hahahaha- what a “nuance”! 
I have to come back and ask this after discussing the above napkin-over-the-head-so-HW-wouldn’t-see-what-father-was-saying hypothesis with my boyfriend, who saw this movie with me:
If the HW could read lips immediately after his time at the school, why did he need, as an adult, a sign language guy to translate all that his father was saying when he met with him?
Or was it that Mr. Plainview falsely presumed his son must’ve learned lip-reading at school?
Cervaise, I love you. Don’t tell anyone, but I really, really love you. You got me to reading the TWBB thread on Chud too.
I figured the guy was his constant companion since childhood, and would have been with him anyway. I don’t know if it’s harder to read the lips of someone who has a mustache or not, but that might have been a factor. It’s too bad Plainview never learned sign language. He loved HW and was glad to see him return home, so I don’t know why he didn’t. It saddens me that he didn’t. I love that Mary did.
As already stated, I think the napkin over the face was because Plainview assumed HW could read lips. I don’t know if it was “falsely” though. Maybe HW could read lips (just not Plainview’s).
We don’t learn anything about HW’s time at the school, but I assume he was taught to read there since he didn’t know how to read or write before he went. How do you teach a deaf kid to read? That would be interesting to know.
I’d be interested in what part of “napkin on the face” was DDL and what was in the screenplay.
-
It doesn’t even logically make sense that he would even ASSUME that his boy could read lips.
-
What he said was something that (I don’t think) he would have cared if the boy heard.
It almost made it seem like he was just shouting at the businessmen from the heavens, but it suggested the “no lip reading” angle.
So, it didn’t make total sense to me, but that’s part of why I liked it. That’s why I was wondering if it was something that DDL did in the moment, or if it was written into the screenplay (from a more thought-out perspective).
Newspaper ads for There Will Be Blood have taken to including snippets of the review from Rolling Stone including this comment:
“Lovers of formula and sugarcoating will hate it. Screw them.”
It’s become a marketing tool. The discerning viewer, by going to and raving about this film, will set him/herself apart from those Philistine mobs who stream into Indiana Jones movies.
By the way, I liked No Country For Old Men. It wasn’t a “difficult” movie or an “accessible” movie. It was a good movie.
Objectively speaking, of course. 
Here’s the script if you want to read it.
There Will Be Blood script (it’s a PDF file)
I haven’t read it myself yet. I hate reading scripts. I could never work in the movies because of that, I know. I just want to see the end product. However, I am interested in the differences, knowing that some things get left on the cutting room floor, so if you read it, jot down some of the differences and share them, ok?
That’s hilarious! Good for them for having the balls to do that. It sure beats the “Milkshake” radio ads, which I haven’t heard but are just stupid, considering that it only works if you’ve seen the film, but is annoying and perplexing to those who haven’t.
Btw, I can’t wait for the new Indiana Jones movie myself. I’m there opening day (or the midnight show the night before, if they do that).
Interesting.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that line about the Little Boston leases what he shouts from beneath the napkin?
So, it looks like what he shouts , in the script, is simply spoken to HW. But, after that line, he tried to see if HW can hear him. So, perhaps he used the napkin to see if the boy could really hear him. Like, if anything could get the boy to react, that would be it. And, DDL used the napkin as an improvised prop.
However, in the movie, I believe he napkins-up right after seeing Tilford walk in and that’s why it seemed directed at him. Maybe he just wants Tildofrd to hear that part, too, because it’s important for what he says to Tilford after that that TIlford knows about his new deal.
But, that’s just me speculatin’.
Like I said before, I kind of just like it for its weirdness.
Quietly.
What, Rolling Stone distributed the movie? Gee, maybe it’s the reviewer’s opinion of the film. And it is true that lovers of formula and sugarcoating will hate the movie. My mother, for example, would walk out in the first 20 minutes.
True. Mine too.
Also, he didn’t say “anyone who hates this film is a lover of formula and sugarcoating.”
Two different things.
Heh. I’m flattered, but I have a girlfriend, and she’s mean.
It’s a great site for movie discussion. As it’s a specialty site, it lacks the well-roundedness on other subjects that is the hallmark of the SDMB, but on the topic of film, the level of conversation is just as good as it is here, and sometimes better. (When was the last time the SDMB had a thread about the 1959 classic Eyes Without a Face, for example?) The tone can be a little bit more serrated than here, as the community has low tolerance for foolishness (and they don’t have a Pit into which personal attacks are segregated), but in general it’s a worthwhile hangout for film lovers. I hope you continue to dip in your toe from time to time.
I just glanced, but it’s got the original ending…with the tumbler instead of the bowling pin.
I saw TWBB over over the weekend. I walked out of the theater trying to decide how much I liked it…and unfairly trying to decide whether I liked it better than No Country For Old Men. At the time, I felt like NC4OM was the better film. I’ve been going over TWBB in my mind all week though, and I’m not sure anymore. Not that there’s any point in putting the two films through some meaningless horse race of the mind.
Something in Roger Ebert’s review struck me. He says…
Watching the film, I didn’t come away with any clues that said Paul and Eli were anything other than twins. After reading Ebert’s review though I started wondering about the possibilty that there wasn’t really a Paul. Eli was the only one in the family who ever mentioned Paul. Maybe he was just an invention of Eli’s warped mind. I’m not sure I buy that argument, but I think it’s an interesting possibility. Anyone else?
Also, I liked the dedication to Robert Altman, though it caught me completely off guard. Altman’s movies were much different than this one.
Thanks guys for the screenplay tips. Trunk, that restaurant bit didn’t clarify matters did it? If I hear of Anderson talking about that scene in particular, I’ll make note of it.
Cervaise, your girlfriend has no worries. My beloved husband of 26 years is my One True Love and Only. I still love you though .
Anderson was hired by the studio’s insurance company to shadow Altman during the filming of A Prairie Home Companion, so in case Altman got sick, Anderson could jump in and finish the movie. During the shoot they spent every moment on the set together, and became good friends, hence the dedication.
Ebert is famous for getting at least one and usually a few things wrong in his reviews. I think it’s very clear in the movie that Paul and Eli are twins, and even if it wasn’t, Anderson has stated many times that they’re twins. I just saw an interview with him where he said he could have filmed a few seconds of, say, HW saying to Plainview “Twins?” and Plainview nodding, but he didn’t, and there’s that. Of course they weren’t supposed to be twins to begin with. There were two different actors, with Paul Dano playing Paul and another guy (never identified as far as I know) playing Eli, but the Eli guy wasn’t working out, and they didn’t have time to search for a new actor, so Paul Dano stepped into the role with only a few days to prepare. They could have re-filmed the scene where Paul says that he lives with his father and mother and two sisters and brother Eli to say “my twin brother Eli” but that’s kind of silly. Do twins talk like that? If the brother is right there, it’s obvious that you’re twins. If you’re just talking about your siblings, would it usually occur to a twin to say “my twin” rather than “my brother”? I don’t know any twins so I don’t know, but in any case, Anderson decided to just leave it alone. People can think they’re the same person if they want, it makes no real difference.
The Rolling Stone review made an analogy to one of Altman’s films, actually, and cited Mr. Altman as a major influence on PTA.
Well, McCabe and Mrs. Miller (Altman’s best film, IMHO) also focuses on an enterprising entrepeneur on America’s frontier, and there is an ongoing (but much more subtle) tension between commerce and the church in that film, too. Plus, you see the hardscrabble erection of a thriving community in both films, though Plainview is a man of focus and not vulnerable to his vices the way McCabe is (though they both also have confrontations with larger corporate interests seeking to buy them out–with dramatically different results).
I just read that Rolling Stone review and found that it was where the “Lovers of formula and sugarcoating will hate it. Screw them.” blurb came from. Makes me like Peter Travers even more. What a fantastic review btw!
Dang. If I would have known PTA was in town for the APHC shooting, I would have been hanging out over at the Fitz looking for an autograph. 99% of the people hanging out over there were waiting to see Lindsay Lohan. There would have been one guy waiting to see PTA. Are there other examples of famous directors hired to shadow other famous directors like that? Seems like most famous directors wouldn’t suffer that sort of thing too gladly.
I was thinking that the scene where Eli beats up his father after dinner would have had a really cool extra dimension if there wasn’t really a Paul. Oh, well. Eli was still pretty creepy anyway.
Yeah, screw those viewers who want fully-drawn characters. Plebian morons!
My wife and I finally caught this in the theater last night. I walked out of it feeling somewhat pleased and somewhat puzzled. I couldn’t work out exactly how I felt about it.
24 hours later, I found this thread and read it in its entirely. And this comment:
suddenly caused the entire movie to click for me. Thank you, Dio.
Having said that, it was still my least favorite of the four Best Picture contenders I’ve seen (I don’t have any intention of seeing “Atonement”). But that isn’t to slight it at all or to say that I don’t understand how well done the film is. I’m very glad I saw it, and think all of the acting was brilliant. I don’t have any intelligent analysis to add to the discussion as that has all been covered rather well.
I just saw this movie tonight and I missed something very important due to a bottomless Diet Coke required bathroom break: when I left the auditorium Daniel and his “brother” were talking, when I came back H.W. was putting down the diary and setting fire to the shack. What was in the diary?
That drove me nuts trying to figure out who he sounded like and when I did I said “John Huston” out loud. (He also looked a lot like Robert DeNiro and, of course, Bill the Butcher throughout.)
Keep Brando and all the other greats, imho NO actor can completely disappear and become a character like Daniel Day Lewis. In a world of pretty boys and name above the title multimillionaires of moderate talent he is the living reminder that great actors are artists; the second he comes onscreen you forget you’re watching a performance.
My only complaint was that Eli did not age enough between 1911 and 1927. He looked way too young for a man who’d have to be at least in his early 30s.
I think he both did and didn’t mean it. I think he’s a very tortured, probably psychotic person who sometimes confuses his own ego/showmanship with the word/work of God and sometimes sees himself and his “prophethood” with clarity and the conflict makes him even nuttier. I think he’s very much an exitus acta probat (the end justifies the means) personality but also knows that sometimes he’s making God materialize when God’s not there (just as he concedes that God did not warn him about the stock market setback).
I loved that H.W.'s teacher/speaker was his best man at the wedding. Was Daniel even at the ceremony?
Has anybody read Sinclair’s novel? I’m curious if it tells what happens after Daniel is “finished” at the end (whether he’s brought to justice or does he simply buy his way out?)