There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)

[MichaelB]

I think the two compositions by Wendy Carlos and Rachel Elkind were original, though of course one is based on a theme that's been doing the rounds since the medieval era.

I haven't heard any of the There Will Be Blood score yet, though as I'm a huge fan of Ligeti (especially) and Penderecki I suspect I may be tougher on it than others. Or more impressed - who knows?

Incidentally, Penderecki wrote an original score for Andrzej Wajda's Katyn - I'm not 100% certain that it's featured in the trailer, but the music there certainly has a Pendereckian tang.

[Oedipax]

For the Arvo Part-knowledgeable - can you refresh my memory as to what scene(s) in TWBB used his music? I'm familiar with Part's better-known works and have enjoyed the use of his music by Van Sant and Godard (among many others), but I've been unable to isolate where his music is used in the movie (probably too caught up in the film itself both times I've seen it).

[Kirkinson]

For the Arvo Part-knowledgeable - can you refresh my memory as to what scene(s) in TWBB used his music ... but I've been unable to isolate where his music is used in the movie

The scene where Eli takes that long walk past the oil pond up to Plainview, asks him, "When do we get our money?" and Plainview slaps him around in response.

[tryavna]

People did laugh at some inappropriate moments, though I think it was out of discomfort, but there are instances where I'm sure Anderson was trying to get laughs from the audience.

I'm late to this conversation because I finally got to the movie only last night. I think it's great, by the way. And I'm definitely one of those people who is not typically a fan of Anderson's work. Perhaps some of the praise it has received is a little exaggerated; it's a fine film, but the reason the "masterpiece" monicker is being thrown around so much is largely because of Daniel Day-Lewis' masterful performance. (It certainly wouldn't be nearly as good a movie if any other living actor were playing the role.)

But going back to this earlier discussion of (in)appropriate laughing: Am I the only one who thinks that There Will Be Blood is actually a black comedy? About mid-way through the picture, I began to find it increasingly funny -- and DD-L's gleefully wicked performance is certainly fun to savor (in much the same way as, though obviously much darker than, Peter Ustinov's as Nero in Quo Vadis, for example). Admittedly, I have a rather unusual sense of humor, but I don't think that my sense of amusement is entirely "inappropriate." I mean, everybody seems to be acknowledging that the film has been heavily influenced by Kubrick, and Kubrick was, of course, one of the great masters of black comedy.

[Antoine Doinel]

The origins and phenomenon of "I drink your milkshake":

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

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

[Oedipax]

I've gotta say, I feel a little weird about the latest batch of TV promos using the "I've abandoned my child!" scene as their central focus.

[margot]

I'll bury you underground is a far funnier line than I drink your milkshake will ever be.

[scalesojustice]

I tend to favor the lines in regard to eli and the religion such as, "that was one hell of a god damn show." or how he answers when eli asks him if he wants the blood ("yes i do." "just give me the blood so i can get out of here.")

though the best might be a line we don't even here -- after the baptism he shakes eli's hand and says something. eli's face melts.

[Steven H]

though the best might be a line we don't even here -- after the baptism he shakes eli's hand and says something. eli's face melts.

Without trying I thought I had read his lips during this bit with him saying "one day I'm going to kill you," but I'm probably wrong.

[Antoine Doinel]

though the best might be a line we don't even here -- after the baptism he shakes eli's hand and says something. eli's face melts.

Without trying I thought I had read his lips during this bit with him saying "one day I'm going to kill you," but I'm probably wrong.

I'm pretty sure his back is to the screen during this scene or at least turned 3/4s. But yeah, it's a great moment. Well, that whole service is fantastic.

[kaujot]

I thought he said "One day I'm going to eat you."

In the bowling alley, he reiterates, "I told you I was going to eat you."

[Steven H]

I thought he said "One day I'm going to eat you."

In the bowling alley, he reiterates, "I told you I was going to eat you."

That seems about right. I definitely remember seeing his mouth move, maybe from the side or something. Crazy.

[Orphic Lycidas]

SPOILERS

I finally saw the film two days ago. It's been the only film I really, really wanted to see. While there have been a small number of dissenters here on the board I don't think anyone of them has yet come out and said it. "There Will Be Blood" is the single most overrated piece of shit since "American Beauty." There. It's been said. First, what worked: Daniel Day Lewis has always been a magnificent performer in my book. I've been a fan since the early 90s and his performance here is one of the only saving graces of the film. The cinematography is beautiful, magnificent yet subtle. There is one scene early on where Daniel Plainview is presenting his pitch to the Sunday family about an oil contract. From the discussion that was taking place I thought I was about to witness an allegory for U.S. imperialism and neo-colonialism, such as in Gillo Pontecorvo's "Burn." That is the first and only scene that would justify such a reading. The film is just a collision course between two caricatures. Unlike Charles Foster Kane, Plainview is a one-note character as unsophisticated as David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia (as opposed to Michael Wilson's more complex characterization Lean decided to jettison in favor of a "crazy" Lawrence). His murder of his “brother” is completely unbelievable. The abandonment of his adopted son also seemed forced. Does he love the kid or doesn’t he? DDL certain plays Plainview as if he did. And why would the kid set the fire? We aren’t shown the kind of resentment or abuse that would justify such a thing.

Ultimately, the first half of the film is just excruciatingly boring. You wait for something to happen. You wait for a political dimension to present itself (“Oil!” “There Will Be Blood,” “Blood for Oil” – get it?) but ultimately it doesn’t exist. Paul Thomas Anderson has substituted depth for a character that starts off crazy from the very beginning. Obviously, Anderson was trying to create another Kane but all he can do is keep drumming over and over again how single-minded and ruthless he is. OK, we get it. I think we should expect something a little less shallow, especially considering the source material. The score is perhaps the most obtrusive score I have ever heard in a film! It plays over scenes where it has no right pompously playing over. And then there is my biggest gripe. Paul Dano's performance is absolutely terrible! It’s a completely unimaginative interpretation of a corrupt clergyman. Always holding his hands together, waddling like a duck, being stereotypically sanctimonious and motivelessly malign. In his defense, he doesn’t have much of a character to work with. We are never told why he’s such a hypocrite (unless there is an unwritten law in Hollywood that religious piety must always be corrupt) or what he expects to gain. OK, so he’s a bad apple, I can accept that. But then what? He doesn’t have a reason for being in the film. I don’t buy the conflict between him and Plainview. It’s all about crazy characters and egos. The background, the oil, has little to do with it. I certainly don’t understand how anyone can see this as anything other than an extremely shallow and apolitical film.

Note: I have just read che-etienne’s posts and pemmican’s review and think they are right on the money. They are obviously my brothers from another mother. I drink the milkshake of everybody else.

[domino harvey]

You are certainly asking the questions about this movie no one else is asking, and for good reason. #-o

[Antoine Doinel]

While I'm not going to argue your like or dislike of the film, I do think there are some things that perhaps you might to consider:

Paul Dano performance is absolutely terrible! It’s a completely unimaginative interpretation of a corrupt clergyman. Always holding his hands together, waddling like a duck, being stereotypically sanctimonious and motivelessly malign. In his defense, he doesn’t have much of a character to work with. We are never told why he’s such a hypocrite (unless there is an unwritten law in Hollywood that religious piety must always be corrupt) or what he expects to gain.

The who point of Eli Sunday is that his "holy man" schtick IS an act. The clasped hands, walk everything is so obviously phoney and done merely to gain some form of respect from the townspeople. And as to why he's "unholy" I think the reason is fairly clear. He sees his father - another holy person - as hypocritical, stupid and powerless. He wants everything his father never had. Success, power, strength. The scenes in their home when negotiating the land deal and later when he attacks him make clear the animosity and hatred he has for his father and the life he leads.

[Jeff]

I have no issues with people not liking a particular film. There are plenty of "classics" that I don't care for, but I don't understand why people feel the need to validate their contrary opinions by insisting that everyone who does like the film is uncouth, has been duped, or the film is wildly overrated. If a film doesn't work for you, say so, explain your arguments as to why, and move on. Just because I piece of art doesn't work for you doesn't make it invalid. The world has one too many Armond Whites as it is. We're not in the market for any more.

[Belmondo]

I have no issues with people not liking a particular film. There are plenty of "classics" that I don't care for, but I don't understand why people feel the need to validate their contrary opinions by insisting that everyone who does like the film is uncouth, has been duped, or the film is wildly overrated. If a film doesn't work for you, say so, explain your arguments as to why, and move on. Just because I piece of art doesn't work for you doesn't make it invalid. The world has one too many Armond Whites as it is. We're not in the market for any more.

There you go. In fairness, Orphic Lycidas does give plenty of examples to back up his point of view and I am always interested in hearing contrary opinions.

BUT: When a movie gets a 91% Tomatometer Rating and too many glowing reviews to count, you need to dig that dissenting well deep and fast with strong rationale and fewer "overrated piece of shit" conclusions in your opening paragraph.

Now, if you will excuse me, I'm joining the corrupt Sunday congregation long enough to pray (please Jesus, PLEASE!) don't let this prompt another fifteen pages of discussion.

I saw this movie with my wife and she was bored too. That's why I give her the courtesy of listening to what she says and promptly rejecting every word of it.

[domino harvey]

In fairness, Orphic Lycidas does give plenty of examples to back up his point of view and I am always interested in hearing contrary opinions.

Actually, he seems to think that because he can't understand a character's motivation, they must not have one. This is the sort of juvenile "If I don't get it, it's because the movie's flawed, not because my approach is flawed" attitude that is destroying college film classes.

Like Jeff said, the problem isn't that he doesn't like the movie, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but a dissenting voice needs to do better than asking questions that betray a spectacular misreading of the film.

[Marcel Gioberti]

What is a "spectacular misreading" of a film? You seem to replicate the very same form of "juvenile" criticism you are attacking.

This forum has too many Ebert-lites parading its threads. To be honest, it could use a few Armond Whites. At least he says something.

[Matt]

It’s all about crazy characters and egos. The background, the oil, has little to do with it.

Did it occur to you that this might be the point?

[Antoine Doinel]

Ok guys, instead of bellyaching about who is and isn't [insert-semi-reknown-critic-here]-lite, either counter/support Orphic's comments (perhaps in a more intelligent manner) or ignore his post. But however he stated his argument, the film didn't work for him and that's legitimate.

[Steven H]

It’s all about crazy characters and egos. The background, the oil, has little to do with it.

Did it occur to you that this might be the point?

That's exactly what I thought. Spoilers:

Ultimately, the first half of the film is just excruciatingly boring. You wait for something to happen. You wait for a political dimension to present itself (“Oil!” “There Will Be Blood,” “Blood for Oil” – get it?) but ultimately it doesn’t exist.

It seemed pretty obvious that he intended this section to build tension in the film, then we get most of the explosions and yelling. Boring for you, tension building for others, I suppose, but the pacing kept my interest, and was exciting, even from the beginning.

And why would the kid set the fire? We aren’t shown the kind of resentment or abuse that would justify such a thing.

I thought they had made a point to show the son was jealous of the brother showing up, or that the son had read the diary and knew he was a fake. Add to the fact that his father basically kept him locked up in a shed, away from people, because he couldn't stand his son being deaf, a sign of weakness. Even if those weren't intended, maybe the explosion did something to his mind, it was brought up he had a concussion, that could lead to behavioral anomalies. Lots of reasons.

At least one difference between this and, um, American Beauty, is that this seems about a million miles away from guilty suburban sentimentality. This might be the opposite as it lambastes redemption in general, shows little hope for change from within, and seems like a scary political dead end. The guy watching a plastic bag in American Beauty would probably just get his milkshake drank.

[Antoine Doinel]

Some good points Steven. As for the kid setting fire, I read it as since the results of fire at the well caused his loss of hearing (indirectly, but it was the last thing he saw before he came crashing to the ground), maybe he figured that fire would bring it back.

As for the opening hour of the film, I thought it was a brilliant way of showing how the industry developed from shovels and pick-axes to a more mechanized and elaborate industry. And yes, it certainly built considerable tension and I too loved the pacing and silent spaces.

[Andre Jurieu]

As for the kid setting fire, I read it as since the results of fire at well caused his loss of hearing (indirectly, but it was the last thing he saw before he came crashing to the ground), maybe he figured that fire would bring it back.

I'm more inclined to agree with Steven's interpretation regarding HW's jealousy and the boy sniffing out the fraud, especially considering the fire leads directly into his "uncle's" bed. I'm not sure there is any insinuation that the kid would somehow form an idea that fire would bring back his hearing. Instead, HW's actions seems much more deliberate and vindictive.

[jaredsap]

I'm more inclined to agree with Steven's interpretation regarding HW's jealousy and the boy sniffing out the fraud, especially considering the fire leads directly into his "uncle's" bed. I'm not sure there is any insinuation that the kid would somehow form an idea that fire would bring back his hearing. Instead, HW's actions seems much more deliberate and vindictive.

Not that an author's word is the gospel, but back at a screening in November, Judd Apatow questioned PTA about this. PTA made it extremely clear that H.W. set the fire to get rid of Henry -- he bristled at Judd even having to ask.