Then I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about people who I feel have demonstrated a lack of full comprehension by their complaints about “skipping ahead” and so forth.
Plainview isn’t supposed to develop. He’s an archetype – a constant – he doesn’t change. Who he is at the end is who he was at the beginning. His arc is developed by revelation, not by change. The more money he gets, the less he has to act and the more “himself” he allows himself to be.
When he smacks down Eli, for instance, it isn’t because anything has changed about him, about Eli or about Eli’s demand. What’s changed is that Plainview has just struck oil and feels liberated to do what he’s wanted to do all along.
Eli is also an archetype who doesn’t change.
There is development in some of the minor characters, particularly in HW, who goes over the course of his childhood from idolizing Daniel to hating him.
I was just about to say something like “every great work of art has plenty of perfectly intelligent people who just don’t like it. Let’s not say that they ‘didn’t get it’”. Then you post something like this.
You just didn’t get it.
I hear everybody’s buying Toyota Camrys these days.
Better run out and get one too.
You know, Alvin and the boys would’ve come up with a less intrusive soundtrack.
Maybe a Chipmunkian version of “Amazing Grace” during the big Plainview Comes To Jesus scene. :dubious:
Case in point. The Camry may be a shitty car or the perfect car depending on what you like and what you need. Need a camera in your rear-view mirror, four seat warmers, built-in GPS, or racing performance? Probably a waste of time. Need a sturdy machine that just takes you from point A to point B consistently, reliably and economically? Then it’s a fine vehicle. Same with TWBB, just the other way around.
(Was it really that bad, or are you just enjoying pissing off Equipoise?)
Through most of the movie I assumed H.W. was his child and his mother did die in child birth like he said. I thought he blamed god for his wifes death and wished to seek vengeance on all his supporters (thus an utter lack of respect for Eli and CO.). I saw Daniel as an Ahab archetype.
Even after Daniel tells his son that he isn’t his father I’m not sure.
At the very end of the movie when Daniel is discovered over the body of Eli by his butler he says, “I’m finished.”, what he really means by this I haven’t decided. I wish I could take another film class in college just to discuss this stuff there. There is no doubt in my mind I never would have taken so much from Bladerunner if I was watching it at home. That richness of detail and subtle plot makes this a world class film.
Why does it piss people off if other people dislike this film??
I’m starting to get the same vibe about it that I did with “Eyes Wide Shut” - that if I don’t like it, well I’m just too dumb to know any better. I hope that’s not the case with this movie’s boosters.
I will eventually see it, I suppose, but not til it’s out on DVD. Have to dole out movie money carefully. Also all my movie-going friends think it sounds boring.
It doesn’t piss me off if someone doesn’t like the film. Each to their own. I only get miffed/frustrated when people expect one thing and then say the movie is crap because it wasn’t what they expected. One person wants a historical epic, but when it’s an intimate character study that’s set in a historical time frame, that makes it a bad movie? One person wants music that’s in the background and unobtrusive, but when the music is an important part of the film and not like any other soundtrack (especially if it’s anachronistic music), it’s a bad film? Someone wants lots of dialogue and extra scenes to tell them exactly what happened and why, but the film relies on context and a master actor to get across points, it’s a bad film? It’s like not liking The Godfather because you expected a typical Shoot-Em-Up.
And especially, if THEY think it’s a bad film then it’s absolutely a bad film, no matter how much of a masterpiece it’s hailed, how many awards it’s won or nominated for, or how many critics and filmgoers like it. Why can’t people just say “I didn’t like it, it wasn’t my cup of tea” (and let me make clear that I absolutely respect the opinions of those who just didn’t care for it, as long as they don’t proclaim that it’s a bad movie, just because they didn’t care for it.) It didn’t seem to kill Kythereia to do it.
Not liking Eyes Wide Shut (which I liked, didn’t love the way I love other Kubrick movies) or There Will Be Blood is not a problem. Not for me. It’s only if you proclaim them to be pieces of crap that my feathers get ruffled. I had specific problems with Eyes Wide Shut but they were my problems, not the movie’s. I would never say it was a bad movie just because it didn’t meet my expectations.
I understand, but if it at ALL sounds the least bit interesting, do try to see it on the big screen. It makes use of the space and the look of film that you just won’t get on the small screen. Plus, and this may not be important to you, if you’ve ever lamented that you wished you’d seen a film that’s now considered a classic on the big screen (I do like to use The Godfather and Chinatown as examples, but there are many others such as Apocolypse Now, and older ones such as The Bridge on the River Kwai, Lawrence of Arabia or yes, that old standby, Citizen Kane) you or anyone else reading this really really REALLY should make every effort to see it in the theater. Else you might just kick yourself later.
To my mind, we’re incredibly lucky to have this chance to see a future classic in the theater, first-run, on the big screen. It’s a gift.
What movies? “Movie-going” could mean anything from François Truffaut fanatics to Michael Bay enthusiasts. I don’t see why this film wouldn’t appeal to those who never see arty movies, and if they’re film buffs then they should already know the pedigree of Paul Thomas Anderson and Daniel Day-Lewis, and they should already be aware of the acclaim that the film is getting and should at the least want to see it to decide for themselves. Did they not see 3:10 To Yuma because it “sounded boring”? Did they not see The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford because it “sounded boring”? If so they missed a couple of great movies. What movies do they go to see that doesn’t sound boring to them?
And anyway, do they decide your tastes or do you do research on your own? Maybe you’ll see it and love it, and then tell them that it’s not boring at all (because it isn’t, it’s electrifying, edge-of-the-seat stuff).
For the record, I did not think it was “crap”. I enjoyed many parts of it. However, I did not think it was the best movie ever made. Is there no middle ground?
My take as well. Not a bad film. Just not Oscar-worthy.
A middling film being seriously over-hyped.
Mr. Beckwall (film school, U of Utah alum) was mesmerized by this film, from beginning to end. He says that the space seemed compressed (long lenses?) and almost claustrophobic, especially indoor scenes, which added a dimension of tension to an already gut-wrenching movie. Favorite scene - when DDL and his “brother” are having a discussion, and then DDL just turns and looks back at him with his big face and tries to size him up with his probing eyes. The small boy even had probing eyes. I thought Paul Dano did a fine job and stood up to the task of performing with a giant such as DDL. I did not enjoy the jarring music but thought that the cinematography and set direction were fantastic.
As for DDL, the Beckwalls differ a bit. I thought his performance screamed out “ACTING! LOOK AT ME!” a bit too much, but Mr. Beckwall goes along with the rest of you who appreciated him. I much preferred George Clooney in Michael Clayton (No, I am not a Clooney fanatic) or even Josh Brolin in NCFOM. But such is the state of movies this year, many great performances and excellent films.
BTW, I paid Mr. Beckwall $10 to go up to the ticket seller and ask for 2 tickets for
“There Must Be Blood”. Maybe you had to be there, to see the confused faces and hear the snickering behind us, but I thought it was funny.
I have a habit of unwittingly posting right before the eruption of bickering and debating, and consequently having my post get swept up and lost in the storm that ensues. So I hope that doesn’t happen here with the debate over whether or not it is okay to like this movie.
That said, here’s my “There Will Be Blood” experience.
I went and saw it with my dad on Friday. I was extremely tired and hung-over, and 30 minutes or so into the movie, I fell asleep. Up until the point where I fell asleep, I thought the acting was great, and the plot was interesting. I really enjoyed it. I was just too tired to stay awake - it wasn’t the movie’s fault.
Then I woke up, and Daniel Day-Lewis was beating a guy to death with a bowling pin. I was like, what the fuck is going on? Then he says “I’m FINISHED!” maniacally and the movie ends.
So, basically, I missed the entire body of the movie. I had a lot of questions, but the most pressing one at the time was “why was he in a bowling alley?” When I saw the scene, I assumed that he had rented out the use of a public bowling alley for a few hours or something and that the guy who came to the door was the manager of the bowling alley. My dad explained to me that the bowling alley was in his house.
So now I’m going to have to see the movie again. I’m looking forward to it very much.
I do remember what I heard of the soundtrack. It was very eerie and jarring, and it fit the movie very well. I don’t really like Radiohead’s music because I think it’s too eerie, dissonant and jarring, but in the context of a movie soundtrack, it was excellent. Everyone who liked the soundtrack in this movie should also watch Crash (the one by David Cronenberg, in 1996, based on the Ballard novel - not the piece of shit cliched maudlin trash that undeservedly won the Oscar. Ooh! Ooh! Race! Race! Controversy! Oscar! Fuck that shit. Fuck that shit in the back of a Lincoln convertible with James Spader’s cock.) Anyway, Crash. The one from 1996. It had a great soundtrack by Howard Shore that was also dissonant and jarring, and fit the movie very well, much like TWWB.
Argent – the bowling alley was in his mansion.
Loved that the first words of the movie were “ladies and gentlemen” (many minutes in) and the last were “I’m finished”.
I loved the soundtrack. I don’t know what this rule is about “if I notice the soundtrack, it failed.”
Cinematography and set design. WOW. All those shots of oil and soil and leather and wood and steel and rope and pipes and mustaches. And, the gusher, and the subsequent fire. That’s the kind of stuff I can watch forever. Ambitious, and uncompromising on the part of the director.
A movie that is amazing on a purely visceral level. . .moreso than any thing I’ve seen since Gangs of New York.
So many amazing details of DDL’s performance. . .
– how he used the same gesture for “I drink yoru milkshake” as they signed for “drilling”. It was the only thing he signed to his kid.
– when he put the towel over his head and yelled at the other businessmen.
– how he’d completely ignore a question he was asked and ask an unrelated question in dialogue. Or he’d wrap his dialogue around on itself (“I am an oil man. I speak plainly. I think to think of myself as an oil man.”)
– as mentioned before, sometimes just a tightening around the eyes that was more of an expression of thought than a gesture.
I don’t know why people don’t think of this as a classic “epic”. Lawerence of Arabia. Gandhi, Once Upon A Time In America, The Right Stuff, Gangs of New York. . .these are all more a series of vignettes that turn into a character study than a typical story following a narrative arc. That’s pretty typical of the “epic”.
I didn’t think I was going to see anything better than No Country For Old Men for a long time, but I have.
Two awesome movies in the same year.
First off, there are no rules for appreciating films. I was expressing my own personal preferences. That being said, if jamming an ice pick in your ear enhances your movie enjoyment, far be it from me to argue with you.
What I found distracting about the music was it seemed to be anticipating a dramatic point, (as the violin in Psycho), but there was never any payoff. Or at least, it was so subtle as to escape my unsophisticated eye. Kind of like a blowjob with no money shot.
That’s completely different from saying
The soundtrack (or the movie) has not failed if you notice the soundtrack.
I don’t even know what planet that comes from.
I recently listened to a great podcast from Radiolab from NYC. They talked to a guy who wrote music for a morgue, basically. He talked about music’s ability to “get past our defenses”, stir us, make us cry, etc. Music can do that without doing it subconsciously.
Watch the opening scene from Gangs of New York sometime. . .when they’re marching through the church perparing to do battle. There’s a tribal flute and drum piece as part of the soundtrack. There are people dancing in the edges of the frame in that scene.
If you FAIL TO NOTICE THE SOUNDTRACK in that scene, then the soundtrack has failed. It’s such a nonsensical thing to say about a movie that it’s probably the reason why people in this thread have suggested the others might want to take in Alvin and The Chipmunks. I hear one of the chipmunks eats poop in that film.
I’m glad you liked it Trunk!
This is really really unhip and geeky for such an amazing movie, but I made a MySpace fan page over the weekend, which is pretty much a mirror of my other fan page. I guess I’m officially obsessed. I’ve seen it 6 times now and can’t wait to see it again.
My wife didn’t like it as much as I did.
Fortunately, she’s out of town Thurs - Sun, and There Will Be A Repeat Viewing.
It has for me. Your mileage obviously varies; why does my mileage upset you so?
It’s so worth it. I pick up new things with each viewing, and it hasn’t lost a bit of its power. The music is still electrifying, the movie just keeps getting funnier, and Daniel Plainview becomes more and more a tragic figure to me.