli's character is far more pointed towards the methods he used to get there than towards the people who buy into him and allow his success.

[Rowland]

I just remembered what I thought was the funniest moment in the movie. In the midst of his baptism, while yelling out what he is expected to say, Daniel gleefully mutters to himself about the land contract. Day-Lewis' delivery was comic gold; I couldn't supress my guffaw in the theater, and I chuckle to myself recollecting it now.

[Rowland]

There's a difference between approaching the film from an allegorical perspective (which obviously I agree makes sense) and extending it to the degree that any slimeball preacher like Eli can work his way to the top. I think it's more appropriate to see Eli's character as the early 20th Century version of the televangelist, using religion as a front for the backwards capitalist methods used to con innocent people out of their money. 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:

[Sven]

Well, I was wondering more what you thought of my general take on the film, since it seems somewhat different from the other readings that disagreed with yours.

They are very intensive and smart. I'm not quite ready to give the film that much sub-literal credit (you make it sound as if the entire film is happening below the surface, which it might be), but like I said, I'd really like to see this again and keep your's, Qrazy's, and Derek's thoughts in mind.


Funny, the more I think about the two, the more I like TWBB and the less I like No Country.

Why the diminishing returns with the Coens?

[Sven]

I just remembered what I thought was the funniest moment in the movie. In the midst of his baptism, while yelling out what he is expected to say, Daniel gleefully mutters to himself about the land contract. Day-Lewis' delivery was comic gold; I couldn't supress my guffaw in the theater, and I chuckle to myself recollecting it now.

Yeah, I love how at the end, when he's covered in water, he's like "...got a pipe." It's awesome. That scene was the funniest in the movie (coincidentally, I also see it as the most troubling given its relevance to the rest of the film's reaches).

[Melville]

I just remembered what I thought was the funniest moment in the movie. In the midst of his baptism, while yelling out what he is expected to say, Daniel gleefully mutters to himself about the land contract. Day-Lewis' delivery was comic gold; I couldn't supress my guffaw in the theater, and I chuckle to myself recollecting it now.
My favorite line reading in that scene was his response to "Do you accept the blood of Christ?" The way he says "Yes I do" is pure hilarity.

[Derek]

I just remembered what I thought was the funniest moment in the movie. In the midst of his baptism, while yelling out what he is expected to say, Daniel gleefully mutters to himself about the land contract. Day-Lewis' delivery was comic gold; I couldn't supress my guffaw in the theater, and I chuckle to myself recollecting it now.

That was a great line, but my favorite part of that scene was when Day-Lewis started smiling and said:

"Show me your God, Eli."
*smack*
"There he is!"

It's hilarious, but again, also depraved and grotesque, highlighting the submissive nature that drives Plainview's hatred of religion.

[MacGuffin]

Does anybody else think that Daniel Day-Lewis sounds like Sean Connery and has the facial mannerisms of Will Ferrell in this movie? Anybody? Alright... :sad:

*walks away slowly*

[Melville]

Why the diminishing returns with the Coens?
Well, I wasn't terribly impressed to begin with, and what I was impressed by (how well it worked as a tense thriller) isn't the kind of thing that leaves a lasting impression on me. But I'll have to see it again to see if I was overly critical of the execution of the narrative acrobatics at the end.

[Sven]

Does anybody else think that Daniel Day-Lewis sounds like Sean Connery and has the facial mannerisms of Will Ferrell in this movie? Anybody? Alright... :sad:

*walks away slowly*

Everyone's hollering "John Huston", which makes more sense.

[Melville]

Everyone's hollering "John Huston", which makes more sense.
Despite my love for Huston's performance in Chinatown, I don't think I ever would have made that connection if I hadn't read about it beforehand. Day-Lewis' performance seemed all Day-Lewis to me. Although I'm probably just bad at noticing that kind of thing.

[Ezee E]

Will Ferrell? You're reaching here Clipper. You're reaching.

[MacGuffin]

By the way:


It's Always Fair Weather - Is that...? Is that Gene Kelly... tap-dancing in roller skates? Yes, it is. Yes, it fucking is.

Best blurb ever. :lol: