Where did he discuss these metaphors?The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:Oh, and the sexual metaphors of the oil well and chapel that P.T.A. discussed, that's bad college fiction by the student who thinks is smarter than everyone. It's not that I mind sexual metaphors, but this was a terrible one!
There Will Be Blood (Paul Thomas Anderson, 2007)
-
exte
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:27 pm
- Location: NJ
-
The Elegant Dandy Fop
- Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 7:25 am
- Location: Los Angeles, CA
Sight and Sound. Either March or February.exte wrote:Where did he discuss these metaphors?The Elegant Dandy Fop wrote:Oh, and the sexual metaphors of the oil well and chapel that P.T.A. discussed, that's bad college fiction by the student who thinks is smarter than everyone. It's not that I mind sexual metaphors, but this was a terrible one!
-
oldsheperd
- Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2004 9:18 pm
- Location: Rio Rancho/Albuquerque
Anderson
Anderson has the Father/Son relationship running strongly through most of his stuff with the exception of PDL. There are also strong Bibilical themes in his work. For example Magnolia has tons of references to the number 82 for Exodus 8:2. I watched Magnolia like 6 times over a two week period a month ago and find it fascinating in every sense. He definitely knows his cinema. Look at the Altman references with all the Altman actors from Julianne Moore to Michael Murphy in Magnolia. There are definitely references to I am Cuba in Boogie Nights. I just like how he culls other influences from books, films and other things and injects them into his films. He's only 37 and his resume is pretty damn impressive. I'd take him over a hack like Tarantino any day.
-
TomReagan
- Prince of Trades
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 1:27 am
- Location: A Pistol Hot Cup of Rhyme
Re: Anderson
I can't help but view PDL as an exploration of a child frightened and nearly paralyzed through the absence of a father as psychological adulthood beckons. Anderson loads many scenes with domineering women (the sisters, the phone sex operator), menacing brothers, and Dean, the bullying, slightly older masculine figure who attempts to browbeat him, but I do not recall a father ever being mentioned.oldsheperd wrote:Anderson has the Father/Son relationship running strongly through most of his stuff with the exception of PDL.
Given Anderson's rather explicit thematic handling of fathers and sons in all of his other works, I thinks it's likely that PDL was treated (or, if not intentionally, can be treated) as a continuation of sorts of the more salient father / offspring elements in Magnolia, at least as it concerns the child / infantile adult ultimately having to achieve maturity and autonomy in the absence (whether it be physical or emotional) of same.
That absence speaks volumes, especially if you consider the film a piece of a greater whole.
-
colinr0380
- Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 8:30 pm
- Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK
I'm posting this half asleep at 4 a.m. so apologies if it reads badly or I repeat some comments made earlier - I just wanted to finally post something now that I've seen the film and while I've still got first impressions fresh in my mind. I'll check through it tomorrow and amend any particularly terrible comments I've made!
Somehow I’ve managed to avoid seeing or reading anything about the film until seeing the film earlier tonight (I wasn’t completely able to avoid the ‘milkshake’ fad of a couple of months ago but managed to keep myself from further investigations into what it meant!) Wow, after being relatively underwhelmed by his last two films finally Mr Anderson made something that confirmed and pushed so far past the promise of Boogie Nights it was unbelievable. I'm just hoping it doesn’t take five years for the next PTA film (or on the other hand if Mr Anderson needs to take the time to produce something this fine again I’ll wait, but I’ll wait impatiently!)
There isn’t much to say that hasn’t already been said but I’ll follow up a couple of points from reading through the thread. I thought the music was perfectly used – the way the music and occasionally sound effects flowed over scenes, blending time and creating subconscious linkages (I quite liked the puffing of Daniel after catching his son when he sets fire to their bedroom to the slower but similar puffing of the train he was banishing his son away on) seemed, as well as working wonderfully in its own right, to also prepare the way for the bigger jump to the 20s section to occur because there was the sense of always cutting to the meat of the matter even if the characters themselves have to wait brooding for years until their payback!
Of course Day-Lewis was fantastic and thoroughly deserved his awards and I agree with Paul Dano also proving he could hold his own until his character unfortunately (for him) and inadvisedly lets down his guard. I also want to praise Kevin J. O’Connor who perfectly anchors the middle section as the point where, for me, I part ways with Plainview – I suppose up to then you could consider Daniel a self-made man who is unfair in expecting his self-reliance to be replicated in those around him and is too quick to write people off as bad investments when they show need (I thought the scene where he force feeds his now deaf son a milk and alcohol cocktail was a brilliant way of showing his attitude change, performing what should be loving actions dutifully and with disappointment) but being so quick to kill someone who at least is admitting their guilt is my final straw sympathy-wise.
I still find him a brilliant character and compulsively watchable though – unsympathetic characters can be great too! FSimeoni’s comment on wanting Daniel to take ‘revenge’ in a horror film way (turning the audience into kind of sadists begging for blood) is interesting – I certainly found that while Daniel had gone beyond the pale I wanted to see him take Eli down with him! They are kindred spirits in a way because they both antagonise each other until the violent end seems inevitable – compared (and there are lots of pairings in this film, of characters, events and actions, enough to write a number of interesting articles on I’m sure) to the train company boss Daniel accosts who doesn’t rise to the bait Eli shows he is more than willing to get petty revenge in the baptismal slapping he bestows on Plainfield!
I thought that trailer in which Daniel describes his attitude towards other people worked great as a monologue but I liked just as much the way that in the film itself Henry changes the subject a couple of times and Daniel sticks with his train of thought, so ingrained it is that he doesn’t really need the other party to converse, just to witness his confession (of course after killing ‘Henry’ it is almost like he didn’t reveal his deepest thoughts to another person at all. Perhaps that meant it was apt he confessed to someone whose true identity also remains completely anonymous. Interesting that Daniel doesn’t bother to ask anything about the real man using his brother’s name before killing him. Perhaps there are parallels there to HW not questioning Daniel about what he knows about his real father – that even if he asked there would be no way of knowing for sure if it were lies or truth he were being told so best to just close the door on any further questions at that point.)
The church can be a practical bedfellow if you want land in exchange for a donation or want to keep the workers happy (within reason as long as it doesn’t affect their work) or need standing in the community but that early scene were Eli wants Daniel to announce him so he can come up and bless the oil well but Daniel chooses one of the other Sunday children instead shows how Daniel is fine with dealing with the devil, but only on his terms. I love the way instead of Eli he chooses Mary, the girl his son is getting friendly with thereby maybe showing he was planning to pave the way for a strategic marriage alliance in the future so he could either keep tabs on Eli’s influence or be assured of church influence working in his favour if he had ties to the family.
One of the things that is also so fantastic about that scene (and it is only one of many that do the same) is that many of the scenes seemingly end, as in life, with no immediate resolution – someone gets the upper hand or scores a point but rather than the issue ending with that scene it all gets carried over cumulatively to inform the next scenes. That might not seem like that big of a point to make but I found it quite refreshing after seeing films that set up mini-conflicts, resolve them and then take their characters back to a neutral state before having to set up another conflict to get the action moving again – a lot of films seem to be segmented into these kinds of mini-portions where every scene has to have a climax, perhaps because it makes them easier to handle and plan out (I have to admit to feeling that kind of bittiness in both Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love), so it was refreshing to see a film that felt like a fully realised ‘whole film’ (I’m not sure if this makes sense to anyone else though!)
There is also that wonderful scene where he allows HW when he returns to punch him as if he is acknowledging that he does deserve that treatment. Compare that (another pairing!) to the way he takes Eli’s slaps in the baptismal scene – he reacts there with verbal denunciations almost as loud as his fake religious affirmations and ends by backing Eli into a corner and talking to him in a manner that, although we do not hear what is said, resonates with his threat to cut the transportation bosses throat in the future – that I think is the moment he tells Eli he will return the suffering and humiliation eventually, a warning that Eli doesn’t seem to take to heart unfortunately!
I did not expect to but I found the second half extremely funny, blackly funny maybe but I’ve not laughed so much with a film in ages, especially the wonderful line damning God near the end "He's completely failed to alert me to the recent panic in our economy", which says more than repeated by rote anti-God comments ever could! Dano delivered that line brilliantly with such a sense of personal betrayal that he'd somehow been left out of the loop on this issue!
I keep wanting to describe the film as a classic comedy of manners but am not sure whether the description is appropriate or not!
Somehow I’ve managed to avoid seeing or reading anything about the film until seeing the film earlier tonight (I wasn’t completely able to avoid the ‘milkshake’ fad of a couple of months ago but managed to keep myself from further investigations into what it meant!) Wow, after being relatively underwhelmed by his last two films finally Mr Anderson made something that confirmed and pushed so far past the promise of Boogie Nights it was unbelievable. I'm just hoping it doesn’t take five years for the next PTA film (or on the other hand if Mr Anderson needs to take the time to produce something this fine again I’ll wait, but I’ll wait impatiently!)
There isn’t much to say that hasn’t already been said but I’ll follow up a couple of points from reading through the thread. I thought the music was perfectly used – the way the music and occasionally sound effects flowed over scenes, blending time and creating subconscious linkages (I quite liked the puffing of Daniel after catching his son when he sets fire to their bedroom to the slower but similar puffing of the train he was banishing his son away on) seemed, as well as working wonderfully in its own right, to also prepare the way for the bigger jump to the 20s section to occur because there was the sense of always cutting to the meat of the matter even if the characters themselves have to wait brooding for years until their payback!
Of course Day-Lewis was fantastic and thoroughly deserved his awards and I agree with Paul Dano also proving he could hold his own until his character unfortunately (for him) and inadvisedly lets down his guard. I also want to praise Kevin J. O’Connor who perfectly anchors the middle section as the point where, for me, I part ways with Plainview – I suppose up to then you could consider Daniel a self-made man who is unfair in expecting his self-reliance to be replicated in those around him and is too quick to write people off as bad investments when they show need (I thought the scene where he force feeds his now deaf son a milk and alcohol cocktail was a brilliant way of showing his attitude change, performing what should be loving actions dutifully and with disappointment) but being so quick to kill someone who at least is admitting their guilt is my final straw sympathy-wise.
I still find him a brilliant character and compulsively watchable though – unsympathetic characters can be great too! FSimeoni’s comment on wanting Daniel to take ‘revenge’ in a horror film way (turning the audience into kind of sadists begging for blood) is interesting – I certainly found that while Daniel had gone beyond the pale I wanted to see him take Eli down with him! They are kindred spirits in a way because they both antagonise each other until the violent end seems inevitable – compared (and there are lots of pairings in this film, of characters, events and actions, enough to write a number of interesting articles on I’m sure) to the train company boss Daniel accosts who doesn’t rise to the bait Eli shows he is more than willing to get petty revenge in the baptismal slapping he bestows on Plainfield!
I thought that trailer in which Daniel describes his attitude towards other people worked great as a monologue but I liked just as much the way that in the film itself Henry changes the subject a couple of times and Daniel sticks with his train of thought, so ingrained it is that he doesn’t really need the other party to converse, just to witness his confession (of course after killing ‘Henry’ it is almost like he didn’t reveal his deepest thoughts to another person at all. Perhaps that meant it was apt he confessed to someone whose true identity also remains completely anonymous. Interesting that Daniel doesn’t bother to ask anything about the real man using his brother’s name before killing him. Perhaps there are parallels there to HW not questioning Daniel about what he knows about his real father – that even if he asked there would be no way of knowing for sure if it were lies or truth he were being told so best to just close the door on any further questions at that point.)
Interesting. I think it works on the individual and the wider level at the same time. Individually I think Daniel doesn’t particularly have a grudge against the church until he starts feeling used by them and by Eli in particular – he is a person who always needs to have the upper hand in any relationship. I think as a practical person who has worked long and hard for his status he finds in that first scene when he visits the church a lot of people looking for a quick fix and easy answers to their ailments. I suppose most of us in that situation would think “well, if it comforts them in their time of need let them have that solace” but Daniel shows thinly veiled disgust at both the congregation's need and willingness to be led as well as Eli’s seeming abuse of their trust through his grandstanding orations.FSimeoni wrote: Daniel's comments about being from the Church of the World seem to suggest he is evading settling with any one Church in order to no be in opposition to the Sunday family but also his eventual disdain for the Church is emblematic of his character's ethos which we see building from the beginning of the film and we see climax at the end of the film
The church can be a practical bedfellow if you want land in exchange for a donation or want to keep the workers happy (within reason as long as it doesn’t affect their work) or need standing in the community but that early scene were Eli wants Daniel to announce him so he can come up and bless the oil well but Daniel chooses one of the other Sunday children instead shows how Daniel is fine with dealing with the devil, but only on his terms. I love the way instead of Eli he chooses Mary, the girl his son is getting friendly with thereby maybe showing he was planning to pave the way for a strategic marriage alliance in the future so he could either keep tabs on Eli’s influence or be assured of church influence working in his favour if he had ties to the family.
One of the things that is also so fantastic about that scene (and it is only one of many that do the same) is that many of the scenes seemingly end, as in life, with no immediate resolution – someone gets the upper hand or scores a point but rather than the issue ending with that scene it all gets carried over cumulatively to inform the next scenes. That might not seem like that big of a point to make but I found it quite refreshing after seeing films that set up mini-conflicts, resolve them and then take their characters back to a neutral state before having to set up another conflict to get the action moving again – a lot of films seem to be segmented into these kinds of mini-portions where every scene has to have a climax, perhaps because it makes them easier to handle and plan out (I have to admit to feeling that kind of bittiness in both Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love), so it was refreshing to see a film that felt like a fully realised ‘whole film’ (I’m not sure if this makes sense to anyone else though!)
I was wondering a similar thing. It is very interesting that Daniel shows little interest in sex and adopts his son the way someone would adopt a puppy whose parent you’d just run over in your car – it seems more of a dutiful act of someone who wouldn't have gone out of their way to adopt or have a son of their own but since HW was placed in his lap he takes him on. Though the great aspect of the film is that this is all left open to interpretation – is he completely callous and always used HW as an innocent face to front his drilling schemes or was that all just bruised bluster trying to save face once he felt disappointed and hurt by HW? My guess is both – there were feelings there, Daniel is human after all, but they never get the better of him enough to make him choose anything over his business. His confrontation with the oil transportation bosses just after he has sent his son away is caused by them accidentally touching a nerve with a casual, relatively well meaning comment (Interestingly they are doing the exact thing he was doing to the homesteaders early in the film, spinning them a line about how rich they’d be by taking his offer. Only the sums of money they are prepared to pay have increased, the spiel is the same and it shows that however powerful Daniel is there is always someone with more money and power lording it over him. The thing that shows that packing HW off has gotten to Daniel is that if he only considered his son purely as damaged goods and was thinking in a purely callous manner he would perhaps be happy he had removed his Achilles heel and be able to enjoy watching them trying in a hamfisted manner to suggest that the money they would give him would let him enjoy time with his boy rather than having to work all the time – instead it is the thing that shows the first cracks in Daniel’s demeanour as he completely overreacts due to the way he is feeling about losing HW).John Cope wrote: Certainly, Plainview confides to his brother in a way he never does to anyone else. But does this just speak to a human need that even Plainview has? Also, I remember something else about wanting to rebuild the family house in this new location in a style more fitting Plainview's station and grand ambition/self-regard…
Though it isn't dwelt on at length, this character also displays a notable disinterest in sexuality. And he, too, is a man of enforced will and aggression. I don't believe that in either case there is a reductive argument being made that the absence of sex turns men into monsters. However, sex can and does have a certain mollifying quality to temper or blunt or divert aggression...
This leads me to wonder how multi-dimensional the character is. Is he recognizably human enough or a monolithic entity for whom we can have no sympathy? Is it important to have sympathy for him? Is he a tragic figure or is his very existence our tragedy? His name alone is a dark joke, suggesting a semi-distorted, though all-American, Jeffersonian ideal.
There is also that wonderful scene where he allows HW when he returns to punch him as if he is acknowledging that he does deserve that treatment. Compare that (another pairing!) to the way he takes Eli’s slaps in the baptismal scene – he reacts there with verbal denunciations almost as loud as his fake religious affirmations and ends by backing Eli into a corner and talking to him in a manner that, although we do not hear what is said, resonates with his threat to cut the transportation bosses throat in the future – that I think is the moment he tells Eli he will return the suffering and humiliation eventually, a warning that Eli doesn’t seem to take to heart unfortunately!
I did not expect to but I found the second half extremely funny, blackly funny maybe but I’ve not laughed so much with a film in ages, especially the wonderful line damning God near the end "He's completely failed to alert me to the recent panic in our economy", which says more than repeated by rote anti-God comments ever could! Dano delivered that line brilliantly with such a sense of personal betrayal that he'd somehow been left out of the loop on this issue!
I keep wanting to describe the film as a classic comedy of manners but am not sure whether the description is appropriate or not!
-
Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
An excellent look at the making of the film and shooting on location in Marfa.
-
Sanjuro
- Joined: Fri Nov 03, 2006 5:37 am
- Location: Yokohama, Japan
I noticed this and thought it might have been reinforced when HW says he's going to Mexico and taking his wife with him. As opposed to leaving his wife behind with Daniel?Cinetwist wrote:No, I definitely noticed it too. Not sure whether it was intended or not.GringoTex wrote:Maybe I was just looking for a sexual identity in Daniel's character where none exists.exte wrote: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...
Of course, there's all sorts of stuff you could imagine happening for the missing 10 years or so, perhaps I've just a perverse imagination.
-
ed_gonzalez
- Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 5:34 pm
Hey mfunk9786. When you do have the time, I would personally love to hear your reasons for why you think I'm writing false opinions just so I can get attention. Did you know that I was among one of the first people to see and review "There Will We Blood"? By accusing me of feigning a negative opinion of that film, you are in essence assuming I was able to see into the film's future and its glowing notices and Academy Award nominations. You flatter me, but I'm not a clairvoyant.mfunk9786 wrote:The guy who just told me how to argue my opinions, if I had to guess.chaddoli wrote:Who's pretentious?
I don't have time to type up a big, honking defense of the film (like the lovely LQ up there) or explanation of why Ed Gonzalez has bugged me for years, so I'm just attempting to keep it short and sweet and not be awash in self-importance on a DVD forum. The end.
-
mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 8:43 pm
- Location: Miami, FL
Seems like yet another film critic's Google Alert just went off.
Most of your review is spent criticizing the character of Daniel Plainview, criticizing him for calling himself a family man and acting irrationally and without any "Rosebud," as you put it.
It's not Anderson's responsibility to follow his old framework of unlikely people forming family-like bonds with one another. This character isn't Dirk Diggler, isn't Sydney, isn't Officer Jim. It's an entirely different film, and faulting it for its lack of themes he'd already touched on rings false.
And as for criticism of the performances: you've got actors playing people who are deliberately larger than life. Being over-the-top is what makes Daniel and Eli their money. Although, despite this, the film finds fault in both exploitation of religious beliefs and in blind hatred for those who believe them, even though you decided to only think that the film sided with Daniel.
I could really go on for longer, but the review reads to me like one conveniently constructed to project a negative opinion onto a film receiving nothing but praise at the time, to be noticed as the first guy who didn't like There Will Be Blood. Just because you "called me out" on this opinion doesn't mean I'm going to take it back and crawl into a hole.
I'm happy for you. Despite the fact that the film was not yet being heralded by a large number of critics, its initial screening in TX and other sneak previews (like the one I attended during the first week of December) had increased the typical buzz of a new PTA film to a resounding roar of anticipation from those who hadn't seen it yet. Those who had were comparing it to Citizen Kane, Giant, and other classics, with reckless abandon. Someone had to spoil everyone's fun.ed_gonzalez wrote:Did you know that I was among one of the first people to see and review "There Will We Blood"? By accusing me of feigning a negative opinion of that film, you are in essence assuming I was able to see into the film's future and its glowing notices and Academy Award nominations. You flatter me, but I'm not a clairvoyant.
Most of your review is spent criticizing the character of Daniel Plainview, criticizing him for calling himself a family man and acting irrationally and without any "Rosebud," as you put it.
With all due respect, after Daniel fired his gun, did you go out to get popcorn until the baptism scene? There is a sequence of tortured disappointment on the part of Daniel Plainview at learning the truth. The idea of Daniel having been let down by members of his family, particularly male ones, is brilliantly alluded to without ever being specifically referenced in the scene on the front porch during which Henry and Daniel discuss their histories. This character isn't just a thespian void of hammy acting - it's a deep human being who's more intriguing for what we don't know about his past than for what we do know.There Will Be Blood review wrote:When Daniel connects with a derelict, Henry (Kevin J. O'Connor), who claims to be his brother, Anderson gets a little intuitive, and a beautiful shot of the two lounging on the beach, during which they strike a similar pose of uncertainty, maybe even resignation, bespeaks to a bond that very much exists between the two—if not in blood, then in spirit. But when Daniel kills Henry after learning the truth about his identity, the murder feels as if it should sting Daniel on some level, or at least challenge his concept of family. But the moment never feels tragic because Anderson only uses it to fuel the tired concept of men whose pathological business savvy alienates them from the world and the people they're supposed to love.
It's not Anderson's responsibility to follow his old framework of unlikely people forming family-like bonds with one another. This character isn't Dirk Diggler, isn't Sydney, isn't Officer Jim. It's an entirely different film, and faulting it for its lack of themes he'd already touched on rings false.
And as for criticism of the performances: you've got actors playing people who are deliberately larger than life. Being over-the-top is what makes Daniel and Eli their money. Although, despite this, the film finds fault in both exploitation of religious beliefs and in blind hatred for those who believe them, even though you decided to only think that the film sided with Daniel.
I could really go on for longer, but the review reads to me like one conveniently constructed to project a negative opinion onto a film receiving nothing but praise at the time, to be noticed as the first guy who didn't like There Will Be Blood. Just because you "called me out" on this opinion doesn't mean I'm going to take it back and crawl into a hole.
-
chaddoli
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 3:41 am
- Location: New York City
- Contact:
Another great critic joining us only to defend himself! Mr. Gonzales, you are a much respected critic around these parts (like Mr. Rosenbaum). I know you get called "pretentious" (whatever that means) and "contrarian" all the time, but few around here really believe that. I thought you offered an insightful and balanced review of There Will Be Blood (although I do not agree with a lot of it). You pointed out some areas where the film feels lacking, while still praising its noteworthy elements. Please keep up the good work and we'd love to hear more from you at this forum.
-
rs98762001
- Joined: Mon Jul 25, 2005 10:04 pm
Just because a critic didn't agree with what you claim was a consensus means that he's just looking for attention? I'm sorry, but that's just utterly preposterous. And there have been plenty of examples in film history where the initial "consensus" (often driven by hype, as it frequently is in Anderson's case) was later shown to be inaccurate.mfunk9786 wrote:I could really go on for longer, but the review reads to me like one conveniently constructed to project a negative opinion onto a film receiving nothing but praise at the time, to be noticed as the first guy who didn't like There Will Be Blood.
Furthermore, Gonzalez's review comes a lot closer to the true worth of the film than the "OMG! Greatest film ever!" PTA fanboys who actually think comparing TWBB to Citizen Kane is apt.
-
Banana #3
- Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 10:32 pm
This is kind of interesting:Fletch F. Fletch wrote:An excellent look at the making of the film and shooting on location in Marfa.
I should probably also say that I still prefer the original cut of the There Will Be Blood I saw at its world premiere at Fantastic Fest. This particular cut is my favorite for it. The theatrical cut is missing pieces of it just enough that I notice it. Most notably is the ending sequence is trimmed down, which seems to work at balancing out the overall scene without being too intense. I prefer the longer version of this scene that is much more dark and intense. Sometimes longer cuts of films don’t entirely work as you can easily point out scenes or moments that clearly don’t gel. However, with the longer cut of There Will Be Blood I felt everything worked perfectly. There wasn’t any moment that jumped out to me. While I’m sad that only this shorter cut is available, it certainly adds more sentimental value and magic to its first screening as I won’t have a DVD I can just pop in to relive… all I will have will be the memories dancing around in my head.
-
essrog
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 11:24 pm
- Location: Minneapolis, Minn.
With Rosenbaum's and Gonzalez's recent posts, this forum is starting to remind me of the episode of Seinfeld where Jerry goes into Pendant publishing to heckle the woman who was heckling him at a club. "How would you like it if I came into your internet forum and criticized your critical thinking skills?"
-
Cde.
- Joined: Sun Dec 02, 2007 10:56 am
- Location: Sydney, Australia
mfunk9786 is confusing subjective opinion for objective truth. "Didn't you see how brilliant that was! I did and you didn't! If you didn't see that greatness, you must have been out for popcorn!"
I don't fully agree with the review (not to say I don't agree with the lot of it) but it certainly does seem to me a cohesive argument. I don't get any sense that Ed Gonzales' opinions are not genuine, or purely motivated by a desire to 'spoil everybody's fun'. Sometimes somebody DOES need to pop the balloon of hype. Sometimes individuals DO hold dissenting opinions (hard to believe, I know). To say that anyone who claims not to like There Will Be Blood (see also The Dark Knight or any other movie with a fanboy defence force) is just looking for attention is just stupid. There is more than one possible response to take away from a particular film.
I don't fully agree with the review (not to say I don't agree with the lot of it) but it certainly does seem to me a cohesive argument. I don't get any sense that Ed Gonzales' opinions are not genuine, or purely motivated by a desire to 'spoil everybody's fun'. Sometimes somebody DOES need to pop the balloon of hype. Sometimes individuals DO hold dissenting opinions (hard to believe, I know). To say that anyone who claims not to like There Will Be Blood (see also The Dark Knight or any other movie with a fanboy defence force) is just looking for attention is just stupid. There is more than one possible response to take away from a particular film.
-
Tom Hagen
- Joined: Mon Apr 14, 2008 4:35 pm
- Location: Salt Lake City, Utah
No contrarianism to be found here. Certainly not the kind that selects a 30 year-old-film as the best movie of 2007.* Or the kind that dismisses the previous year's Academy Award winner with a one-liner in the process of praising a movie that, for better or worse, no one in America saw. Everyone move along.
* For the record, it was also bullshit when critics called Army of Shadows the best film of 2006.
* For the record, it was also bullshit when critics called Army of Shadows the best film of 2006.
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm
-
souvenir
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 4:20 pm
Those aren't re-releases though. Army of Shadows and Killer of Sheep never had theatrical releases in the U.S. when they were first made. Someone can (and probably will) correct me if I'm wrong, but both were technically eligible for Academy Award consideration in the year of their supposed "re-release." To use your analogy, it would be like a whole season of Cheers that was filmed but never aired until decades later.domino harvey wrote:I agree, you really can't name re-releases as the best film of the year. That's like if the Emmys kept awarding Cheers every year just because it was still being rerun on Nick at Night.
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 6:42 pm
Well, Limelight got an Oscar for its music thirty years after it was made, that doesn't make it a film from the 70s. Revivals and rereleases are out-- and I'm sure both films you cited where shown at least once in the US at some point before. I think you can get bogged down in technicalities if you want, but it just seems wrong to praise a film in an end of the year list that wasn't made in the year under appraisal.
-
swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:25 pm
- Location: SLC, UT
Meh, not that there weren't any great films in 2006, but Army of Shadows was better than all of them. If this was the first time most Americans got to see the film*, I don't see the problem. In the future, sure, call it a film from the '70s, but I don't see a problem with highlighting a film in the year that was the first you were physically able to see it. Same thing when people from the UK make lists of the best of the year that include films that were released in the US the year before. For example, I would expect to see TWBB on some Best of 2008 UK critics' lists. (And now, I have brought us back on topic.)
*I am operating under the assumption that Army of Shadows had never been released theatrically in the US before. I too would be against something like, say, the Star Wars special editions being recognized this way. (But not just because they're rereleases.)
*I am operating under the assumption that Army of Shadows had never been released theatrically in the US before. I too would be against something like, say, the Star Wars special editions being recognized this way. (But not just because they're rereleases.)
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 5:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
I'm with domino on this. While it's unfortunate that some films didn't get the attention they deserved back in their day (and it's separate issue from the UK/US release date difference), the fact is, they were made, produced, and filmed and released (in some capacity, even if it was a single screen in Butte) then not now. Celebrating them after the fact with end of the year awards comes off as a hand-wringing apology on behalf of the film community.
-
swo17
- Bloodthirsty Butcher
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:25 pm
- Location: SLC, UT
-
mfunk9786
- Under Chris' Protection
- Joined: Fri May 16, 2008 8:43 pm
- Location: Miami, FL
GIMME GIMME GIMMEBanana #3 wrote:This is kind of interesting:
I should probably also say that I still prefer the original cut of the There Will Be Blood I saw at its world premiere at Fantastic Fest. This particular cut is my favorite for it. The theatrical cut is missing pieces of it just enough that I notice it. Most notably is the ending sequence is trimmed down, which seems to work at balancing out the overall scene without being too intense. I prefer the longer version of this scene that is much more dark and intense. Sometimes longer cuts of films don’t entirely work as you can easily point out scenes or moments that clearly don’t gel. However, with the longer cut of There Will Be Blood I felt everything worked perfectly. There wasn’t any moment that jumped out to me. While I’m sad that only this shorter cut is available, it certainly adds more sentimental value and magic to its first screening as I won’t have a DVD I can just pop in to relive… all I will have will be the memories dancing around in my head.
-
AWA
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 12:32 am
- Location: Windsor, Ontario, Canada
- Contact: