There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)

[John Cope]

Point/Counterpoint: Daniel Day-Lewis

A fascinating conversation between Kathleen Murphy and Jim Emerson on the merits of Day-Lewis' performance.

[domino harvey]

God, he comes off horribly. He criticizes Esquire's hyperbole while indulging in some of his own. How can any critic flat-out say they don't like an actor in anything and expect to be taken seriously? They've then sight-unseen automatically lowered any film they see with that actor: a real cinema lover should always be open-minded. And man, is he trying to seduce Diable Cody with some of these lines? To be fair, I don't think the opposing side did much good either: this was Hannity and Colmes Go to the Movies

[kaujot]

Emerson, though he doesn't always do this, is one of the worst "contrarians" on the internet when he deems a movie too popular, yet too flawed to be considered any kind of art. He seems to find it to be a point of pride.

[terabin]

The discussion is entitled "Point/Counterpoint." What do you expect?

[kaujot]

The discussion is entitled "Point/Counterpoint." What do you expect?

My statement is not limited to simply that discussion.

[John Cope]

Stephanie Zacharek weighs in on the subject.

[Marcel Gioberti]

Stephanie Zacharek weighs in on the subject.

I agree with her, in principle, but I thought of DDL's performance as basically one without any useful direction. PTA's ability to direct actors seems to play second fiddle to icon worship.

[Grand Illusion]

I'm in the camp that believes DDL matched his scenery-chewing performance to his scenery-chewing character, but I love this line of discussion. It's not often that a film brings out real debate about the actual craft of acting (and directing actors). Usually criticism of performance is reserved for saying, "Paris Hilton/Lindsay Lohan were awful," or the inverse, "Tom Hanks/Denzel Washington were excellent."

[John Cope]

Steven Shaviro responds. It's a characteristically great response and one that gives me pause to reconsider my own response to the film as a whole.

[Marcel Gioberti]

Steven Shaviro responds. It's a characteristically great response and one that gives me pause to reconsider my own response to the film as a whole.

That sort of response was completely inevitable.

"She's right. That's why I loved it!"

or...even better...

"It's supposed to be a silly performance without direction. That's the point!"

[Grand Illusion]

It must be so easy to be a critic when you can see nothing but macroeconomics. Just use the Leftist Rubric, plug in what you liked about the movie, then write a review about how the film proves your exact politics. Amazing how that works.

And how could Shapiro see zero glimpse of humanity in Plainview? In scenes such as the train with HW, making sure Mary didn't get beaten any longer, and the confession, Plainview the character became much more than just a shell for capitalism.

Poor Daniel Day-Lewis. Even his supporters are ignoring the nuance in his performance.

[Steven H]

Day-Lewis' portrayal of Daniel Plainview is the kind of performance the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences -- that monolithic, unknowable group of temporary (very temporary) tastemakers -- tends to like, so it's no surprise he landed a best actor nomination. This is also the kind of turn that often wows moviegoers precisely because they don't know what to make of it. It's suitably mysterious ("Why is he doing that? I have no idea, but it's cool!") even as we can see its craftsmanship on display.

Why give even an thimble of attention to this kind of thing? Demonizing the Academy is one of the most tired and uninteresting ways to begin an attack on movie acting, as if one begat the other. *Big* has always been a draw, as it provokes interest, and when you project it on the big screen it has a hypnotic effect, like explosions or guns (to be used wisely, like habanero). Some of the most memorable roles in screen history were just loud caricatures because it works. Let's all hold it against Daniel Day Lewis that he kept to this tradition, and how, exactly, should a confused, obsessed, turn-of-the-century psychopath act? Doesn't sound like a very *robust* role to me. He should play it like he's trying not to wake up the downstairs neighbors.

I also like Stephanie's intimation that all audiences that enjoyed his role were basically duped or "wowed".

I can see where Shaviro is coming from, but I didn't agree with a lot of his more excessive statements (Grand Illusion pointed these out already). I did like the second to last paragraph about the naturalistic acting, though.

[jbeall]

Why give even an thimble of attention to this kind of thing? Demonizing the Academy is one of the most tired and uninteresting ways to begin an attack on movie acting, as if one begat the other. *Big* has always been a draw, as it provokes interest, and when you project it on the big screen it has a hypnotic effect, like explosions or guns (to be used wisely, like habanero). Some of the most memorable roles in screen history were just loud caricatures because it works. Let's all hold it against Daniel Day Lewis that he kept to this tradition, and how, exactly, should a confused, obsessed, turn-of-the-century psychopath act? Doesn't sound like a very *robust* role to me. He should play it like he's trying not to wake up the downstairs neighbors.

I also like Stephanie's intimation that all audiences that enjoyed his role were basically duped or "wowed".

I can see where Shaviro is coming from, but I didn't agree with a lot of his more excessive statements (Grand Illusion pointed these out already). I did like the second to last paragraph about the naturalistic acting, though.

Agreed. Zacharek's piece could not have been more elitist, and not in a good way. Especially in the assumption that the average moviegoer is too inarticulate to say why his performance is good, but that "our" inarticulate recognition is clearly a sign that DDL's performance actually isn't that good after all. She's justifying what she wants to say by means of reference to the audience, rather than DDL's actual performance.

[GringoTex]

Just saw this amazing film and am still trying to wrap my mind around it. My immediate reaction is that it delves into fatherhood fears deeper than just about any movie I've seen. I just read this entire thread (one of this forum's best, btw) and was shocked to see so little mention of the role of Daniel as father. Do any of you guys have kids? I have a son the same age as H.W., and all I could feel up until his accident was a visceral concern for his physical well-being. Anderson's mise-en-scene is almost torturous in the way it places H.W. in constant danger (very reminiscent of Truffaut). And the way Daniel can only express his love for his son via physical contact (hugging, kissing, rough-housing) exposes the inadequacies I think all fathers feel in communicating with their children. The accident, of course, is also a rite of passage, as the son begins to speak (or sign) a different language than his father.

A few more random thoughts about the film and this forum's reaction to it:

Daniel is an alcoholic, and I've seen no mention of this in this thread's discussion of the character.

The church people are not brainwashed sheep. They are highly conscious of the roles they play for Ely and his church: it's a form of self-protection, as well as entertainment. They know they can't hope to match Daniel on a capitalist battlefield. The only way they know how to organize and resist is via religion.

Daniel's sexuality: did anyone else not see the signs of child predatory behavior that Daniel displayed toward the little blonde girl as he promises her protection and new dresses?

[exte]

Gringo, you had me until the last line. I never saw any such signs; maybe when I see it again I may but I doubt it...

[Faux Hulot]

The problem with this film is that it's all schematics. Yeah, I get the multileveled metaphors, the way I'd get a political cartoon with an ashtray labelled "Religion" and a guy puffing a stogie with the word "capitalism" on it; I just didn't give a tinker's cuss what happened to anyone in the whole enterprise. Nor was I moved, or shocked, or entertained, or shown anything new, nor was I diverted by the "this happened, then this happened"-style storyline. PTA should've sat him self down with a copy of Once Upon A Time In The West before shooting, and made himself watch it at least twice.

But that's just my opinion.

[GringoTex]

Gringo, you had me until the last line. I never saw any such signs; maybe when I see it again I may but I doubt it...

Maybe I was just looking for a sexual identity in Daniel's character where none exists.

[Cinetwist]

Gringo, you had me until the last line. I never saw any such signs; maybe when I see it again I may but I doubt it...

Maybe I was just looking for a sexual identity in Daniel's character where none exists.

No, I definitely noticed it too. Not sure whether it was intended or not.

[Stagger Lee]

I was struck by Daniel's apparent lack of any sexuality. It seemed that the moment at which he knew with certainty that the man was not his brother was when Daniel watched him with the hookers--as if he was aware of his own lack of interest in sex and considered it a hereditary quality of true Plainviews.

[tavernier]

An essay about Sinclair's novel and Anderson's film.

[Jeff]

Saturday Night Live did a TWBB parody last night. Bill Hader's Plainview was spot-on, but this milkshake stuff...ugh.

[domino harvey]

Yeah when I'm drinking a milkshake I know I'm having a Happy Day

[Cde.]

The problem is it's not something flexible like "Say hello to my little friend!", and it's ridiculous enough out of context. I'm seriously wondering now if There Will Be Blood will forever be 'The Milkshake Movie'.

[Faux Hulot]

Saturday Night Live did a TWBB parody last night.

Drink it here

[margot]

I was struck by Daniel's apparent lack of any sexuality. It seemed that the moment at which he knew with certainty that the man was not his brother was when Daniel watched him with the hookers--as if he was aware of his own lack of interest in sex and considered it a hereditary quality of true Plainviews.

Actually I think the moment Daniel realizes that that was not his brother is when he refers to taking girls to the dance and getting drunk and the guy doesn't respond.