The soundtrack was widely acclaimed, from the wiki article:
Everybody liked the emperor’s clothes, too.
I’m sure no-one is pretending to like the film and soundtrack because they are scared Daniel Day-Lewis will come and chop their heads off (although, now I think about it…).
Btw, my point in saying the soundtrack was acclaimed was not that people should like it, but that it shouldn’t be surprising that some people do. Say it three times and it might sink in:
People’s tastes differ.
People’s tastes differ.
People’s tastes differ.
Yes, yes, I’m sure there are people who really like the film, and not just because it’s an Important Film or because makes them feel superior to talk about how the proles just don’t get it (and really they can’t be expected to, being proles and all). (:smug smirk: )
Yes, I’m sure there are people who genuinely like it.
All the more astonishing.
(BTW, that playful snark is not directed at you Alka Seltzer, but at some earlier posts in the thread.)
It’s not smug or superior to say that some people “just don’t get” this thing or that. All people don’t get some things. The human mind and human culture is too big and diverse for any of us to properly appreciate everything.
The “superior” attitude is when people assume that because they can’t see the “emperor’s clothes,” there really can’t be any in anyone’s eyes.
Really, you genuinely think the majority of people who say they like the film are just pretending? :dubious:
Very true, but people’s personal sense of aesthetics also play a major role. Some things I could develop a taste for, and some I’ll never be able to enjoy.
QFT. I’ll never develop a taste for hip hop as a musical genre, but I can appreciate and even enjoy the artistry of a well constructed rap, great mixing by a DJ or well executed beat boxing. But I’d never expect to be taken seriously if I asserted that other people were fans of the music just for the street cred, the dope fashions or the cultural cachet of gangsta swagger.
You understand that the Emperor’s New Clothes does not describe an actual historical event, right?
I assumed the baby was a partner or underling’s son. It isn’t explained, and certainly it is odd how the mother is neither seen nor a factor in Plainview adopting the boy.
You are familiar with the word “metaphor,” right? (Surely you must be! Congratulating yourself on spotting the painfully obvious metaphors in TWWB must have been a great source of pleasure!)
I get the idea that people’s tastes are different. I did not care for TWBB; I found it a 2.5 hour waste of time, essentially. PTA took the movie in a totally different direction than I would have, in terms of scoring, dialogue, and pacing. Despite that, I can see why a person of a different ilk would have a deep appreciation for the film.
Nzinga, Seated’s synopsis is excellent.
I absolutely loved There Will Be Blood. I agree that a person’s ability to like the movie probably relates to his/her ability to find something likable in Daniel Plainview. I loved him.
I love the music, the pacing, the look and style of the whole thing. Daniel’s baptism scene might be my favorite scene in any movie, ever.
I don’t think not liking this movie reflects badly on anyone, at all. It’s slow. It’s long. The main character is an asshole. I might just as easily have not liked the movie, if I were in a different mood when I first saw it. The whole pretentious if you “get it,” philistine if you don’t thing is kind of pointless.
You’re not citing it like a metaphor, you’re citing it as though it actually happened, like people should learn from history.
If you’re citing it as a metaphor, you need to provide some argument that the metaphor applies–that it provides real insight into the present situation–else you’re making no argument at all, and you’re basically just calling names. You’ve made no point by citing ENC because ENC didn’t actually happen.
It’s been a long time since I saw TWWB. I liked it fine, thought there was a lot that was admirable about it (including, yes, the soundtrack), and I also didn’t think I’d ever want to see it again.
I don’t recall thinking it very interesting to read it chiefly as a work of metaphor, though.
I’m kind of seeing the opposite in this thread. The suggestion I’m seeing is that people who say they like it are being pretentious and that it doesn’t really have any substance to it. Kind of a reverse snobbery.
That’s what Chum was saying. “The whole pretentious if you get it… thing” refers to the phenomenon wherein people call those who appreciate the film “pretentious”–just as you’re seeing in this thread.
This cracked me up.
Seriously, though, to respond to Spoke’s point:
It’s not always finest linens only-to-be-revealed-to-the-upper-crust-of-society vs. nekkid ass.
Sometimes it’s just a matter of some like it and some don’t. Just because you don’t like it, that doesn’t mean you don’t get it.
It’s also just barely possible that maybe somebody really didn’t get it. I’ve had the experience of not really getting something on the first try. Moods and expectations can play into it.
I loved this film when I saw it in the theater and it’s on its way from Netflix so I can see it again. Not everybody’s cup of tea, no big deal. I myself cannot stand the Pirates of the Caribbean films, so what do I know?