There Will Be Blood - now with child/partner forum we call H.W.

[Stefen]

cbrad for NYC'er of the year.

[md]

Whoever said this isn't a PTA flick but a DDL one is 100% right.  Plainview is alive on screen, his words, his eyes, his walk are completely hypnotic.  The movie could have been 6 hours long and no fan would complain -- he is that good.  The film has a lot of master shots, not necessarily long steadicam takes, but just very long scenes played out in just one master.  This allows the audience to breathe, take in the setting and characters and live in the environment.  Visually, the film is consistent and beautifully shot, but not in a clean way.  Push ins were a little bumpy at times, scenes were naturally lit, and the camera direction introduces the west as a character itself.  The film's direction is simply dictated by Lewis's performance.  This might come off as disingenuous, but realistically it was the smartest choice PTA made. 

Spoilers

The film thematically seems to deal with alienation of one's self.  Obviously greed, oil and religion play a large role in the action during the film, but it all leads to Plainview's breakdown.  Haunted by the mysteries of his own past, he is crippled socially, forced to abandon and seek out his companions, whether it be his adopted son or his so called long lost brother.  Where PTA has dealt with father son relationships before, he extends the familial ties to examine brotherly love and the role of identity, or lack there of, to form and break bonds in devastating fashion.  Coupled with the physical lack of communication due to unforetold tragedies, PTA and DDL have created a monster in the Daniel Plainview character.  Congrats to them, it was well earned.

The religious aspect of this film will polarize audiences.  From the crowd's reactions they seemed to be eating up the religious ironies, maybe in an excuse to break the tension and madness, but more likely (imo) from a misinterpretation of the text.  Granted, these are PT Anderson's fans, so who knows what the fuck they are thinking, but realistically that laughter will likely be confusion and alienation for a mainstream audience.  This is not "for the christmas".

End Spoilers

Lastly, the Q and A sucked...it just sucked.  I knew things weren't going so hot when the moderator was asking way to many questions, mtvnews worthy questions, that really seemed to spike the opportunity of listening to PTA and DDL talk.  Granted these were very topical to a broad audience, but fuck, why so safe?  The audience didn't do much better and when the moderator decided to ask even more questions after he had opened it up to the public, I was wondering where Judd Apatow was when you really need him. 

Just from physical behavior, PTA seemed pretty nervous at times, doing this little hair brush with all one inch of his bangs. DDL seems easily offended, or rather, he is a man so confident and so fuckin good at his job, he commands respect and gets it.  Where PTA can cajole and horse around,  he seemed a little bit more self conscious in the presence of DDL. 

A few tidbits of info that was brought up in the after discussion:

-- Dylan Tichenor edited TWBB, not Tatiana _______ a.c.e.
-- They edited TWBB in NYC and ate just steak and vodka some days -- "this is how we wanted the movie to be like: steak and vodka"
-- DDL doesn't seemed to be very religious, nor does he want to do anything but act -- didn't see the dailies, wasn't initially interested in seeing a first cut PTA had sent him.




edit note: if you absolutely MUST write spoilers, please change the font colour.
edit note#2: Deleting part of this due to non-hidden spoiling... shame shame

[noyes]

- when paul first screened the movie for daniel, he was adamant about them staying sober. "we're not drinking!" 3 pints of guinness later they were watching the movie.
- they edited the movie in new york city, and paul said being in the city with all the loud noise really helped them. they also had vodka and steak night every wednesday, "no sides!" he screamed. "this is what the movie should be!"
- when paul first approached johnny to do the score, he sent him the script. johnny read it and said "dude this is great. but i've never read a script before. so in my eyes catwoman might be great."
- someone asked about the inspiration for having no dialogue in the opening reel. daniel said one of the most amazing things about the script was how much you learn about this character in just 20 minutes without anyone speaking (so true). pta went on to say "i don't think these guys really even talked much down there. what would they had said? 'uhh dude that's a lot of oil. we're going to need a lot of buckets.'"
- paul talked a lot about treasure of sierra madre, prefacing it by admitting that "daniel is so fucking sick of me talk about treasure of sierra madre!"

haha. good shit.
thanks for jogging my memory.

[Fernando]

Yeah, good job Noyes and ©MBBrad (p will be proud haha) and shame on mod and cine, I expected great things of both. 

[md]

Rysher dude and the person who jumped up like a boner (and didn't get called on)



You're...p p paul thomas a a anderson.

[bonanzataz]

you aint kiddin, P.  just read all this, and... wow.  i suppose it took me a day to take the movie in, but get off the pipe NY and let's start seein some enthusiastic reactions here other than "uh, i think i liked it" or "yeppers, there was some blood right there." 

so far noyes did it the best.  i wanted to (at the very least) pour my excitement out to you guys as soon as i could.  more to you than ppl i know.  WHAT WAS THAT MOVIE DOING????!!!!!!  it's epic anderson and you guys are talkin about ppl in the theater?!  ive seen it twice and CANNOT WAIT 'til the 26th.

seriously, though? it's a really difficult movie to swallow. i can't stop thinking about it. yes, it was amazing and blah blah blah, but it really shouldn't be overhyped. it's not that kind of movie. everybody who hasn't seen the movie should stop reading this thread and everybody who has seen the movie should post in the other thread. i feel like we're doing an injustice to everybody here. fuck, i'm still in new york. i have class at 4, i gotta go.

[noyes]

seriously, though? it's a really difficult movie to swallow. i can't stop thinking about it. yes, it was amazing and blah blah blah, but it really shouldn't be overhyped. it's not that kind of movie.

i can't see it any other way. my short review is particularly praising but only because i felt speechless and proud to have seen and experienced it.
it affected me strongly, in a way that resonates with the great lot of classic films i have seen in my time.
like i read somewhere else, even if you go into the movie thinking of over hype, it will, and should, prove itself as worthy.

[modage]

did anybody julianne moore in the row in front of us?  or talking to paul in the lobby right before the q&a? 

yeah, i kinda agree with taz because i wish i had known even less about the film than i did know.  hype is a killer.  i may write a review,  i'll have to think about it.

[noyes]

Julianne sat about three rows back and an aisle away from me.
the group of about 23 friends sitting next to me wanted to see her and i felt like letting them know where she was, but decided not to.
i felt good that they didn't get to. real good.

[grand theft sparrow]

I don't mean to contribute to the overhype but as far as I'm concerned, Blood makes every other PTA movie seem almost like Pablo Honey.  The visual cues we associate with PTA are pretty much gone; he is in a different spot now.  I love where he is and I hope to God that he continues on this path and would probably be disappointed if he reverted back to pre-Blood style.  With Blood, he's put himself head, shoulders, and torso above his contemporaries with this film.  With the exception of Malick (comparisons to whom are to be expected but they're superficial), I can't think of another filmmaker working today who could make an epic.  When I think of the "epics" that have been made in the last few years, none of them stack up.  I remember when The English Patient came out and everyone referred to it as an epic on par with Lawrence of Arabia but I never felt that from it; it was just a long movie with lots of wide shots of deserts.  Blood is a true epic, as sprawling emotionally as it is visually and temporally, and yet it feels at times like there are ONLY two characters (similar to how PTA described Sierra Madre).   

PTA should be incredibly proud of himself.  If he said that he couldn't imagine making a better film than Magnolia, then he must never have imagined, until he started work on CMBB, that he could have made something on this scale.  And I remember on the Boogie Nights commentary, referring to himself as something like "just some kid from the Valley" and "what the fuck do I know?"  I think Rysher Douche wanted to know specifically, "How does one go from making the movies you used to make to one like this?"  And PTA probably didn't care to divulge the whys and hows because it's a personal journey that worked for him.  Getting a full answer to that question and expecting it to work for you is like reading Richard Branson's autobiography and expecting to learn the secret to becoming a billionaire.  At the end of the day, it becomes trivia.  What matters, as PTA so wonderfully put it last night, is that it's led to this and that we're lucky enough to see the astounding results of that journey.

The Oscars could regain some degree of credibility if they decided to nominate this for everything it is eligible for and then award it.  Sadly, but not TOO sadly, I'm sure it's No Country's year for everything.  But Blood drove home exactly what is missing from the Coen brothers, even in something as stripped down as No Country.  Even when the Coens get rid of the surface quirks (for lack of a better word), you still feel them in a line of dialogue here or a grunt or inflection there; you are constantly reminded that it's Coens film.  PTA has made a film that speaks for itself, that lives apart from its creator.  It immerses you completely in this world.  There isn't a trace of mockery here; it is exactly what it means to be.  There are moments of humor - I don't know about SF or LA but our audience, apart from JG's guy there, was laughing a lot at, I believe, the simple brilliance of DDL's performance; he's so good, you delight in his work even when Plainview isn't being funny - but it's all honest and earnest.

Is it PTA's best film thus far?  I'm reluctant to say yes, only because I've seen it once so far, but I'm leaning towards it.  I mentioned in another thread my friend who saw Magnolia 16 times in the theatres; I can see myself doing that with this.  I want nothing more than to bask in this film right now.

[noyes]

I don't mean to contribute to the overhype but as far as I'm concerned, Blood makes every other PTA movie seem almost like Pablo Honey.  The visual cues we associate with PTA are pretty much gone; he is in a different spot now.  I love where he is and I hope to God that he continues on this path and would probably be disappointed if he reverted back to pre-Blood style.  With Blood, he's put himself head, shoulders, and torso above his contemporaries with this film.  With the exception of Malick (comparisons to whom are to be expected but they're superficial), I can't think of another filmmaker working today who could make an epic.  When I think of the "epics" that have been made in the last few years, none of them stack up.  I remember when The English Patient came out and everyone referred to it as an epic on par with Lawrence of Arabia but I never felt that from it; it was just a long movie with lots of wide shots of deserts.  Blood is a true epic, as sprawling emotionally as it is visually and temporally, and yet it feels at times like there are ONLY two characters (similar to how PTA described Sierra Madre).   

PTA should be incredibly proud of himself.  If he said that he couldn't imagine making a better film than Magnolia, then he must never have imagined, until he started work on CMBB, that he could have made something on this scale.  And I remember on the Boogie Nights commentary, referring to himself as something like "just some kid from the Valley" and "what the fuck do I know?"  I think Rysher Douche wanted to know specifically, "How does one go from making the movies you used to make to one like this?"  And PTA probably didn't care to divulge the whys and hows because it's a personal journey that worked for him.  Getting a full answer to that question and expecting it to work for you is like reading Richard Branson's autobiography and expecting to learn the secret to becoming a billionaire.  At the end of the day, it becomes trivia.  What matters, as PTA so wonderfully put it last night, is that it's led to this and that we're lucky enough to see the astounding results of that journey.

The Oscars could regain some degree of credibility if they decided to nominate this for everything it is eligible for and then award it.  Sadly, but not TOO sadly, I'm sure it's No Country's year for everything.  But Blood drove home exactly what is missing from the Coen brothers, even in something as stripped down as No Country.  Even when the Coens get rid of the surface quirks (for lack of a better word), you still feel them in a line of dialogue here or a grunt or inflection there; you are constantly reminded that it's Coens film.  PTA has made a film that speaks for itself, that lives apart from its creator.  It immerses you completely in this world.  There isn't a trace of mockery here; it is exactly what it means to be.  There are moments of humor - I don't know about SF or LA but our audience, apart from JG's guy there, was laughing a lot at, I believe, the simple brilliance of DDL's performance; he's so good, you delight in his work even when Plainview isn't being funny - but it's all honest and earnest.

Is it PTA's best film thus far?  I'm reluctant to say yes, only because I've seen it once so far, but I'm leaning towards it.  I mentioned in another thread my friend who saw Magnolia 16 times in the theatres; I can see myself doing that with this.  I want nothing more than to bask in this film right now.

a-fucking-men.

[©brad]

yeah i definitely second that, to a t. 

and i too was pleasantly surprised as to how funny it was.

[Gamblour.]

Yes, thank you!!!!

[RegularKarate]

Mostly agreeing with Sparrow, but with (a little) less hype.

Those who said this is DDL and not PT didn't see the same movie I did.  There's NO WAY another director could have made this, even with DDL and the same screenplay.  This is VERY PT... he's just not screaming from behind the camera like he often does.

This thing has really been sitting with me well.  The more I think about it, the more I love it.

Also, MD's post should probably just be completely deleted from this thread.

[Sal]

Way too much hype here folks. But that's expected