My Studios

EmmanuelLubezki wrote:

spanner, can you please put a spoiler warning in the title.

there is one

friskytiger81 wrote:

NSpannus:

What's with the language? Great, you've seen all of Kubrick's work. I've seen all of Dennis Dugan's work, so how 'bout we get together one day and watch "National Security" followed by "Spartacus".

I really don't understand the post you made. I'm okay with you refuting my claims (some that were called "bollocks"), but considering the title of the bulletin board post, "There Will be Blood: thoughts?", I really don't understand the backlash.

Are these boards only here so that film geeks can talk about how bad-ass the special effects in "Transformers" were? I mean, I'm fine with that, I just don't want to talk about that. When I see a bulletin board post asking for thoughts on a movie I respect, I thought I'd offer my insight.

Sorry, frisky.. sometimes i forget that my real-world jovial tone doesn't always translate in type.. when reading my messages, you can just safely assume that everything i say is light-hearted and friendly.. the worst i get is sarcastic--and even that is said with a nudge and a wink.. any "extreme" language i use is always meant to be read casually and as nothing more than a light emphasis on whatever the hell i'm talking about... (see?)

anyway, i was mostly just saying that i didn't think your response (though articulate) really resolved my problems with the film... i mean, we're discussing a clearly important film that will have (and has already made) a huge impact in the world of cinema.. so when i'm faulting it and you're praising it, i think we're really just talking entirely within the realm of so-called "greatness" (despite the problem with labels).. so any disagreement is most likely over a minute matter of degrees rather than any large disparate gaps in critical opinion..

as for the kubrick stuff, i was mostly just reiterating the fact that discussion of film around these parts can usually be made with the assumption that almost everybody is well versed in "the classics"..

finally, for the record, i hated transformers and i strongly disliked juno

although (again, for the record) Juno was ALMOST saved by the director, the cast, and the music... unfortunately, Brook Busey is just one doodle that can't be undid

Bollocks is a european phrase, so sorry.. I at times tend more toward Brit than American.. In fact I've been putting the dollar sign after the amount (i.e. 100$) all along, and I just found out that is totally a brit thing like 2 weeks ago. Also I spell it colour, not color, even though spellchecker's chastise me. My citizenship is highly confused

RE LOTR: Tolkien wasn't alive for the movie.. my comment was nothing to do with the movie, just the 2nd printing of the book. People were reading into it that it had hidden messages about either religion(ala c.s. lewis) or the war (that was occuring at the time), and he basically wrote a foreword laying the smack down that it was just the story itself no hidden meaning.

_______________________________

On "my take" of the movie, as noted I think you are reading way too much into it. At best there may be some play on Corporation vs Religion, but even that is a tenuous notion at best.
As a cynic to the core I am of the belief that the movie should be taken at face value, and that ultimately, should be enough. The story could be followed a couple of ways either focused entirely on Daniel Plainview's corruption or, my own personal understanding, it is a compare & contrast of Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday. Both characters are in the end corrupt, greedy swindlers their approach is just different.
In the beginning we see Daniel Plainview get his "lucky break" (har har) when mining, which enables him financially to open the door to stumble across oil and turn himself wholly into a self declared Oil Man. His greed and subsequent disregard for anyone other than himself continues to grow from that point on, beginning with his annoyance at the death of a worker to his newly established gusher... He then manipulatively turns the focus back on himself, making himself appear selfless, by taking up the mans son as his own. He seemingly is a changed man and doting father after that, though there are subtle undertones toward the opposite... UNTIL the explosion that takes his son's hearing. From that point on he becomes a consumed man, minimal attempts to even hide his self-serving intentions, alienating every person in his life.
On the other hand, Eli Sunday, rather than stumbling upon his fortune, he craftily pursues Daniel Plainview and offers his information without divulging his purpose. He doesn't even attempt to hid his intentions, makes clear his monetary demands, ultimately the same goes for his attempts at self-promotion which Daniel quickly thwarts (ala the blessing). Basically throughout the movie he is shown to be dark internally, and working toward his own purposes (money for his church and making his own legitimacy and false holiness known). Between the two it is an endless battle of manipulation.

As usual for PTA his main character's are two-faced showmen. Plainview has his nice little sitdown meetings with the community every time he goes somewhere new, and publically he is always overly accomodating. He indirectly admonishes Abel Sunday for abusing Mary, clearly making himself unquestionable, and accordingly Abel pretty much disappears from the picture.
Unlike Plainviews manipulation by way of making other people look bad, Eli Sunday simply attempts to make himself look better. He is the typical holy roller, making it seem he along has a life-line directly to God. He'll cure your ills and bless your oil... and all for a small donation.
behind closed doors their brains and actions are full of dark machinations.
That pretty much covers it, above and beyond that the end of the movie in the bowling alley is quite disjointed as previously mentioned but ultimately fairly simple: Revenge. Daniel is shamed during the baptism, and after storing that away he has held onto that until the end when he has reason enough to get back at Eli. Through the entire movie it has been a battle of the wills between Plainview and Eli Sunday, and in the end Plainview conquers.

...or if you prefer the more misconstrued context - Corporation triumphs over Religion.

Edit: the "backlash" shouldn't discourage you from posting your thoughts. I recognize logically that you didn't intend to come across in a "snooty" manner, but in reality you did, and even worse you came across as a snooty puristic film student with no relation to the film itself but the philosophy of the film. No hard feelings towards you, and as i said you clearly have some serious opinions on this, but ultimately I just can't appreciate or relate to people who's opinions come solely out of assumptions rather than fact.

becs, i may have misread your post, but did you imply that Eli and Paul were the same person?

NSpannaus wrote:

becs, i may have misread your post, but did you imply that Eli and Paul were the same person?

Probably, I didn't realize until halfway through the film that they even were separate people, so its highly possible I mistook scenes of one for another. So take my thoughts on the subject as you see fit..

This looks an interesting thread but I have nothing to contribute. Damn living in NZ. There will be blood is still not out here yet!! Although, becs, I have never put my currency sign after my amount, and I AM British!! I say $100 (don't have a pound sign on my keyboard in NZ) unless if I say 15p (as in pence). I dont know any Birt who says 100$.

I wish I could add something but all that could have said, wanted to say, or even dreamed about saying, Frisky has said already. Much props. The final scene was necessary not only to put a cap on the character arc of Daniel Planview Sr. but to resolve the long standing rivalry of Eli and Daniel. It took out 2 birds with one stone.

Now, here's a thread I can get into.

I was not a huge fan of There Will Be Blood. It was a great (sometimes brilliant) overall piece of filmmaking. The acting was excellent all around. Especially Paul Dano, who I saw coming ever since The Girl Next Door. But anyway...The Direction was just teriffic and is by far PTA at his most assured. He has a story that he wants to tell, and he knows how he wants to tell it, and he does. The cinematography: Black, White, Gray, and shades of brown have never looked more spectacular.

I think, without trying to take any sides either way...(I agree at least partially with what everyone has said thus far) Frisky is dead-on with his analysis of the final scene. I don't think he's reading anything that isn't there.

It's pretty much the consensus that Plainview is an evil man from scene one. I mean, at first he doesn't seem that bad. He takes in a co-worker's kid after he's killed in an accident! But you find out in the last scene what his true intentions were. And odds are he was not just saying that to hit a nerve...he never seems genuinely interested in anyone who can't help him in some way. And that's just who he is.

He goes from town to town taking everything he can from everyone he meets, not feeling the slightest bit of remorse for any of it. Sometimes it just takes longer for him to get what he needs from someone. And that is why the last scene is absolutely necessary, and one of the absolute best in modern (or any other) film.

Eli thinks that he can overpower Daniel and gain control over the townspeople and their money because he is a familiar friendly face offering a slightly better (so it seems) business endeavor. So, is not the case. Eli thinks that he has gotten the best of Daniel at the baptism because he has supposedly exposed a weakness. It is Daniel who has gotten the best of Eli, however, by pretending to let him have the upperhand. This makes Eli's pleas for help all the more satisfying because they reveal that Daniel is more powerful than even the GOD Eli worships, who did not help him obtain the hearts of the townspeople or the funds to establish a successful church or make Eli a true prophet or even save him from his inevitable murder.

It's not that Daniel is worse at the end than he was at any other time during the film, it's just that now he's done proving himself. He is GOD in a sense. He can do as he pleases with no consequences whatsoever.

I feel like the most likely ending to the story (not the movie) as a whole, is that Daniel slowly arises and kills his butler and covers up both murders seeing as (yet again) neither victim will be missed.

That's just my two cents, but you can do with it what you please. Overall I thought Blood was great, my only complaint is that at times it felt a little too jokey.

"it felt a little too jokey"

Ah, that's what I loved about it. Some of my friends have made fun of the "milkshake" metaphor in the last scene -- as many others, I'm sure have also -- but, I was told that it was actually used, albeit out-of-context, from a written dialog between an oil baron and the town he was perpetuating the idea that oil was going to bring that small town prosperity. There is so much fervor in DDL's performance that it's amazing the hold he has on the other characters...and even the other actors. (It was reported that PTA replaced the original actor playing Eli Sunday because he was so intimidated by DDL's method acting).

What was so amazing is that DDL looks to have patterned some of the character on real-life (director/actor) John Huston. I just watched some 1970s interviews with Huston and some of the shots are scary considering how similar the two of them look to each other.

Bollocks is a european phrase, so sorry.. I at times tend more toward Brit than American.. In fact I've been putting the dollar sign after the amount (i.e. 100$) all along, and I just found out that is totally a brit thing like 2 weeks ago. Also I spell it colour, not color, even though spellchecker's chastise me. My citizenship is highly confused

That's weird. Even I can't deduce where you're from becs. I haven't heard of anyone who places a dollar sign AFTER the amount. Not in the U.S, not in the U.K, nor in NZ or Australia... Also everyone should be spelling it c-o-l-o-u-r. Use simple phonetics, it could help...

I gotta admit though, I didn't understand enough of There Will Be Blood's intricacies to argue any of you point for point... so I won't. Good discussion though...

I saw There Will Be Blood after some hype about.

I have a list of temporary all times and the all-time all time list. Right now, it's on my temporary all time list.

It is a great film and one of my favorite film going experiences.

I think that the film is more about connections. Daniel is this character that wants to be left alone, but needs people to get where he wants. We even see in the beginning when he is trying to get to the oil by himself.

As the movie goes on, Daniel employs people, but he doesn't know how to connect with people. He wants to, but doesn't want to.

I think he hates Eli not just because he is a fraud and religious, but Eli has figured out how to weaken Daniel Plainview.

Once we see Daniel in the mansion, we see a true loner. He is just all glassed over eyes when he sees Eli. He's a drunk who hears you, but not listening.

Excellent thread. I haven't seen the movie yet so I cannot contribute, but this discussion is outstanding.

Carry on..

Excellent post, Frisky, could almost see the fire in your eyes!
Although you're constant referencing to Juno was misdirected, as I didn't think Juno was particularly great, and I do rate Blood as far better than it.

But anyway.

friskytiger81 wrote:

Where do I start?

First, it's always risky to label anything, so to label this a "masterpiece" or "flawed" is already venturing into dangerous territory...which is appropriate considering the choices/risks Paul Thomas Anderson takes with this production.

"There Will Be Blood" is a wake-up call to cinema. No, it's not a resounding gong or clanging of cymbals, but a true-and-true voice coming through on-screen in Daniel Plainview (pun is intended). For someone (numbersix_99) to call this a step back from PTA's stylistic growth completely absurd. Watch "Punch Drunk Love" and you see PTA coming into his own. "Blood" represents a more fully realized character formation not by love and circumstance (as in "Punch..."), but greed and (most cinematic of all) hate, pure unadulterated hate.

So many times we want to dilute stories from what they are because we want a happy ending. If you've been taught screenwriting, you're taught to appeal to the ideals and create a complete character arc. In a way, "Blood" does this, only in the "other" direction. The film starts with no dialogue, showing Plainview's current state ("heavenly", notice the visual similarities to "Days of Heaven") and the joys of fatherhood, before he finds his passion. As the story progresses, everything valuable (established from those seminal first moments on-screen) are traded for being the best; with having the greed, selfless ambition and sacrifice of morals and family to obtain that.

The scene of the explosion with Plainview, Jr. losing his hearing is one of the most memorable in recent cinema history. That scene and the scenes following show Plainview, Sr. has slowly choosing his business over his child, and never really questioning himself for doing so. This is taboo in cinema because he is the main character and with as much screen time as he has, you don't want to "throw away audiences".

If you think that the film is "too cynical for its own good", then maybe you shouldn't see it. Maybe you should stick with "Juno" or wait until DVD so before the last scene you can pop it back in the red envelope and send that DVD back to Netflix, ending it the way you would intend.

Fact of the matter is, the point is that the movie isn't tackling capitalism, it isn't tackling religion. But, through both of those subjects you see a man willing to give up everything (i.e. family (son & any hopes for a wife), morality, religion, capitalism, and even the judicial laws that govern each man (by killing his "brother" and Eli).

When exactly does he give up capitalism? There's no scene to indicate that, in fact it is his capitalist attitude that creates the final split between him and his son, as he regards him as "competition".

As for religion, well sure I may be generalising too much by labelling Eli as all religion, but for me he did represent the idea that religion is often controlled by money and power. We all know about the Catholic Church and its corruption that led to the Reformation, for example. Eli is set up as a figure of moral authority, and soon revealed to be a desperate little runt, as he clambers for money.

The last scene is VERY important in that it is the final evidence of Plainview's transformation essentially into the devil. Yes, he has killed someone by this point, but it's a wayfarer masquerading as his long-lost brother. In the back woods, he knows that no one would find out the killing, seemingly because no one knows the man's name (not even him) and thus, the man doesn't exist. So, what is stopping him from killing the man for deceiving Plainview other than his own moral code? By killing that man, he trades his morality. Yes, we've seen some evidence of this already, but this is the most damning evidence of the trade.

So, when Eli grovels to Plainview in hopes of finding an old friend and support, Plainview makes Eli deny the only thing Eli stands for...his belief/religion. After Eli denies God, Plainview then berates him, beats him, then kills him. The difference is that with the butler coming in at the end and Plainview (old and feeble) not trying to escape, we can reasonably infer that Plainview is now trading his freedom (provided that he is convicted of murdering Eli later on). He is becoming God, essentially. He makes Eli deny God as Eli is coming to him (not God) for financial help. Rather than showing some transformation, Plainview cements his place in history as he takes Eli's dignity and life, trading his freedom, while showing his power over the (powers that govern the land) United States and the judicial system that states that men are not allowed to kill one another. Later, if Plainview is acquitted of the crime or if he is convicted and his freedom is taken away (subsequently spending the rest of his life in prison), Plainview, in his mind, still wins. He conquered the last man that doubted him, showing his power and authority over him, and subsequently, doing the very thing that only God is allowed, to take life. He's taken it before (from the wayfarer posing as his brother), but this time he knows and doesn't care if he is caught -- as his butler enters down the stairs (then, going to call the police or help him dispose of the body). At least, if his butler knows, to his butler, Plainview would have proven himself over Eli. But, that's not important, he wants to prove it to himself, Eli and God.

It's a fair enough interpretation, but about half-way through the film I had already inferred this, in a sense. And by the time he killed his brother, the trajectory had already been set. Sure, the final scene is an obvious climax, but it came as no surprise, just like Juno's ending didn't either.

If you see the story as "simple" then you're either one of the most astute cinephiles in the world (presumably after having seen it only one time) or you didn't get the gist of the story.

I choose the former, thank you very much!

"Blood" is incredible filmmaking because they know about the pessimism in the picture and it only makes it more fascinating because as a viewer, I want to see just how bad this man is.

Admit it, didn't you think Kane was a pussy(cat) after having lived his entire life like a punk, he waits until his deathbed to have an epiphany and realize his indiscretions. At least if Daniel Plainview was going to be evil, he had the audacity and tenacity to be consistent and to go into hell with a blaze of glory.

You're starting to scare me, Frisky. I'd like to think that even the nastiest bastard comes to regret his decisions at some stage. Maybe I'm being naive.

I've never seen a character like Daniel Plainview and I can assure you I probably will never again...which is a shame. See "There Will Be Blood", but know going into it its objectives and intent. It is a character study and it is not "Juno", meaning you will not want to make love with your significant other and snuggle during it or within at least 36 hours (minimal) after viewing.

You mean a 2.5 film about a man's descent into a world of hate DOESN'T turn you on? Frisky, you need help.

Of course Barry Lyndon represents Kubrick's style. You watch 5 seconds of the movie and you immediately can see that it's Kubrick's work. The locked-off camera shots. Often MS, to somehow reduce the power of the character, the dry humour, it's all there. I was not comparing the acting abilities of Day-Lewis Vs O'Neal, but merely that both films are cynical character studies.

My problem is not so much that the sondtrack is not nice and gentle, but that at times it's too extreme. I loved its use of Part's Fratres (the violin and piano version- the best) when the boy becomes deaf. However, it was a mistake to use Greenwood's copmositions, for they are far too evocative of the Ligeti pieces used in 2001, and hence the meaning is confused.

My Studios

ADVICE & ANALYSIS: