criterionforum.org

toiletduck! wrote: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

I like this.

Maybe it's sour grapes, but I'm actually kind of glad that Greenwood's score won't be trivialized by the perennial prefix of "Academy Award-Winning." Anyway, it's yet another reminder that these awards are meaningless, except perhaps in terms of what they do for certain people's careers and the studio's bottom line.

toiletduck! wrote: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 really like the way you put this, and I was being a little unfair, I even hesitated before I wrote that, but sometimes something in a film strikes you as so important that it seems odd that others aren't making more of it. I do want to say that I definitely think the film has broad meaning, but I also see that broad meaning encompassing more than a passing attack on the ideals brought up. It seems to me that there is far more weight behind the filmmaker making a point of singling out these things than some posters are giving credit to.

I actually went into the film thinking it would be largely about the fall of a man (or men) into some kind of madness, and that seems to be what it *is* about, which is a broad humanist stroke. But the madness is directly culled from the economic, religious, and political times that these character live in, and this seems laid bare to me. But I won't press this point much more, as there are other interesting things to talk about.

A couple of friends of mine, who don't regularly go to the movies, remarked that they felt like something was missing from There Will Be Blood, and looking back I can kind of see this. But that's one of the things that I think makes it work so beautifully for me, that so many motivations and personality quirks are alluded to but never developed (just like in "real life") such as Daniel's partner getting a slight sense of jealousy/suspicion about his "brother," or just what exactly was going through Daniel's head when he left his son on that train (though the few people I've talked to all saw that coming, they said.) Such *rich* character.

What's missing from the film is any sexual or romantic relationship.

Oedipax wrote:Anyway, it's yet another reminder that these awards are meaningless, except perhaps in terms of what they do for certain people's careers and the studio's bottom line.

From the Academy site:

I. Original Score

An original score is a substantial body of music in the form of original dramatic underscoring written specifically for the film by the submitting composer.

According to the Variety article the key word is here "substantial," which, oddly enough, is the last word I would ever use to describe the importance of the Academy Awards.

Caught this the other night, and I liked it a lot. I have concluded that most of the film's criticisms including music is overbearing, story moves too slow, Daniel character is too much like Bill the Butcher, etc. are completely unfounded. This is just a really good movie. Even better then No Country, but not quite as good as Zodiac in my mind. I feel like Anderson has reached a greater maturity with this movie as both a director and writer. The style is all his own this time, with Altman relegated to a small dedication in the closing credits. A special mention goes to Day Lewis' performance, which gets downright terrifying. Paul Dano is quite good too, especially for holding his own in a movie with an Day Lewis who routinely shows up every other actor in the same frame as him.

This is probably a conversation for a different topic, but I would like to mention that I watched this with one of the worst theater audiences I can remember. Of course there were the obligatory 'giggly teenage girls in a serious movie' to my right and the 'screaming child (!) in the front row', but there was also a woman to my right who pulled out a giant bag of individually wrapped peppermints (?!) and proceeded (I'm convinced) to eat every last one of them, which would not have bothered me if it weren't for the crinkling sound each wrapper made when opened and scrunched closed. I also had the 'person with a disgusting smelling sandwich brought from home' (say what you will about movie theater food, but...) in front of me, and some jackass in the balcony kept making shadow puppets in front of the projector sporadically throughout the entire film. To top it off, during the "I drink your milkshake" scene someone's cellphone started going off, and continued to do so for a good three minutes without going to voicemail. People actually started saying things like "Whoever's that is, turn it off" and stuff.

So yeah, rant. Good movie though.

Yeah, went I went to see this I was blessed with a couple beside me who thought everything Daniel Plainview said was hilarious except when they were busy making kissy faces at each other.

Loved it! I can't really add anything not already said, but do want to comment on Dano's performance, which I thought was quite strong. I remember reading/hearing from some that they thought his performance was terrible, but considering the show-off nature of the character I thought it was perfect and he held his own against Day-Lewis. I thought the film came quite alive whenever the two were on screen together.

While everyone's at it, I will comment on my audience. My theater was packed, which was a surprise and it was a good audience. 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. The baptism scene got quite a few and I admit I did chuckle, more because Plainview was obvisouly fighting it, and I'm sure Eli was getting some satisfaction from it as well (there were also laughs when Plainview whispered whatever to Eli, I laughed at Dano's reaction.) They also laughed during the end sequence, as people seemed to enjoy that Eli was getting his, but as soon as

Spoiler

Plainview hits Eli with the bowling pin

there was dead silence, laughs just dropped all at once. Beautiful. I honestly think that's what Anderson was going for.

But the biggest surprise out of that theater going experience was that my father-in-law, who falls asleep through everything and usually hates films like this (he actually didn't seem to keen on going since he never heard of it before,) was glued to the screen the whole way through, never shifted, never groaned and actually said "wow!" when it was all over. He loved it and couldn't stop talking about it hours afterwards and plans on seeing it again. I think the only other movie he was this excited about in recent memory was the last Die Hard, so take from that what you will.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Yeah, went I went to see this I was blessed with a couple beside me who thought everything Daniel Plainview said was hilarious except when they were busy making kissy faces at each other.

I had a guy next to me who started looking shit up on his blackberry during the "are you an angry man" conversation (one of the darkest parts of the movie) and this guy angled it perfectly to shine the light on me and my friend.

cdnchris wrote: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. The baptism scene got quite a few and I admit I did chuckle, more because Plainview was obviously fighting it, and I'm sure Eli was getting some satisfaction from it as well (there were also laughs when Plainview whispered whatever to Eli, I laughed at Dano's reaction.) They also laughed during the end sequence, as people seemed to enjoy that Eli was getting his, but as soon as

Spoiler

Plainview hits Eli with the bowling pin

there was dead silence, laughs just dropped all at once. Beautiful. I honestly think that's what Anderson was going for.

While it wasn't especially funny when he was throwing the bowling pins at him I did have to laugh when Eli crouched down under that thing and came back up on the other side of it a second later. I've seen it twice and generally the audience laughs at the same times:

Eli's sermon (especially ..."I will gum you")
Daniel telling Eli it was "one goddamn helluva show" (this usually gets the biggest laugh because the audience feels like they deserve it)
Run along and don't come back
When Daniel keeps offering that guy more money for his property
The baptism
I drink your milkshake

But yeah as soon as he hits him the first time with the bowling pin all the laughter dies out immediately and then when he brings his hand up to hit him on the head you can feel like people don't know what they're watching anymore.

It's certainly what he was trying for because he did the same thing in Boogie Nights when Little Bill kills his wife and the guy she was having sex with (a lot of people find this hilarious until he kills himself and suddenly everyone stops laughing)

I see some do-gooder has deleted my comments about the pirate copies floating around of this in Asia.

The fact is that there is NO SCHEDULED RELEASE DATE for this film in the country where I reside. Fyi, some other big studio films currently lacking a release date here: No Country For Old Men, The Darjeeling Limited, The Assassination of Jesse James, ie. all of the American films from the past year that look remotely interesting.

If the studios makes the decision that audiences outside the US/Europe will be satisfied with wall-to-wall screenings of I Am Legend and Alien vs. Predator 2 then they are the ones encouraging piracy.

Nothing wrote:I see some do-gooder has deleted my comments about the pirate copies floating around of this in Asia.

The fact is that there is NO SCHEDULED RELEASE DATE for this film in the country where I reside. Fyi, some other big studio films currently lacking a release date here: No Country For Old Men, The Darjeeling Limited, The Assassination of Jesse James, ie. all of the American films from the past year that look remotely interesting.

If the studios makes the decision that audiences outside the US/Europe will be satisfied with wall-to-wall screenings of I Am Legend and Alien vs. Predator 2 then they are the ones encouraging piracy.

No, the facts are that your comments (which were about you failing to be able to buy a pirated copy of this film) added nothing to the discussion and that no one cares that you can't see this or any other film without resorting to buying a pirated disc. Now suck it up, because it's not all about you all the time.

I think you just drank his milkshake.

Matt wrote:no one cares that you can't see this or any other film without resorting to buying a pirated disc.

Ah, the typical American attitude - as long as US is okay.

Anybody remember the final scene in "The Professionals" (1966) and this exchange between Burt Lancaster and Ralph Bellamy?

Bellamy - "You're a bastard".
Lancaster - "Yes, in my case an accident of birth; but you sir are a self made man".

And that is how "There Will Be Blood" works best for me. American Individualism and a self made man achieving all he sets out to achieve and learning that the reward is booze and your own bowling alley. There is no question that you can make a very strong case that the themes involve rampant capitalism and fundamentalist fakery, but these are easy targets and it all resonates more deeply for me if I think more about the character, his admitted dislike for his fellow human beings, and his singleminded determination to succeed. The American Individual needs only himself. No wife, no women at all, no God, and if a "son" comes his way, he can be used to further the goals of a "family owned business".

If this were a tract against capitalism, it could have easily gone further in demonstrating the evils of the time by showing the oil men being paid in "company scrip" instead of cash and forced to buy at the "company store". We don't see these things because we have a filmmaker who is smart enough to focus on character and the individual; in this case, the American Individual.

It may not be a pretty picture, but it is a wonderful moving picture.

Nothing wrote:I see some do-gooder has deleted my comments about the pirate copies floating around of this in Asia.

The fact is that there is NO SCHEDULED RELEASE DATE for this film in the country where I reside. Fyi, some other big studio films currently lacking a release date here: No Country For Old Men, The Darjeeling Limited, The Assassination of Jesse James, ie. all of the American films from the past year that look remotely interesting.

If the studios makes the decision that audiences outside the US/Europe will be satisfied with wall-to-wall screenings of I Am Legend and Alien vs. Predator 2 then they are the ones encouraging piracy.

Yeah you have a point or you're just an impatient bastard but for profit piracy is wrong and anyone who partakes in it is an idiot. Why would you buy a "pirated copy" that's "floating around in Asia" when I'm positive the scene has released a near perfect copy and you can download it for free if you want to see it so badly.

Spoilers:

Now, uh... I saw this last night and it struck me as a fairly amazing film, certainly far above the norm for big budget oscar-nominated imdb fare. Aside from the shot of Plainview watching the stemming of the oil fire, the best part was perhaps the crazed ending. Not too sure about the casting of HW as a boy (I realise the boy is supposed to be cute, but there's early 20th century cute and indie-movie-cutesy-cute) and count me among those unconvinced by the score. Also not sure he got me with the plot twist about the first murder and the subsequent bizarre reaction of the churchgoers, which seemed a little contrived but, hey, go with the flow...

However, uh... I'm a little unsure as to whether I saw the entire film... The running time was more like 148m as opposed to 158, and there were a couple of rather disconcerting jump cuts. In particular - is the final image a top shot of Plainview lying on the ground beside Eli's body as blood seeps from the head wound he has just inflicted? Or is there more to it than that?...

Obviously I would take the chance to see this in the theatre if it presents itself and will likely purchase the US DVD when it is eventually released. In the meantime, though, I, uh, wouldn't mind knowing if I've seen the whole film or not (you needn't say I told you so...)

Nothing wrote:Also not sure he got me with the plot twist about the first murder and the subsequent bizarre reaction of the churchgoers, which seemed a little contrived but, hey, go with the flow...

Contrived? Surely, you have not seen congregations like this at work.

However, uh... I'm a little unsure as to whether I saw the entire film... The running time was more like 148m as opposed to 158, and there were a couple of rather disconcerting jump cuts. In particular - is the final image a top shot of Plainview lying on the ground beside Eli's body as blood seeps from the head wound he has just inflicted? Or is there more to it than that?...

Does he have the great final line? If not, you completely got gypped by the bootleg.

Obviously I would take the chance to see this in the theatre if it presents itself and will likely purchase the US DVD when it is eventually released. In the meantime, though, I, uh, wouldn't mind knowing if I've seen the whole film or not (you needn't say I told you so...

Which is why you should just waited for an "official" chance in the first place.

Surely they would just turn the guy in. In general, this marked a turning poiint in the film - up until that point it seemed to be building into a very grand epic and then it kind of closed in on itself with a series of time jumps and credulity-stretching plot twists. The finale was so demented it kind of made up for itself, mind.

No final line. Scanning the rest of the thread, it would seem that the scene where Daniel leaves HW on the train is also missing (they're talking on the train and then it cuts to the meeting with the senior oil men). Still, given the theatre experiences described by some of the others on here it sounds like it could have been worse...

That's not how it goes - we clearly see Daniel leaving H.W. He's sitting next to him on the train, says he has to go see about something, and then jumps off the train. As the train departs, Fletcher holds onto H.W. to keep him from escaping and Daniel climbs into his car.

Caught this a few nights ago. Well, I now understand why all my friends have been yelling "I! DRINK! your MILKSHAKE!" at one another.

In all seriousness, I respect the film a lot. It works better than any of the other prestige films I've seen this year. The shooting and editing were impressive; I was fond of how Anderson was able to do entire scenes in one shot with minimal camera movement. DDL's performance was impressive, though I felt at times as though he was thesping into an echo chamber -- his isolation was the point of the film, I know, but at times the film felt like a one-man show.

Okay, there was one small thing that would have improved the film for me. I would have liked to see a long, loving portrayal of the ways in which Eli Sunday sinned. Especially if they involved bored housewives and the occasional strapping farmhand.

ogygia avenue wrote:Okay, there was one small thing that would have improved the film for me. I would have liked to see a long, loving portrayal of the ways in which Eli Sunday sinned. Especially if they involved bored housewives and the occasional strapping farmhand.

Okay, I guess you mean you wanted sex scenes? Are you just joking? Because everyone knows how much the general religious moviegoing public loves to see preachers performing in explicit sex scenes on film. Gosh, you know what else would be great? If they rereleased The Devils and distributed it to general audiences.

Klaylock wrote:If they rereleased The Devils and distributed it to general audiences.

That would be great... so much for your sarcasm.

However, I see about as much need for Sunday's debauches as I do for a Plainview romance.

SPOILERS:

Finally, finally! saw this, and nearly wept tears of joy by the end. After a few days of digestion (and a whole day of walking around with Plainview stuck in my head), I've been focusing on how PTA focuses on the dual nature of his characters (imposter/actual), in terms of reinvention and reinterpretation of their respective lives: Sydney's titular character, Dirk Diggler/Eddie Adams, Frank TJ Mackey nee Partridge, Barry's telephone partner Georgia (and to an extent Lena Leonard, or even Barry himself), and Paul & Eli Sunday (and perhaps Plainview's half-brother, at least for a time). Most of these, if not all, do not adapt and modify themselves for the sake of, but in order to survive and retain an amount of control where there once, or never, had been, as well as to lessen the pain endured by their former selves. Placing these characters inside the family dynamic (authentic, forced, or imaginary), or the idea of one, pushes them to their extremes, more often than not boiling the kettle over than quieting it down (Sydney taking control of a desperate situation, Dirk whoring and botching a drug deal, Frank breaking down, Barry's bursts of violence). This trait being a very large marble (or pipe?) in an otherwise full mason jar of dozens in TWWB, this film feels like his richest, and most satisfying, and I can't wait to see it again.