Author Topic: Ebert (& co.) on PTA  (Read 1830 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4209
  • ...
  • Respect: +180
Ebert (& co.) on PTA
« on: January 09, 2012, 06:29:22 PM »
0
Upon a friend mentioning "Jessie's Girl", I referred him to the Firecracker Scene to end all firecracker scenes.  Then I stumbled upon Ebert's Boogie review and smiled at how great Siskel and Ebert really were at fighting with each other.  So like I did last summer for interviews of PTA himself, and 'cause I've been feeling nostalgic, I present Ebert on PTA.  Enjoy them (perhaps for the first time) all over again.

Sydney


Boogie


Maggie


Peedee


Ceebee
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080103/REVIEWS/801030301/1023

Ebert left the show in mid-2006, so no video of Ceebee.  He's more critical of PTA in his writing than on his shows, and his criticisms that leave this flick with less than four stars are a little flimsy.  Ironically, he misses the point of the omissions PTA makes that he cites for his criticisms, while he was more incisive in the time of Maggie.  Something you'd be hard pressed to come up with unless you see the film multiple times: A statement perhaps hinted at here before, which I am now almost sure of its veracity.  I contend that the last fifteen minutes never happened, and that's a bigger mindfuck than the frogs.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10863
  • Respect: +1270
Re: Ebert (& co.) on PTA
« Reply #1 on: January 09, 2012, 09:15:58 PM »
0
I contend that the last fifteen minutes never happened, and that's a bigger mindfuck than the frogs.

You're talking about CMBB, not Magnolia, right?
"Hunger is the purest sin"

ono

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 4209
  • ...
  • Respect: +180
Re: Ebert (& co.) on PTA
« Reply #2 on: January 09, 2012, 09:18:23 PM »
0
Yes.

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 10863
  • Respect: +1270
Re: Ebert (& co.) on PTA
« Reply #3 on: January 09, 2012, 09:52:43 PM »
0
I definitely remember talking about that, but I looked and can't find it.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

Reelist

  • Shoutbox Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2600
  • Respect: +965
Re: Ebert (& co.) on PTA
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2012, 08:01:48 AM »
0
Some motherfucker from another site was all ( SPOILERS of course ):

The idea that the final scene is a dream or a hallucination is one that intrigues me. At first I ignored the ideas behind it but later on things started to fall into place.

The idea that Eli comes and has not aged much was interesting. I recall noting that in the film. Also when the servant comes in after Daniel kills Eli, his reaction is not one of surprise or disgust.

Although these are not major indicators, I found that the conversation Daniel had with Eli and with Standard Oil in the restaurant interesting.

First, this scene comes after Daniel completely loses everything. Admitting to HW that he's not his father. His speech earlier with his brother explains his desire to win and to beat any competitor out there, and in the end he fully hadn't had his revenge on Eli after the baptism. This is why I feel he is dreaming about finally "caving" his head in.

The idea that Daniel feels he is a complete man of his word shows he is actually a failure there.... he tells the man from Standard Oil that he will cut his throat, and we believe him. So much to the point that in the restaurant we are expecting him to grab the knife and do it right there at the table... but he doesn't. He has his son to show the man he is taking care of his family, but fails... although he says he still is going to do it.

This brings us to the baptism scene. After the baptism, Daniel clearly says something vile to Eli that horrifies Eli (the look on his face). It seems that he tells Eli "I am going to eat you." In the final scene, he is throwing the pins telling him, "I told you I was going to eat you." This dream sequence is happening because it was something he did not do in life.

This final scene is almost what we all do when we walk away from a situation we ultimately have lost in.... we all go home and think, "I should have said this, and it would have been perfect if I did this". This I believe is Daniel getting his final revenge.

While he is telling Eli that he took all of the oil, he is clearly eating a steak with great pleasure. Pulling the meat from the bones, taking the bones out of his mouth. Downing the jug of water... then clearly saying "I drank your water". Water also being the blood of christ. This is why the butler doesn't react. He comes in and nothing happened. Daniel just exacted his revenge that he could not do in real life.

The "I'm finished" to me is really what he says to the butler that he is finished his dinner (steak/meat). But to Daniel he just did what he wanted which was to eat Eli.

I could write more, but maybe I am reading too much into this... I usually don't over analyse films this much. However PTA really does this too me... him and Almodovar... I find myself haunted by there films searching for meaning.
You can go to places in the world with pudding. That. Is. Funny.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • Lynchian identity mystery
  • Respect: +769
Re: Ebert (& co.) on PTA
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2012, 10:18:36 AM »
0
I definitely remember talking about that, but I looked and can't find it.

I mentioned it a year ago here:

 http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=11412.msg300227#msg300227

ono is also using my title abbreviations but whatever.

The dude reelist quoted is right on the money, though he doesn't explain why PTA would make a film that ends this way.
endless 'nothing is what it seems'-isms

theyarelegion

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 247
  • Respect: +20
Re: Ebert (& co.) on PTA
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2012, 02:51:05 PM »
0
The dude reelist quoted is right on the money, though he doesn't explain why PTA would make a film that ends this way.

what's your take on why pta ended it the way he did?

O.

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 170
  • Respect: +2
Re: Ebert (& co.) on PTA
« Reply #7 on: January 10, 2012, 06:39:48 PM »
0
PTA described Plainview as a man who lives for the chase, not the reward. He's surrounded by all the lavish spoils in the world, yet prefers to sleep on the floor and shit in a bucket. He's effectively living in the past.

Not to mention he was woken up before meeting Eli in the bowling alley. So that it might have been a dream is pretty likely. As well as super exciting.
superb

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy