criterionforum.org

Wow, I'm honestly impressed that Anderson added that detail in there - those kinds of things are the reason I'm sad Anderson is apparently done recording commentary tracks.

Michael wrote:That was my initial thought but why is that we never see the twin brothers together?

While Anderson does leave a lot of questions at the end (and throughout the whole movie, as the viewer can never really get a fix on Daniel Plainview - just look at the end where he's telling H.W. that he just used him as a cute face to make sales and contrast it with the tender moments at the beginning of the film, that scene was especially striking to me because I almost believed him despite all the evidence to the contrary) I think that it's pretty clear that Eli and Paul are not the same person - there obviously is a "Paul" in the Sunday family, Eli doesn't appear to know who Plainview is, and while they share some traits (tying into Plainview's speech to H.W. at the end) they don't react in similar ways.

patrick wrote:I think that it's pretty clear that Eli and Paul are not the same person - there obviously is a "Paul" in the Sunday family, Eli doesn't appear to know who Plainview is, and while they share some traits (tying into Plainview's speech to H.W. at the end) they don't react in similar ways.

Not to mention that in the final scene Plainview throws it in Eli's face that Paul told him about the land first.

Antoine Doinel wrote:

patrick wrote:

Michael wrote:That was my initial thought but why is that we never see the twin brothers together?

While Anderson does leave a lot of questions at the end (and throughout the whole movie, as the viewer can never really get a fix on Daniel Plainview - just look at the end where he's telling H.W. that he just used him as a cute face to make sales and contrast it with the tender moments at the beginning of the film, that scene was especially striking to me because I almost believed him despite all the evidence to the contrary) I think that it's pretty clear that Eli and Paul are not the same person - there obviously is a "Paul" in the Sunday family, Eli doesn't appear to know who Plainview is, and while they share some traits (tying into Plainview's speech to H.W. at the end) they don't react in similar ways.

Not to mention that in the final scene Plainview throws it in Eli's face that Paul told him about the land first.

If I'm not mistaken, I believe Eli also refers to Paul while the boy scolds his father for being weak and bending to Plainview's will. Unless Eli has been watching his DVD of The Prestige since before he was born, I'm doubting that Eli is trying to confuse his own family.

I think it's obvious that Anderson wanted us to be puzzled when we first encounter Eli, after having already dealt with Paul in the previous scene (essentially allowing us to briefly relate to Plainview's experience when meeting the two boys), but afterwards it becomes increasingly clear that they are two very distinct people.

Where did Anderson say he was done recording commentaries?

Also has anyone watched that silent film that's on the 2 disc DVD?

margot wrote:Where did Anderson say he was done recording commentaries?

here

There Will Be Blood 's storytelling feels very classical but would you call it a conventional film? Some of the reviews I read claimed the film to be original. I'm having a hard time seeing it as being original.

Michael wrote:There Will Be Blood 's storytelling feels very classical but would you call it a conventional film? Some of the reviews I read claimed the film to be original. I'm having a hard time seeing it as being original.

You have "a hard time seeing it as being original" because...?

Because I didn't see anything original about the film. Not meaning to attack it at all, it's the damn best film to come out of Hollywood in ages. While I was watching the film, it felt like revisiting some classics in some ways. Even though PT Anderson pushed the boundaries of his filmmaking, did he invent anything new or experiment with Blood like he did with Punch-Drunk Love and Magnolia? Not that there's anything wrong with movies being conventional or not original. I just want to understand why some perceive Blood as an original film while I saw it as a conventional film with great storytelling and astounding performances. That's all.

What I mean by "original". For example, Nashville is very original. It's narrative structure was never done before even though it has been way imitated since. And the last "original" film I saw is easily INLAND EMPIRE.

There's no such thing as originality, you'll exhaust yourself attempting to make the distinction

You're right, domino. Forgive me for talking out of my ass there. I was just skimming through some reviews and the word "original" popped up here and there so I was like WTF. Or blame it on HerrSchreck's full moon.

domino harvey wrote:There's no such thing as originality, you'll exhaust yourself attempting to make the distinction

I disagree with that first part, but no doubt you're right about the second.

Fuck, I need to stop reading reviews.

Roger Ebert

Slant

Those reviews claim the same thing that There Will Be No Blood has no Rosebud. I thought the son was the Rosebud, no?

The identity of H.W. is never actually a mystery to the audience. I did not read the reviews you linked, but maybe this is why those reviewers do not consider H.W. a "Rosebud."

Rosebud as a mystery. I don't mean it in that way. That's Welles' gimmick. But digging deeper, Rosebud stands for everything that's lost to him - love being the most important of them all. I'm not talking about the material wealth that Kane accumulated throughout his life. Plainview, like Kane, ends up all alone at the bottom of the abyss of loneliness. Plainview lost what he once loved the most - his son before drowning into wealth, greed, and power. To me, the story of father and son is the heart of There Will Be Blood. There's something sublime about the son standing up for himself in the end - when he said "I thank GOD, there's none of you in me", his last words. Now, that's ROSEBUD for me.

Does anyone else think that Daniel Day-Lewis' performance, both vocally and in many respects visually, has a generous helping of Walter and/or John Huston incorporated in it??

Edit: Ha-ha....I see Roger Ebert thinks so as well.....so much for my unique observation!

Quite a film, to be sure.....I'm still scratching my head at the use of the Brahms Violin Concerto last mvt. in the two key spots.....truly odd!

I'm too lazy to dig out Days of Heaven and play it but doesn't Malick also use Brahms for its brief end credits ? can't remember if it's a piano or violin concerto.

stwrt wrote:I'm too lazy to dig out Days of Heaven and play it but doesn't Malick also use Brahms for its brief end credits ? can't remember if it's a piano or violin concerto.

What's played over the end credits of Days of Heaven is an original piece composed by Ennio Morricone.

Dylan wrote:

stwrt wrote:I'm too lazy to dig out Days of Heaven and play it but doesn't Malick also use Brahms for its brief end credits ? can't remember if it's a piano or violin concerto.

What's played over the end credits of Days of Heaven is an original piece composed by Ennio Morricone.

Yikes !?! must be false memory syndrome - or maybe it was used on the VHS release in the 80s

unclehulot wrote:Does anyone else think that Daniel Day-Lewis' performance, both vocally and in many respects visually, has a generous helping of Walter and/or John Huston incorporated in it??

Quite a film, to be sure.....I'm still scratching my head at the use of the Brahms Violin Concerto last mvt. in the two key spots.....truly odd!

Yeah, I was discussing this with someone else. He got an academy award for an almost spot on imitation. Say what you will about his performance, he's imitating a younger, more energetic John Huston, and does a fine job at it.

The Brahms is the best piece of music in the film, but I still feel it's use is a bit awkward. It felt like he used the classical piece so he can intentionally create a Kubrick moment, and I felt he failed. The Greenwood score comes off as far too simplistic and actually, boring. the one part that keeps playing in my mind is the scene of the oil spilling all over the land followed by a repeating beat on a drum.

I was very disappointed by this film. Punch-Drunk love is honestly one of my favorite films of this decade, but I thought this was terrible.

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!

I have a problem with PT Anderson. When I first saw Boogie Nights and Magnolia, Punch-Drunk Love and now There Will Be Blood, I went "holy fuck". But over the years, after repeated viewings, now I can't bear the thought of sitting through Boogie Nights and Magnolia again. I can't say the same about PDL because I've not revisited it since it came out. And also TWBB because I saw it so recently. Why is it that PT Anderson's films leave such a great first impression and then grow incredibly mediocre over repeated viewings? I know I can't be the only person who feels this way.

And also when we see a film by Kubrick, we instantly know it's a Kubrick film. Same thing with Altman, Lynch, Almodovar, and Tarantino to name a few examples. But when you see a PT Anderson film, are you able to tell that the film is by that director? What exactly is his signature style?

From my experience, PTA's movies work only on the big screen. Only sporadically do I dig out his DVDs from my collection to watch them and only then to revisit certain scenes. One other director's movies that have the same effect on me is Kubrick.

As for PTA's signature filmmaking, I think they're pretty recognizable apart from TWBB. As an example, I cite my brothers who once caught me watching one of his movies on TV and asked me: "Is this from the guy that made Boogie Nights?", to which I dutefully noded. But personally, I think that only now is he beginning to lose his obvious influences and going off into uncharted territory. I could almost bet that by his next movie, we will again see another step into that direction - his own.

But personally, I think that only now is he beginning to lose his obvious influences and going off into uncharted territory. I could almost bet that by his next movie, we will again see another step into that direction - his own.

I certainly hope so. He hasn't found his voice completely yet, I feel. He came really pretty close with Punch-Drunk Love though.

I think Anderson does have a distinct style, even if it is (or has been) rather derivative of his key influences. The way he puts them back together does create, for me at least, something that feels distinct and different. I think the two biggest give-aways on a PTA film, at least prior to TWBB, are his writing of dialogue, and his use of the camera in conjunction with editing.

With the writing, it's about the rhythm and phrasing of his dialogue; the best way I can describe it is slightly eccentric (the way he includes William H. Macy's flub of the line "an ass in her cock" in Boogie Nights, for instance, or lets Philip Seymour Hoffman repeat the line about being an idiot for what feels like ages). His writing, again mostly prior to TWBB, seems to shift from comedy to tragedy so abruptly that the viewer is always on edge. There is also a heightened sense in his pre-Blood work that he is always revealing himself as the filmmaker - people either enjoy this sort of heavy-handedness and showiness or despise it. The screenplays feel a bit schematic, especially the more ensemble-based pieces like Boogie Nights and Magnolia - they feel less like real life than something elaborately designed by the filmmaker.

As for his use of the camera and how the films are edited, he often employs a flashier, kinetic style in the early movements of his films, and then gradually shifts towards more and more static setups, longer takes, as things go badly. Sticking with Boogie Nights, it's the difference between the lengthy steadicam shot at the beginning that introduces every character, or the graphically laid-out split-screen shots of Dirk rising to success, and the long static take of Mark Wahlberg's face as he sits in that drug dealer's house, or Don Cheadle while he contemplates the situation after the donut shop shootout. Again, it's all about directorial control and the viewer's awareness of it - the films are very blunt about their cinematic-ness, so to speak. TWBB sees him moving in a different direction, much more willing to let the acting do the heavy lifting, while still creating a distinct cinematic context within which it can unfold.

Well, after repeated viewings, many movies lose some of their magic and it should not reflect badly on the director - especially if you liked it enough to view it several times. I reread books I love, but only after a long period of time. I fully intend to watch TWWB again, but not for a few months at least.
I'll let others discuss Anderson's style, or lack of it, but that doesn't bother me either. Tarantino's style has not (in my opinion) served him well recently and even some of my favorite directors, such as Woody Allen, employ stylistic touches which I sometimes find irritating.
"Boogie Nights" holds up for me as does most of "Magnolia", although I can easily understand much of the criticism of it. "Punch Drunk Love" is an acquired taste, and I have acquired it.
Maybe lack of style means substance - steadicam in service of character.

Michael wrote:I'd like to share a personal note. Last night I watched the film with my deaf lover and he was floored by PT Anderson's portrayal of the deaf son. He told me that regarding with the son, the director didn't hit any false notes. He was thrilled by the fact that the son was never displayed as a victim because of his deafness. Him discussing this brought my mind to Lily Tomlin's deaf children in Nashville. In fact, my lover went to college with one of the children.

Being deaf myself, I agree with the sentiment that there weren't any false notes in HW's portrayal and it shouldn't be surprising if PTA has experience dealing with a member of the deaf community. I wouldn't say HW wasn't a victim since being deaf clearly are adverse circumstances which he doesn't exactly take into stride. What is sort of a small miracle is that, even if his deafness is, ultimately, a plot device in the sense that it serves to further him away from Daniel, he is treated by the powers that be with respect and granted with the command of a life of his own, free to deal with his condition, in a manner befitting his personality, and even come to terms with it by the time the last act rolls in.

Honestly, it shouldn't be a big deal: Is that not one of the minimum requirements one should demand of fiction? That the characters it portrays are not merely the whim of filmmakers or tools to be exploited? And other lofty ideals of the same vein. But if it stands out it's because it is very rare to see the deaf and hard-of-hearing dealt with some insight.

It is very rare to see a good movie with deaf or hard-of-hearing characters in it, period. So yeah. Score. And gratefulness.

PS: Michael, if he hasn't already, do your lover an act of kindness and never let him watch The Secret Life of Words. Ever.