There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)

[Antoine Doinel]

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.

Well, that certainly makes sense (though it makes one wonder why he just didn't steal the book and give it Daniel). I'm sure there was a reason I thought the way I did but I guess I'll have to wait until I see the film again!

[Orphic Lycidas]

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?

Of course. I didn't think PTA failed due to a flaw in execution but due to the lack of expanding the thematics to encompass the themes which I think were present in the premise. My major criticism is that he minimized the political potential of the story and substituted it with "extreme" characters. I don't think he's very much interested in analyzing the political dimensions of his story. What we got instead was melodrama, which I did not much care for, even if one must admire the film's technical achievements. Ultimately, the film, in my opinion, lacks the unity which it would have had if there had been a dialectical relationship between the characters and the situation they are in. As is, the situation serves only as a premise or launching point for the characters. Characters I didn't much believe in or care for, either.

My post was criticized for its rhetorical character but I think that is the correct way to present it. It invites response - either elucidation or a recognition of a problem. Since I absolutely hated the film I think it's appropriate to state so clearly and put put the issues out there and since I posted my views in a public forum, to elicit a response. I think it has done so rather successfully. As far as the film goes, I had exactly the same problems with it that I have with "Lawrence of Arabia" (my low opinion of which may seem like blasphemy to some): aside from its sluggish pace, it severely depoliticizes an extremely political story and replaces it with a wacky character who's wackiness is presented as complexity. Not to go on discussing the Lean film in this TWBB forum but has anyone ever read the original Michael Wilson draft?

[exte]

Not to go on discussing the Lean film in this TWBB forum but has anyone ever read the original Michael Wilson draft?

Do you have a copy? I'd love to read that!

[Grand Illusion]

I enjoy political filmmaking, but politics taking a backseat doesn't make a film apolitical or benign. I will agree that focusing on a character as "on the fringe" as Daniel Plainview does lessen the social commentary though.

I think asking questions such as if Daniel actually loved his child does show complexity though. The two main story arcs have to do with Daniel and his child as well as Daniel and his rival. Both are give-and-take, positive and negative.

Yes, the politics takes a backseat. But if Plainview and Sunday are distilled versions of their philosophies, then there is probably some sort of statement being made.

I agree with Orphic about the score though. Only thing I disliked about the film, and I hated it.

[Orphic Lycidas]

Someone mentioned David Walsh earlier. He finally put up his review of There Will Be Blood. Predictably, it is negative. Also informative.

Not to go on discussing the Lean film in this TWBB forum but has anyone ever read the original Michael Wilson draft?

Do you have a copy? I'd love to read that!

No, unfortunately. There is a fascinating article on DavidLean.com taken from Cineaste (Vol. XX, No. 4, 1994) entitled Who Wrote Lawrence of Arabia? by Joel Hodson. I think there may be a university in California that houses his unpublished screenplays, including his original draft for It's a Wonderful Life as well as unpublished titles The Wobblies, The Raid at Harper's Ferry and Quiet Darkness, the latter concerning the FBI infiltration of the American black liberation movement. I can't remember what university that may be but I am pretty sure I recall reading of such a place on-line somewhere. I'm on the wrong coast, otherwise I would have already sent the place an e-mail or paid a visit.

OK, found it! There is a Wilson Collection at the UCLA Theater Arts Library.

[Antoine Doinel]

Most of that review bemoans that the film isn't enough like the book even though Anderson has explicitly stated that he only used Oil! as inspiration. And then he chasties Anderson for not making Syriana.

[Orphic Lycidas]

Most of that review bemoans that the film isn't enough like the book even though Anderson has explicitly stated that he only used Oil! as inspiration. And then he chasties Anderson for not making Syriana.

No, I think he just bemoans the superficiality and lack of intelligence of the film compared to its source material.

[Steven H]

Most of that review bemoans that the film isn't enough like the book even though Anderson has explicitly stated that he only used Oil! as inspiration. And then he chasties Anderson for not making Syriana.

No, I think he just bemoans the superficiality and lack of intelligence of the film compared to its source material.

The review seems pretty heavy handed in saying that the film misses a chance at making explicit its politics, and then uses Anderson's own quotes about wanting to keep it more open to interpretation as support. He stresses the entirely time that the book is taking the better road by making the good guys and the bad guys more clearly distinct. It's pretty nauseating. And since so many people seem unable to restrain the Citizen Kane comparison, one of the biggest strengths of that film, made over sixty years ago, is that good and evil are somewhat ambiguous.

A film like this can deliver a political message through a few glances and a cue of music. If you want a political film go watch Crash which beats the viewers head in with its message, thereby defeating it's purpose. Relatively sophisticated viewing audiences aren't going to take much preaching to (and it's literally held up for mockery in There Will Be Blood) and it doesn't really suit the medium of film to go on about that sort of thing. It just comes off tacky and sentimental, which is exactly what this film would have been if it had "accurately" adapted the book.

[Donald Brown]

Art trumps politics.

[toiletduck!]

Hear hear.

-Toilet Dcuk

[jbeall]

Of course. I didn't think PTA failed due to a flaw in execution but due to the lack of expanding the thematics to encompass the themes which I think were present in the premise. My major criticism is that he minimized the political potential of the story and substituted it with "extreme" characters. I don't think he's very much interested in analyzing the political dimensions of his story. What we got instead was melodrama, which I did not much care for, even if one must admire the film's technical achievements. Ultimately, the film, in my opinion, lacks the unity which it would have had if there had been a dialectical relationship between the characters and the situation they are in. As is, the situation serves only as a premise or launching point for the characters. Characters I didn't much believe in or care for, either.

I find your post interesting, but I simply have to disagree on this point. To me, the politics are there, implied by all references to history in the film (the Great Depression, etc.). If you're looking for a political statement, then perhaps the film falls short, but while Upton Sinclair was a talented muckraker, I was never particularly interested in his writing, which is incredibly heavy-handed in its politics (The Jungle has absolutely no subtlety).

Second, isn't there a dialectical relationship between the two characters? In my reading, capitalism and religion are all too ready to use one another to further their goals, but capitalism will turn on religion as soon as it's convenient to do so. 19th and 20th century American history (and European history) is full of examples.

[geoffcowgill]

Second, isn't there a dialectical relationship between the two characters? In my reading, capitalism and religion are all too ready to use one another to further their goals, but capitalism will turn on religion as soon as it's convenient to do so. 19th and 20th century American history (and European history) is full of examples.

"I eat your oysters" perhaps.

[jbeall]

Yeah, something like that.

I'm a little biased b/c I've seen some heavy-handed 'political' films lately, and as much as they play to my ultra-liberal sympathies, I've found them unbearably bad. I'm fine with political art, but sometimes the aesthetic of a particular work necessarily prevents the development of more overtly political themes, and I'd certainly argue that's the case here.

I just watched Cria Cuervos... again yesterday, and although the political element is there, I really appreciate Saura's willingness to let the audience see it (or not) for themselves, and I feel the same way about PTA's choices in There Will Be Blood.

[Nothing]

One can make a politically incisive film without being sentimental, simplistic or polemical. And it's true that Anderson's film, which is nice looking, well-acted, and even surprising at times, is somewhat weak on context.

[Belmondo]

One can make a politically incisive film without being sentimental, simplistic or polemical. And it's true that Anderson's film, which is nice looking, well-acted, and even surprising at times, is somewhat weak on context.

I agree with everything except "weak on context". Please tell me you weren't hoping for one of those introductory blurbs or voice overs which are increasingly being inserted into historical movies on the assumption that today's audiences are too dull to know that oil comes from a hole in the ground.

Our protagonist is a self made man, and he will create his own context. Those bastards always do.

[chaddoli]

The "milkshakes" gag is already becoming annoying, along with Connery-like impersonations about draaaaaaaaainage. Please don't let this movie become the next Austin Powers.

[Donald Brown]

If an artist has a social conscience, it'll show naturally in his work. It doesn't need to be forced or heavy-handed. The intelligent viewer will know how to handle it. The viewer who needs things spelled out should not be pandered to.

[noelbotevera]

Well, well. I enjoyed the film, do think it's his best, but Walsh has points--his snub of the preacher didn't make sense, and Lewis' affable man would be more difficult--and I think more rewarding--to portray on screen.

And I agree with Walsh, it's a mess. But an entertaining enough mess, PTA's melodrama for once with enough incidence that I don't feel he's just putting up the highlights (except the 1922 to 1927 jump--that's far too large an ellipse). I disagree with Walsh on one thing--I don't think PTA was too fainthearted to mount a coherent attack--I just think PTA doesn't think that way.

[Nothing]

It thankfully lacks explanatory voice-over. It less thankfully lacks cultural/political/anthropological detail, depth and insight, things which it is quite possible - and quite possibly essential - to include in a truly epic period character study (think Once Upon a Time in America or Heaven's Gate).

Perhaps noelbotevera is right that PTA "doesn't think that way" - this is evidenced in his sentimental, entirely inconsequential studio-indie-lite filmmaking prior to this film.

[ogygia avenue]

The "milkshakes" gag is already becoming annoying, along with Connery-like impersonations about draaaaaaaaainage. Please don't let this movie become the next Austin Powers.

Too late, man.

[Fletch F. Fletch]

PTA on KCRW

Jonny Greenwood is interviewed.

[tavernier]

Jonny Greenwood is interviewed.

From that interview:

His other great love is the Polish composer Penderecki, whose work captivated him as a child. "I remember seeing the viola concerto and spending the whole time looking for the speakers and wondering how these magical strange warm sounds were coming out of so few instruments. That was the start of it all really."

At least he admits his admiration for Penderecki, since so much of the music in the movie sounds like Penderecki outtakes.

[John Cope]

To go back to David Walsh for a moment...

Plainview’s growing lunacy simply goes unexplained. Very wealthy individuals may go entirely mad, like Howard Hughes, or not, like Warren Buffett. An artist makes it very easy for himself if he or she simply implies that the acquisition of wealth and power in and of itself is enough to drive someone insane. The lack of concrete connection between Plainview’s social existence and his mania tends to conceal, rather than lay bare, any mentally devastating social processes that might be at work.

I think this is correct, though I'd love to hear others' responses to the critique. One thing I neglected to mention earlier, though it's certainly a contributing factor toward my own dissatisfaction, is the Eli character as antagonist to Plainview. I suppose Anderson is trying to draw broad though somehow still pointed arguments about the similarity between the two men and then leave us with the question of their differences, if any. As with most of the last twenty minutes though I'm not compelled by this approach. However, part of what irritates me is that Anderson has set up an almost Spielberg-at-his-worst type situation in which it's virtually impossible to imagine what else to do with the material as established.

For me, Eli is never an adequate opponent for Plainview, though I'm sure this may have been the point. If so, though, how is that illuminating? Is it just that Eli is a less ferociously fortified version of Plainview? As it stands, on the surface at least, we get to see our suspicions confirmed that Eli is as much a cynic and paragon of high selfishness as Plainview. Well certainly that can't be the point as A Face in the Crowd and, of course, Elmer Gantry have already made this point in more exhaustive and committed ways. So it must go beyond that. Is Eli just afraid of Plainview's power? Doubtful. Clearly he is a fraud but is it then a question of degrees? Is Eli a worse man of power than Plainview? Is that what we're supposed to be left considering? Somehow, it doesn't seem likely that Anderson's interest in the final scene (which, retrospectively, recasts all else) is in subtlety or nuance or a question of degrees. Would it have been better if Eli had been a genuine Man of God? No because then the temptation to simply shrug the whole damn thing off as a nihilist's venture would be almost too great to resist. Perhaps we are meant to think that Eli's clearly fraudulent stance is the very thing that brings Plainview's rage to the surface as some kind of confirmation that there can be no power without corruption. Maybe, but the tone of the final sequence seems too satisfied with the finality of judgement rather than any doubt over whether that judgment is justified, and it definitely has the resonance of universal applicability.

Whatever. Ultimately trying to find a way out of the absolutes and around the monolithic objects in space (or the void) is a fool's game. Is that the point then? I resent and continue to resist Anderson's loaded deck, his insistence that it all eventually comes to this ("There Will Be..." well, you know). Predictably, perhaps, I would have preferred a more Oliveiraean approach in which Daniel and Eli were both allowed to make total sense and be convincing and, what's more, sincerely convinced by the rhetoric of their own particular positions even while we are allowed to still see the horror that co-exists, that can be rationalized perfectly but never entirley dismissed.

BTW, the fact that that damn milkshake line has become omnipresent rather than the more succinct, less colorful but equally pungent "I'm finished" is a testament to what many want to carry away from this experience. It reminds me of the stories about third world kids putting up posters of Rambo or inner city kids seeking to emulate Tony Montana. And of course there's always the numbing irony of those who thought Fight Club was some rallying cry or Clockwork Orange was offering a legitimate alternative social vision. Obviously an artist cannot allow themselves to be overly concerned with uncomprehending, broad but shallow responses to their work but we, as an audience, have the obligation to consider whether the shallow response is actually an appropriate one; whether it is, after all, as uncomprehending as it seems.

Also, I have to add that Nothing's comment that PTA's earlier work is

sentimental, entirely inconsequential studio-indie-lite filmmaking

is hard to take seriously. I mean, is the argument that it's inconsequential because it's sentimental? He also says that

One can make a politically incisive film without being sentimental, simplistic or polemical.

Well, yes, of course one can but is that the only way to make a legitimate one or just one to your taste, one that eschews all that inconsequential, evidently non-illustrative sentiment? Is the sentimental also always simplistic? Does it have to be read as polemical? Why? As evidenced here and elsewhere there is a modern hatred for all that is construed as sentimental which I simply do not share and never have.

[domino harvey]

I don't think Plainview is insane so I don't know how to "counter" an argument I disagree with on such a basic level. He kills Eli because he's the last remaining human link between himself and society. I don't understand the need for a director to spoonfeed cookie-cutter explanations-- there's something to be said for ambiguity and allowing for multiple interpretations. I'm shocked a film as subtle and open as this made it to the Oscars at all, but now that it has we all have to suffer the inevitable "I just didn't get it" backlash. Rather than thinking that a character has no motivation just because there is no explicit motive given, perhaps think "What could be the motive?"-- I find it hard to believe anyone who looks for causation truly does come up empty. It's just a lazy attempt at justifying a reviewer's negative reaction to the film.

[HerrSchreck]

I'll never understand this desire to see a film the same way one sees the news: everything needing to be tied up into a neat bow-- why this person did this, what the director's intention was here, etc. The ability to restrain from editorialism within the text is one of the greatest assets in the artists arsenal to me, moralizers in the old fashioned style like Kurosawa etc notwithstanding.

I think this film succeeds fantastically in the zone of ambiguity-- presenting the Mystery of Life and Human Motivation-- precisely where No Country For Old Men fails miserably. Sometimes the directors statement is the most distressing answer of all-- "there never will be an answer for certain forces in the world, at least in terms of trying to curb or solve them or sum them up. I'm trying to recreate the mystery of the fullness of this gigantic emptiness."