There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)

[David Ehrenstein]

I chatted with Anderson at the Los Angeles Film Critics Association awards dinner last night where TWBB was being honored for Best Picture, director, actor and production design. I told him the thing that relaly hit me a day after first seeing it was the fact that Plainview has no sexual or romantic life whatsoever -- a considerable anomaly in cinema of every sort. He said he considered a scene that would suggest that he was impotent but decided against it. I told him it was great that he gave that notion a pass because it would simplify Plainview and deny him his monstrous singularity. DDL (who was of course also present) agreed in this regard.

Anderson hasn't decided what he's going to do next. I suggested the story of the non-making of Que Viva Mexico, which would again involve Sinclair, would make a great movie and he said he'd think about it. Somebody ought to do this story. Not sure if Anderson's the one but it's worth a shot.

[Magic Hate Ball]

I just hope he doesn't stick to this same kind of film. What makes Anderson so promising is that, although he has reused locations and actors, his films have all had different tones. Boogie Nights is decidedly funky, nostalgic, and also somewhat homely, Magnolia is a full-blown ensemble over-the-top drama, much cooler and smoother than its predecessor, Punch-Drunk Love is jagged and crystal-clear, and, although I have yet to see There Will Be Blood, I kind of imagine it to be a slick but dusty western. Perhaps his next will be black and white, or set in Russia, or something.

[David Ehrenstein]

although I have yet to see There Will Be Blood, I kind of imagine it to be a slick but dusty western.

Not in the slightest. It's not a Western in any way shape or form.

[In Heaven]

Does anyone know when this is getting a wider release? Even hitting more art-house theaters?

[redbill]

Does anyone know when this is getting a wider release? Even hitting more art-house theaters?

Probably they're expecting oscar nominations next tuesday to be used as a marketing boost for a wider release on the 25th...

[TomReagan]

I drink your milkshake.

Funny if you have seen the film. Sort of.

[eez28]

I drink your milkshake.

Funny if you have seen the film. Sort of.

ugh... and there are also others who have jumped on the milkshake train: Here & here

[davebert]

I really loved this film, consider it a masterpiece, and will continue to love it long after the backlash comes from everyone getting tired of hearing their friends say they have to see it. The day after seeing it, I felt myself acting a bit like Plainview, because DDL creates such a commanding, instantly recognizable figure and oh dear god that voice! But I started to lay off when I realized that with no power, money, intimidating stature or bowling pin, I was really just being a bitter asshole and trying to pass it off as homage. But for a while, it was fun!

[tavernier]

Armond (who else?) disses TWBB in his "thumbs up" for First Sunday:

The bizarre/amazing fact of First Sunday is that Talbert audaciously recalls religion as the historically revolutionary center of African-American social action and challenges the hegemony of vicious and avaricious hip-hop.

None of this makes First Sunday a great movie (it surely is not that; far from the class of Sounder or Akeelah and the Bee), but it is a rare film that recognizes complex facts of social existence. Critics can easily ignore it for refusing the secular reinforcement of anti-human, nihilistic movies like There Will Be Blood. After P.T. Anderson’s Christianity-bashing field day, there was good reason to fear that a new Ice Cube caper movie would join Hollywood’s secular-progression to Hell. LeeJohn has never been to church, yet he behaves like someone who’s certainly been to the movies to see Menace II Society or a Wayans Brothers flick. He’s internalized the fecklessness and selfishness often expressed by hip-hop cinema.

[GoldenPilgrim]

Paul F. Tompkins talking about his role in There Will Be Blood.

[pemmican]

I just don't see it, don't much care. My own views here, with rebuttal by Jack Vermee.

Just for the record, my primary love in cinema is Cassavetes and my favourite American films in recent memory are OLD JOY and POLICE BEAT (and maybe I should nod at Tom Noonan's THE WIFE? It seems like no one has seen it); if I can stretch really far back, I also utterly love SAFE. I'm NOT here to compare THERE WILL BE BLOOD to MIAMI VICE, really, so please don't go there. And I've liked all of PTA's films, but none wholly. I love the scene in BOOGIE NIGHTS where Phil Seymour Hoffman tries to kiss Dirk and then breaks down, calling himself a fucking idiot, as much as I love any single scene in an American film of its decade.

If you overlook the massiveness of the project and judge it in terms of story/character/profundity/"sheer-interesting-shit" standards, THERE WILL BE BLOOD is probably the least of his films.

Quite liked the score, tho' (it's a better score than the film is, qua film). Was shocked it was the guy from Radiohead - thought throughout it was the Kronos Quartet or such doing contemporary music (which may in itself feed into the naysayers' argument, but still - I liked it).

P.

[LightBulbFilm]

I finally got to see this after a long time of anticipation and I can safely say it was one of the best films I ever seen in theaters. I would have gladly paid $100 for a ticket.

[Antoine Doinel]

After much waiting (and staying out of this thread until I could see it) I saw the film this afternoon and found it be a masterful accomplishment. I don't think an American film has been this scathing in a long time. Anderson sticks it to rampant capitalism and religion in equal measure. Eli Sunday is no more a saint than Daniel Plainview and this film isn't just the fall of one man, but of both of them. They are both prospectors - one of oil, the other of people and their singular pursuits, ends up alienating and ultimately destroying them.

As a filmmaker, Anderson, whom I already had tremendous regard for, grows in leaps and bounds here. The much talked about opening twenty minutes are utterly remarkable. The transition of gold prospecting to oil is beautifully handled. My girlfriend loved that the dialogue was minimal with no extraneous conversations. Combined with Greenwood's brilliant and haunting score, this is one of the most sonically considered films in ages. This a film that breathes in its spaces and jolts us with each carefully measured word.

It's a familar tale, executed by one of American film's finest storytellers. It closes the book on classic American filmmaking and dares to take it further. Wonderul stuff that actually aims high and clears the bar with considerable grace.

[dave41n]

Anderson sticks it to rampant capitalism and religion in equal measure.

I don’t think Anderson is sticking it to either, rather he is presenting us with portraits of flawed men who happen to operate within the systems you’ve named. One shouldn’t equate the traits of Plainview or Sunday with capitalism or religion. It's flawed characters rather than systemic flaws that most interest Anderson as far as I can tell. How does he stick it to rampant capitalism and religion in your view?

[Antoine Doinel]

Anderson sticks it to rampant capitalism and religion in equal measure.

I don’t think Anderson is sticking it to either, rather he is presenting us with portraits of flawed men who happen to operate within the systems you’ve named. One shouldn’t equate the traits of Plainview or Sunday with capitalism or religion. It's flawed characters rather than systemic flaws that most interest Anderson as far as I can tell. How does he stick it to rampant capitalism and religion in your view?

Certainly the characters are flawed and that is an important part, but I think Anderson does show the corrupting influence and allure of power that comes with an uncompromising obsession with success and a zealous search for (perceived) righteousness. Both Daniel and Eli see their respective professions as a means to gain either financial or community power. Daniel's success comes at the expense of business partners and family, while Eli's struggle to become a respected person blinds him to who he really is and his own transgressions.

I do think there is a statement that can be easily read from the film that no enriching life can come from a singular path. That our obsessions need to be balanced, and we require strong ties to a network of family and friends discover our humanity. Both Daniel and Eli begin the film estranged and their single minded, selfish pursuits turn them into people they don't understand and can't control.

To take it further, one doesn't have to look further than the collapose of companies like Enron or the run of fallen, public preachers and Republicans to draw the parallels from the film. I think Anderson's film is certainly making a strong statement about capitalism without compassion, and religion that fails to consider its own faults.

[Steven H]

Spoilers:

I saw this and loved every second of it (even the score putney!) The hot air worked well for it. I don't remember the last time I felt positively moved every time I saw something blow up or heard someone start yelling. It definitely has a kinship with Punch Drunk Love though, and in my opinion, makes Anderson's first three films seem like quirky curiosities. I really want to see him do something crazy, like sci-fi, something way out in left field.

I think it would be a mistake to ignore the attack on capitalism inherent in the film and the source material. The movie is much more of an attack on religious extremism than the book though, I mean Daniel makes Dano scream he's a false prophet for godssakes. Doesn't get much more blatant than that. Dano especially, while an interesting character, is painted just broadly enough to be a good shot at fundamentalism. I also like the little "doing great things in radio" Father Coughlin reference towards the end.

One of the things that I think worked really well for this film is how you can almost smell the whiskey, as it's constantly flowing. It almost felt like Imamura being in the mud and oil, getting that dirty feeling all over you and then washing it down with dark liquor.

[dave41n]

Spoilers:

To take it further, one doesn't have to look further than the collapose of companies like Enron or the run of fallen, public preachers and Republicans to draw the parallels from the film. I think Anderson's film is certainly making a strong statement about capitalism without compassion, and religion that fails to consider its own faults.

I think you’re projecting something onto the film that just isn’t there. I’d very much like to avoid getting into economic/political/religious issues outside the film, but I have to admit that I’m interested in exactly how you see those specific parallels. That is, with support from the film. I don't think there is statement at all about capitalism without compassion or religion that fails to consider its own faults. Anderson isn't pointing the finger at institutions, he's pointing the finger at the worst of people. The examples you provide are of unethical people doing bad things. None are representative of the systems they operate within. How can one draw a parallel between Enron and Plainview’s business? One is a clear case of fraud. The other is hardly clear. Plainview intends to give the Sunday family quail prices for their land, but that doesn’t exactly pan out (Eli calls him on it). Call it an extremely low bid on a lease. One can only guess that he tried the same with other people, but we can’t be sure of that. We only know that he paid people for their land—he paid what it was worth to them. What is Plainview guilty of regarding business practice? He withholds the $5000 from Eli, but that speaks more toward the rivalry between the two than capitalism. Other than that we have no other evidence of illegal business practice.

Also, how can one draw a parallel between fallen preachers and Eli? Eli’s in tough times but we don’t know exactly why. There’s no proof that he has embezzled money or molested children or whatever other possible transgressions that might amount to a fallen preacher as you say. I guess I just don’t see any parallel at all. Anderson focuses on human traits gone mad, traits that are not specific only to capitalism and religion. Now if you want to say that those traits that are in Plainview and Sunday are the same traits that got America into the mess it's in now, then fine by me -- I'd agree with you. This is not systemic criticism, it is Anderson pointing to the worst of people and what may follow.

I think it would be a mistake to ignore the attack on capitalism inherent in the film and the source material. The movie is much more of an attack on religious extremism than the book though, I mean Daniel makes Dano scream he's a false prophet for godssakes. Doesn't get much more blatant than that. Dano especially, while an interesting character, is painted just broadly enough to be a good shot at fundamentalism. I also like the little "doing great things in radio" Father Coughlin reference towards the end.

First, this is a very loose adaptation. Anderson only pulled from the first 150 pages of the source novel and that is mostly logistics and the work of oilmen. Remarkably, Anderson resists demonizing Standard Oil, which would have been very easy. I was surprised that he didn't. Anderson isn't out to damn the oil industry or religion. Second, exposing false prophets is not an attack on religion. Exposing a fraud of religion is not the same as exposing religion as a fraud. Exposing Plainview for who he is does not equal criticism of capitalism.

[Antoine Doinel]

Spoilers:

Anderson isn't pointing the finger at institutions, he's pointing the finger at the worst of people. The examples you provide are of unethical people doing bad things. None are representative of the systems they operate within. How can one draw a parallel between Enron and Plainview’s business? One is a clear case of fraud. The other is hardly clear. Plainview intends to give the Sunday family quail prices for their land, but that doesn’t exactly pan out (Eli calls him on it).

The very fact that a system allows for people to operate unethically without being punished (unless they are caught, or they go bankrupt) is a flawed system. Certainly, Plainview's colleagues don't call him out and when Eli discovers he's been had, he is powerless to do anything about it. As for Plainview, he very readily defrauds the entire community of the actual worth of their land. Certainly, for the Sunday family he offers them "quail prices" and I don't think it's too much to assume that he does the same with others. And certainly, Paul's finders fee is very low. Not to mention his illegal tapping of the Bandy tract for their oil from his surrounding tracts of land ("DRAINAGE!").

Also, how can one draw a parallel between fallen preachers and Eli? Eli’s in tough times but we don’t know exactly why. There’s no proof that he has embezzled money or molested children or whatever other possible transgressions that might amount to a fallen preacher as you say.

In the closing scene, if I recall correctly, Eli goes on about the various temptations God has put in his path and that he has succumbed to. There is certainly more than enough is closing plea to Plainview that has been corrupted many times over spiritually, yet he still seeks not only cash, but with the big cross around his neck, righteousness.

[jbeall]

Spoilers:

I just saw this yesterday, and was blown away, especially by the score. I thought some of the comments on this thread had prepared me, but the score was simply the most phenomenal movie score I've heard in a long time, perhaps ever. Now I'll insert myself into the ongoing conversation.

I think you’re projecting something onto the film that just isn’t there. I’d very much like to avoid getting into economic/political/religious issues outside the film, but I have to admit that I’m interested in exactly how you see those specific parallels. That is, with support from the film. I don't think there is statement at all about capitalism without compassion or religion that fails to consider its own faults. Anderson isn't pointing the finger at institutions, he's pointing the finger at the worst of people. The examples you provide are of unethical people doing bad things. None are representative of the systems they operate within. How can one draw a parallel between Enron and Plainview’s business? One is a clear case of fraud. The other is hardly clear. Plainview intends to give the Sunday family quail prices for their land, but that doesn’t exactly pan out (Eli calls him on it). Call it an extremely low bid on a lease. One can only guess that he tried the same with other people, but we can’t be sure of that. We only know that he paid people for their land—he paid what it was worth to them. What is Plainview guilty of regarding business practice? He withholds the $5000 from Eli, but that speaks more toward the rivalry between the two than capitalism. Other than that we have no other evidence of illegal business practice.

Also, how can one draw a parallel between fallen preachers and Eli? Eli’s in tough times but we don’t know exactly why. There’s no proof that he has embezzled money or molested children or whatever other possible transgressions that might amount to a fallen preacher as you say. I guess I just don’t see any parallel at all. Anderson focuses on human traits gone mad, traits that are not specific only to capitalism and religion. Now if you want to say that those traits that are in Plainview and Sunday are the same traits that got America into the mess it's in now, then fine by me -- I'd agree with you. This is not systemic criticism, it is Anderson pointing to the worst of people and what may follow.

Everybody in the film, with the possible exception of H.W. and Mary, is corrupted by greed and and the promise of riches via oil. It would be one thing if the film juxtaposed these unpleasant characters with counter-examples, but we don't get them. Everybody is complicit and dependent on the new manifestation of capitalism that's rearing its ugly head. Even Plainview's long-lost 'brother'...

More to the point, capitalism has no inherent ethic. To be ethical means to adhere to a position even when it's not in your self-interest to do so. Certainly, you can be an ethical capitalist, but that's not the same thing as saying that capitalism has an ethic. Plainview has the choice to give up his cold-blooded pursuit of money, but as soon as HW says he wants to start his own company, Plainview says, "So now you're a competitor." Here we have the logic of the system pushed to its ultimate conclusion; community is effaced in favor of isolated individuals and "homo homini lupus."

Eli loses his money in the stock market crash. HW leaves Daniel in 1928, and some time has passed when Eli finally returns (at least it seems that time has passed, as Daniel seems to have fallen quite literally into the gutter). He even mentions the stock market as the cause of his current situation. The point is that Eli, who I take to be representative of American evangelicalism, is just as complicit in the system of capital as Daniel (hence Daniel's thundering "I am the third revelation!"), which of course is pretty clear throughout. However, all the people of New Boston sold their land and approved of Plainview's presence, including Eli's father. At best, you could say they were simpleminded sheep; at worst: greedy, stupid buffoons who got what was coming to them. Nobody in this film is without the stain of capitalism (HW even gets anointed with oil in the beginning).

This movie isn't about how we have a choice to avoid the corruption of capitalism through religion. Either one will use the other to get what it wants (witness Daniel's baptism), but in the film, capitalism has already conquered religion, and any protestations of devotion to the contrary are simply there to mask the latter's dependence on the Almighty Dollar. [/b] At least, that's how I read it after one viewing, but I'm definitely going to see it again, so we'll see what comes out of repeat-viewings.

[Steven H]

First, this is a very loose adaptation. Anderson only pulled from the first 150 pages of the source novel and that is mostly logistics and the work of oilmen. Remarkably, Anderson resists demonizing Standard Oil, which would have been very easy. I was surprised that he didn't. Anderson isn't out to damn the oil industry or religion. Second, exposing false prophets is not an attack on religion. Exposing a fraud of religion is not the same as exposing religion as a fraud. Exposing Plainview for who he is does not equal criticism of capitalism.

Even if there wasn't anything related to the plot or character of the novel and it still remained as a "inspired by" it would still be almost impossible to adapt Upton Sinclair's novel and *not* be criticizing capitalism. That was the whole point of the book, and anyone reading it who would want to make a movie about it would have to take something from it along those lines. We're talking about the same guy who wrote The Jungle here.

As loud as the film is, it's also very subtle, from what I've gathered from tihs discussion, about it's themes. But someone doesn't have to say "hey, rampant unregulated turn of the century capitalism is bad and we should stay away from it" when they can just show the hollow shell of an oilman, who turns away his son and murders people (through to the explicitly noted Great Depression) out of some greed induced psychosis and make the same point. I think some things aren't made explicit, not because they aren't meant to be noticed, but because it wouldn't be *right* to point them out, it would be sentimental (which Sinclair's Oil had in spades.)

I said religious extremism, not "religion". I don't think Anderson is mocking the congregation, but he is using Paul Dano's Eli Sunday to piss right on fundamentalism. Hard to miss that.

[dave41n]

Spoilers:

The very fact that a system allows for people to operate unethically without being punished (unless they are caught, or they go bankrupt) is a flawed system. Certainly, Plainview's colleagues don't call him out and when Eli discovers he's been had, he is powerless to do anything about it. As for Plainview, he very readily defrauds the entire community of the actual worth of their land. Certainly, for the Sunday family he offers them "quail prices" and I don't think it's too much to assume that he does the same with others. And certainly, Paul's finders fee is very low. Not to mention his illegal tapping of the Bandy tract for their oil from his surrounding tracts of land ("DRAINAGE!").

I'm consciously avoiding your first two sentences because I don't want to get into the merits and faults of various economic systems -- all systems are flawed and to weigh the merits and faults of capitalism will take us somewhere I don't want to go. As for Plainview, he pays people what their land is worth to them. It doesn't matter what it is worth to Plainview, just what it is worth to the seller. No one was stopping the Sundays from bargaining further or bringing in another company to allow competitive bidding. There is no coercion on Daniel's part. They readily accept the offer agreed upon. Also, Paul's fee is actually very handsome. From what we're told in the film we know that he was paid $10,000 (not sure if Daniel is including in that total the $500 he pays Paul at their initial meeting). That money had the buying power then of about $200,000 today. And that's just a finder's fee. Paul is quite smart in his meeting with Daniel and well aware of the the potential worth of that land. Eli not so much. Just good business on Paul's part. On the issue of drainage, his tapping of Bandy's tract is not illegal as far as I understand it. Drainage is legal under the law of capture or as it's commonly known, the rule of capture.

In the closing scene, if I recall correctly, Eli goes on about the various temptations God has put in his path and that he has succumbed to. There is certainly more than enough is closing plea to Plainview that has been corrupted many times over spiritually, yet he still seeks not only cash, but with the big cross around his neck, righteousness.

Point well taken. Again though, exposing a fraud of religion is not the same as exposing religion as a fraud. The film is not anti-religion. It is criticizing the corruption of religion, which Eli is guilty of. I may have misunderstood you at first.

Either one will use the other to get what it wants

This is, of course, very clear in the film and I will concede that that is certainly a criticism of the two. I just want to be clear that I don't think this film is anti-religion or anti-capitalism. I may have misunderstood/oversimplified Antoine's initial statements.

Eli loses his money in the stock market crash.

Of course, my mistake. For some reason I thought it was 1927 and not 1929.

I'm definitely going to see it again, so we'll see what comes out of repeat-viewings.

It ages very well. Just saw it again. Such a rich, complex film. I'm still organizing my thoughts on this one and am pleased so far by this discussion/exchange.

[toiletduck!]

I tend to agree with dave on this one. Of course, that tends to be a recurring theme for me -- I'm a bigger picture guy, much more interested in the human condition than in worldly specifics.

The very fact that a system allows for people to operate unethically without being punished (unless they are caught, or they go bankrupt) is a flawed system.

Yeah, but what can't you apply that statement to? This works just as well for dave's argument. (i.e. Life is a flawed system, not necessarily just capitalism or religion.)

Not to mention his illegal tapping of the Bandy tract for their oil from his surrounding tracts of land ("DRAINAGE!").

I was under the impression that this was more "them's the breaks" than illegal. If you're sitting on a veritable ocean of oil, isn't it more or less impossible to distinguish property lines when retrieving it?

s loud as the film is, it's also very subtle, from what I've gathered from tihs discussion, about it's themes.

Now that's a little unfair. Dave's (and my) broader reading of the film doesn't signify an inability to read subtlety. If you and Antoine are reading the film as a tract against capitalism and religious extremism, then obviously it can be read that way. I won't begrudge you that. But I'm not going to look for it because it isn't what interests me about the film and, personally, it's not why the film works. PDA as a director has always been one of my favorites because he has such a strong humanistic capability, and his films generally avoid the political. I'm not 'missing' anything with my reading of the film, I simply don't see the same focus as you.

-Toilet Dcuk

EDIT: Sorry for some of the repetition, dave beat me to the punch.

[Antoine Doinel]

td! and dave, I certainly don't just see the film as a political statement, and I agree, the merits and pleasures of the film go much much further than that. The other aspects of the film that interest me, and that I would love to other's feedback on, is the hugely masculine characteristics of the film. There are essentially no female leads at all. This is a story of and about men, and what defines them and I think therein lies the true heart of the film.

I think we can debate political interpretations until the cows (or oil) comes home, and as dave rightly points out, driving this into a discussion about capitalism and fundamentalism ultimately is going in the wrong direction. Certainly my cynicism of fundamentalism and corporate America in general certainly helps me to read those things in the film a lot more readily, but I don't think anyone not seeking or seeing it has experienced a lesser film in anyway. Certainly one of the strengths of the film is how broad a tapestry it creates and inhabits.

[jbeall]

Now that's a little unfair. Dave's (and my) broader reading of the film doesn't signify an inability to read subtlety. If you and Antoine are reading the film as a tract against capitalism and religious extremism, then obviously it can be read that way. I won't begrudge you that. But I'm not going to look for it because it isn't what interests me about the film and, personally, it's not why the film works. PDA as a director has always been one of my favorites because he has such a strong humanistic capability, and his films generally avoid the political. I'm not 'missing' anything with my reading of the film, I simply don't see the same focus as you[...]

I wouldn't say the film is a tract against either capitalism or religious extremism, but again indicative of a "them's the breaks" exploration or two competing forces (for better or worse) in this country's culture as manifested in two competing characters of enormous willpower.

Although Plainview clearly despises Eli (who pays back an earlier humiliation in kind), both characters are terribly compelling and at times sympathetic regardless of what they do or don't represent in the film. However, Plainview gives up his "humanistic capability" (perhaps the episode with Henry finally breaks him?) and only appeals to humanistic principles (my employees are family men, we'll bring schools and roads and general wealth, etc.) in order to get at their oil. For his part Eli Sunday comes across as a snake-oil salesman at various points. I'd say that the characters who come across the best are HW and Mary, both of whom turn their backs on these competing forces in small but significant ways (he wants to go to Mexico less to strike it rich than to get away from Plainview, while she doesn't like to pray).

So while I still argue that a) the film is about capitalism and evangelism, and b) neither side looks too good by the film's end, I also think that There Will Be Blood isn't "political" in the sense I think you're using it (i.e. PTA isn't saying 'let's all become godless Commies, or let's regulate the oil industry or tax the church, etc.). However, they are the defining forces that have shaped the course of this country during its westward expansion and throughout the twentieth century.

Finally, like dave41n, I'm also really pleased by this discussion/exchange. I think it's a sign of an excellent film when it brings out this kind of exchange among those who liked the film but read it very differently (and it's so much better than "'It ruled.' 'No, it sucked.'")

[toiletduck!]

I wouldn't say the film is a tract against either capitalism or religious extremism, but again indicative of a "them's the breaks" exploration or two competing forces (for better or worse) in this country's culture as manifested in two competing characters of enormous willpower.

This (and the rest of your post) I can fully get behind. The film, for me, was of course first and foremost a portrait of Plainview, but the Sunday/Plainview relationship (I hesitate to even say competition) was a very, very close second. One could have made a film about Sunday in the same manner and relegate Plainview to the supporting role, and still have the same film at essence. These two men are one in the same, the simply have their eyes on a different prize (and that does very easily boil down to capitalism & religion). What happens when an unstoppable force meets an unmovable object? We've just witnessed it.

-Toilet Dcuk