Xixax Film Forum

The Director's Chair => Paul Thomas Anderson => Topic started by: pete on November 06, 2007, 01:06:10 AM

Title: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on November 06, 2007, 01:06:10 AM
fuck.  I saw it.  it happened.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: B.C. Long on November 06, 2007, 01:35:43 AM
I think Paul has finally found his voice. And by "his voice" I mean the movie feels like it's entirely his own, rather than noticable influences from other directors. (ie. Scorsese-esque directing in Magnolia)
Magnolia WAS his (flawed)masterpiece and I always kinda thought it would stay that way (So did Paul, from what I've read). But this my friends...has just catapulted that film into the 5th dinemsion. This is a MASTERPIECE through and through on every fucking level. The craft in this flick is just untouchable. This is a father/son saga to end all father/son sagas. Oh yeah, Paul was there too, to present the film. I didn't expect that. I'm tired. Must sleep and dream about Daniel kicking Eli's face in.


On a side note, Did anyone see the dude with the shirt that said "Plainview"?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on November 06, 2007, 08:42:43 AM
What the fuck? I went to bed specifically to wake up and read reviews. I get up and look and all you guys can muster is "I'm tired and will write more tomorrow"?

There is no tired in this game. Write more. WRITE MORE!!!
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: john on November 06, 2007, 12:57:26 PM
I want to write something, but everything I want to share seems like it would possibly spoil something. I think anything is going to spoil something, but I'll avoid plot, dialogue, performances, and shots... lets see where that gets us...

The movie:

What struck me watching this film is that PTA is a director filled with influences, but he never mimicks them. For all the talk of McCabe and Mrs. Miller and Days of Heaven, neither of those films are similiar to TWBB. In fact, there were moments of this film that were wholly original. Moments where I felt like I've never seen anything like it and it excited me more than anything I'd seen in years. PTA doesn't want to emulate his heroes, he just constructs in a voice just as valid and as exciting as them.

The sound design, again, was incredible. Probably the best use of sound in a PTA film yet - which, I think, is saying quite a lot. It's very restrained, and very loud when it needs to be. PTA has always made me "feel" exactly what I'm hearing and here he uses that trick masterfully. The score is fantastic, too. And, listening to Greenwood's work, after working almost specifically with Jon Brion, it reminded me how much of a collaborative effort the score is between PTA and his composer. He seems to get musicians to articulate exactly what he needs while still providing their own sound. There were moments where the music felt similiar to Magnolia and Punch-Drunk Love. Not derivative, mind you, but certainly coming from the same part of the brain.

Before the film, when talking about the John Burton foundation, PTA mentioned that John Burton had a role in the film, but it was cut due to time. I haven't read the script yet, so I'm not sure how much else was cut. The film never feels indulgent in it's length, or truncated... but I still would have liked it to be longer. The last twenty minutes felts a bit rushed compaired to everything that had happened before.

But that is the smallest of quibbles - one that I'll probably reject on further viewing. This film is a rush. It's big, scary, and potent. As enthusiastic as I was going into it. As excited as I was to see a new PTA film, I still tried to reserve my praise for it. I didn't want to unabashedly claim genius because I love the director. Rehardless of any of that, this is a spectacular film. If this was his first film, and there were no expectations attached to it, it would still be magificent. But it is certainy a film no other director could have made. It is unique and new and, no matter what you expect, it will surprise you.

The screening:

When PTA introduced to the film, he said something to the effect of the Castro being one of the finest, if not best, theaters in America. I'm inclined to agree. Whoever books it's schedule is certainly enthusiastic enough. But there are enthusiastic bookers in most towns. It's the theater that speaks for itself. I also forget how fucking huge the place is. I'm not sure if the screening sold out, but I am sure that tickets were available for a longer time than I would have guessed. It wasn't an empty theatre, by any means, but it seemed to take a little effort to fill up the place. Which is good, because these goddamn AMC auditoriums seem content on getting smaller and smaller - it's nice to see a movie in a real, honest-to-God movie theater.

The film wasn't spoiled by the unitiated, even though I heard, more than once, onversations to the effect of, "I don't even know what this movie is, but it doesn't come out for, like, months."

The film wasn't even ruined by the dude who sat in front of me, apparently a Castro "regular", who smelled of garbage and sweat, carried two paper bags filled food and bottles of Clorox, and would occassionally reamrk to the similiarly crazy fella next to him about what was happening on screen. I did talk to this guy afterwards, and he seemed very adament that Daniel-Day Lewis reminded him "A LOT" of Tom Selleck. He also ate cake with his hands.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ©brad on November 06, 2007, 01:24:19 PM
Quote from: john on November 06, 2007, 12:57:26 PM
I want to write something, but everything I want to share seems like it would possibly spoil something. I think anything is going to spoil something, but I'll avoid plot, dialogue, performances, and shots... lets see where that gets us...

but you see, you can talk about that stuff. that's why we created this special sub-forum! just be sure to give us a spoiler-free taste in the regular forum.

okay, this is seriously the last time i enter this thread.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on November 06, 2007, 01:31:04 PM
nobody said hi to anybody else!
I loved it, one of the strongest endings in any movie ever.  I love a movie that knows how to end itself.
In my mind this was a straightfoward story - it focuses on one fascinating character, and goes through a series of scenes to depict his complexity.  He doesn't "develop" in the traditional sense, ie. one thing happens to him and he reacts and changes  and then something else happesn...etc.; Daniel Plainview has always been capable of intense animosity, and whatever darkness in him is gradually revealed to the audience.  He has a tender side, and the movie seems to ask, just exactly how far can he go, if he can prove to be loving and protective?  The film ends as soon as it is satisfied with its answer.  It is a fascinating portrayal of hubris, everything else -- greed, religion, industrialization, guilt...etc., become playgrounds for Plainview's hubris.
The movie is handsomely crafted, I have no complaints about any of the directorial decisions.  One thing that was kinda strange was how familiar the performances seemed by Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano - from Gangs of New York and The King, respectively.  They seemed to be playing more human, more spectacular incarnations of their previous characters.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on November 06, 2007, 03:04:53 PM
What about the ending? Was it as chilling as it was written in the script?

Break it down shot by shot.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: john on November 06, 2007, 05:12:35 PM
Quote from: ©brad on November 06, 2007, 01:24:19 PM

but you see, you can talk about that stuff. that's why we created this special sub-forum! just be sure to give us a spoiler-free taste in the regular forum.

okay, this is seriously the last time i enter this thread.


Yeah, sorry about that.... I wasn't paying too much attention to where I was posting.

Incidentally, now that I've seen this... is the script still online anywhere? Does anyone have a PDF of ths?

I need to read that final line again.

"I'm done." correct?

Best conclusion to a PTA film yet, really. Just a pitch-perfect final scene. Made my heart race.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: B.C. Long on November 06, 2007, 05:31:27 PM
"I'm finished."
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: B.C. Long on November 07, 2007, 01:47:56 PM
That you should invite the town's preacher.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: bluejaytwist on November 07, 2007, 06:42:17 PM
the dude in the plainview shirt was albert, paul's assistant.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: xerxes on November 07, 2007, 09:58:44 PM
Quote from: bluejaytwist on November 07, 2007, 06:42:17 PM
the dude in the plainview shirt was albert, paul's assistant.

Who was the guy going up and down the line asking everyone if they were you? And did he ever find you?

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Sal on November 13, 2007, 06:03:52 PM
Why aren't we talking about this?

I saw a screening of the film last night at the WGA theater. Anderson, Day-Lewis and Dano were all there after to field questions. My fandom for Anderson goes back awhile, and this was my most anticipated movie this year. That preface stated, I have to make the concession that this was not a perfect movie.

It goes without saying Day-Lewis owns everything in this. It's a vehicle for him to just explode and really you cannot ask more of him from a movie, especially in the final closing scenes in 1927. He makes everyone else just look bad. I think Paul Dano was the biggest casualty. As his nemesis, he did alright...but two things irritated me. One, I could not read his face that well. I wanted very badly to understand the difference between the "showman" and the regular kid who is just a boy using religion for his own personal gain. Two, I had no idea he even played two twin brothers. Even without an obvious shot of Paul sitting with Eli (that would have helped clear things up quite a bit!) there were little to no character distinctions. The entire audience after the show continued asking questions about it. They just didn't get it. I did not get it, either. PTA looked unsettled by this but he must have heard this before, which seems to mean he just dropped the ball.  A second viewing will help--of course--but why would you risk confusing your audience the first time? It's two hours and 40 minutes long. That's a hell of a stretch to sit there wondering if you're looking at one person or a twin.

The score by Greenwood is being met with a lot of buzz and I think people are being very generous about it. Yes, it's reminiscent of Penderecki and the strings fit the mood well. But this was not scored with the kind of deliberate intent you would see in The Shining for example.  It was laid over the picture and so there aren't really cues and there isn't an identifiable structure. It's avant garde but I don't think anything is really done with this that is memorable or even briefly effective. Ultimately it is a bit derivative.   

There's not really a single word to describe Paul's unique directing style. There is a freedom and energy to what he does (which Elswit is significant in contributing) that is lacking from any other filmmaker working today. He opens it up and uses space well. The scene where Daniel hugs his son after his return from San Francisco was stirring because you heard him tell his boy "this does me well" and it's special when you see it from a distance and the menacing man that lumbered around has to kneel so he can embrace his son. Talking about memorable scenes, I have to mention that the entire sequence involving the derrick's destruction/HW's loss of hearing was the most compelling material short of the "1927" sequence.  Seeing time pass as the derrick kept burning—and Plainview never returning to his son—was just combined so well together that it really epitomizes the film in a way. If you had to take out a scene that summed up what Blood was about, that was it.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ponceludon on November 13, 2007, 08:17:19 PM
I thought that Paul and Eli were the same person until the very end of the movie, when there was no big scene that shows that Eli has been pulling a fast one.

You are very brave to not be unconditionally and unilaterally praising this movie to the heavens.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: SiliasRuby on November 13, 2007, 09:53:09 PM
Thought there was a possability of a there being a ban against him. Joking...sorry for interrupting.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: The Red Vine on November 13, 2007, 11:16:38 PM
Film critic David Poland also had some very negative comments in his review of the movie, claiming it was a fascinating mess. I've read minor complaints in other reviews. They're only encouraging my interest in the movie.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ponceludon on November 14, 2007, 12:25:44 AM
I meant of people on this website rather than of all the people who've seen the movie.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Sal on November 14, 2007, 11:21:56 AM
Quote from: ponceludon on November 13, 2007, 08:17:19 PM
I thought that Paul and Eli were the same person until the very end of the movie

Don't you agree that's a huge miscalculation on the part of PTA? I can't believe something like that would even happen. I'll be seeing the film again obviously, and I'm sure that will be clearer, but basically the entire audience was just scratching their heads at this. It's a major blow in my opinion. It's one of the main reasons I will never call this film a masterpiece.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: B.C. Long on November 14, 2007, 04:45:32 PM
Wasn't it rather obvious when Daniel is introduced to Eli and Eli doesn't recognize him? I prefer this subtext rather than seeing both on screen and going "LOOK THEY'RE TWINS!!! GASP!!!"
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on November 14, 2007, 06:32:02 PM
Quote from: Sal on November 14, 2007, 11:21:56 AM
Quote from: ponceludon on November 13, 2007, 08:17:19 PM
I thought that Paul and Eli were the same person until the very end of the movie

Don't you agree that's a huge miscalculation on the part of PTA?

my answer is NO.  it is supposed to be a bit of a WTF?  that's what i LOVE about it.  that shot of plainview first meeting eli:  he gives a WTF look to HW.  it got a laugh at the SF screening and did confuse me at first, but realized later 'oooh, theyre twins'  and it was good that way. 

you know where this comes from right?  paul was cast as paul sunday, they shot the scenes of him telling daniel aboot the oil on the sunday farm, original eli actor was a wuss, they replaced original wuss eli actor with paul and made the characters twinzies.  strangelove sellers style.   

i have read about this and read the script only AFTER i saw the movie and feel he CHOSE the way that it is in the film - it wasnt a miscalculation.   in the script they are bros - not twins, but in the end paul sunday comes back only cuz eli is gone etc.  obviously cut this to make it a bit mysterious.   I love the way it is

it was no doubt a decision to make you scratch your noggin over it, but ill investigate to see if others feel like you did when i see this MASTERPIECE again tomorrow.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Sal on November 14, 2007, 06:52:23 PM
Quote from: B.C. Long on November 14, 2007, 04:45:32 PM
Wasn't it rather obvious when Daniel is introduced to Eli and Eli doesn't recognize him? I prefer this subtext rather than seeing both on screen and going "LOOK THEY'RE TWINS!!! GASP!!!"

Not really, because I wasn't sure that it wasn't Paul pretending to be an "Eli" in order to conceal something from his own family about what he was doing. i certainly could not be convinced they were two people based on Paul Dano's performance. I think the blame falls a little on Dano and mostly on Paul for doing something gimmicky and unwarranted that confused a lot of people.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ponceludon on November 14, 2007, 08:41:36 PM
Quote from: pozer on November 14, 2007, 06:32:02 PM
Quote from: Sal on November 14, 2007, 11:21:56 AM
Quote from: ponceludon on November 13, 2007, 08:17:19 PM
I thought that Paul and Eli were the same person until the very end of the movie

Don't you agree that's a huge miscalculation on the part of PTA?

my answer is NO.  it is supposed to be a bit of a WTF?  that's what i LOVE about it.  that shot of plainview first meeting eli:  he gives a WTF look to HW.  it got a laugh at the SF screening and did confuse me at first, but realized later 'oooh, theyre twins'  and it was good that way. 

you know where this comes from right?  paul was cast as paul sunday, they shot the scenes of him telling daniel aboot the oil on the sunday farm, original eli actor was a wuss, they replaced original wuss eli actor with paul and made the characters twinzies.  strangelove sellers style.   

i have read about this and read the script only AFTER i saw the movie and feel he CHOSE the way that it is in the film - it wasnt a miscalculation.   in the script they are bros - not twins, but in the end paul sunday comes back only cuz eli is gone etc.  obviously cut this to make it a bit mysterious.   I love the way it is

it was no doubt a decision to make you scratch your noggin over it, but ill investigate to see if others feel like you did when i see this MASTERPIECE again tomorrow.

I didn't read the script or the book beforehand, so I had no idea that they were two people. When Eli didn't "recognize" Plainview, I didn't think "AH, it must be a different brother!" I thought, "Oh, maybe he's going to screw this guy over or make it very painful for him to have come so far out on a false lead." However, there didn't necessarily have to be a scene in which the twins are side by side, but a word or two of clarification would have been nice.

By the end of the movie, I did realize they were probably twins, but I don't necessarily think that PT Anderwson dropped the ball on that entirely. I wouldn't call it a huge miscalculation, because in the end, it wasn't that pivotal to the movie. Clearly, the entire character of Paul exists as a catalyst to get the film going. I don't know why he had to be played by Paul Dano as well, since they could have easily gotten another actor for those 5 minutes he's in it.

I am not such a fan of big obvious scenes, or scenes that exist only to make something obvious, but I think he could have worked in something. The only reason that bothered me in the slightest is that in expecting the old switcheroo between Paul and Eli, I was expecting a different kind of movie than it was. While it is not necessarily Anderson's style to include something that flashy, this film was so different that it didn't seem unlikely. I liked it a lot as a whole, but that was just a slight bit of confusion.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Sal on November 14, 2007, 10:48:54 PM
Quote from: ponceludon on November 14, 2007, 08:41:36 PM
I didn't read the script or the book beforehand, so I had no idea that they were two people. When Eli didn't "recognize" Plainview, I didn't think "AH, it must be a different brother!" I thought, "Oh, maybe he's going to screw this guy over or make it very painful for him to have come so far out on a false lead."

That's exactly right. And if you reflect on it after seeing the film you almost wish this was the path PT had taken with the story. It's more interesting and a bit more complicated.

QuoteI wouldn't call it a huge miscalculation, because in the end, it wasn't that pivotal to the movie. Clearly, the entire character of Paul exists as a catalyst to get the film going. I don't know why he had to be played by Paul Dano as well, since they could have easily gotten another actor for those 5 minutes he's in it.

I feel the only explanation is PT tends to get gimmicky. He saw this as an opening, obviously thought it would pay off, but I don't think that approach was worth the confusion it caused so many people.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: B.C. Long on November 15, 2007, 12:54:31 AM
Does no one remember the dinner scene when Eli beats up his father and he's ranting about his other brother Paul? I thought that scene made it pretty clear if it wasn't before.

Also Sal, about Greenwood's score, what exactly is it derivative of because I'd definitely like to hear those works. And besides isn't pretty much all Movie scores derivative of some classical composition. For example, lots of Antonín Dvořák can be found in the works of John William's movie scores. So I guess his stuff is derivative as well.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Sal on November 15, 2007, 02:24:03 PM
Quote from: B.C. Long on November 15, 2007, 12:54:31 AM
Does no one remember the dinner scene when Eli beats up his father and he's ranting about his other brother Paul? I thought that scene made it pretty clear if it wasn't before.

No at the time, I didn't put it together. I just thought, this scene does not feel like it was motivated at all. In retrospect I got it but was still ambivalent if that even worked dramatically. Aside from this one outburst I never got a sense that one of the brothers hated the father or hated the other brother. You need that if you want to create real characters. What PT did was he just ignored their relationship and focused on Daniel. Nothing wrong with that, but let's for a minute consider Occam's razor and cut out the things you don't need. In the Q&A paul talked about going "simple" for this project. The paul/eli relationship is not simple and really flies in the face of what paul was talking about.

After looking at the imdb boards, lots of people are considering he had a split personality. This makes more sense to me. But that's still inconclusive. This is the kind of ambiguity I would expect from a lesser filmmaker.

QuoteAlso Sal, about Greenwood's score, what exactly is it derivative of because I'd definitely like to hear those works. And besides isn't pretty much all Movie scores derivative of some classical composition. For example, lots of Antonín Dvořák can be found in the works of John William's movie scores. So I guess his stuff is derivative as well.

My immediate reaction to his score was "The Shining". But without any consideration for hitting dramatic moments. It felt laid over so some moments just didn't make sense in the context of the music. I know that creates tension and it makes you uneasy, but so did the score in PDL which paul handled much more deliberately. I've always admired the relationship between his picture and his sound, and the score did nothing for me here.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: SiliasRuby on November 16, 2007, 01:46:01 AM
Oh my god. this was fucking awesome. Alright, I'll calm down. I'm sorry but ya, great great shit. Saw it with Mac and Omero. Pozer showed up late or didn't show up at all. Not sure. Anyway, I'm sorry guys but I'm a bit tired. I'll write more tomorrow after work when I'm really not fading into sleep. There was much fun between the three of us though. Hopefully mac will post some memorable moments of the three of us waiting outside.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on November 16, 2007, 06:48:51 PM
Here's my take on the whole twin aspect:

Even if it wasn't planned, it added a whole other interesting dynamic to the story. Daniel encounters two sets of twins - Eli and Paul, and the two Henrys, and both sets play with image of the identical nature. Paul and true Henry are the real thing, in fact half-brother Henry, as it's found out, dies an honest death. Eli and the Henry in the flesh are both imposters; one of a Martin Guerre swap and the other a false prophet. And what becomes of them? Daniel kills them both. For Daniel and these two men are both two sides of the same coin; it's as if Daniel is looking at mirror images of himself. Duality plays a big theme in the film.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Satcho9 on November 16, 2007, 08:25:31 PM
Also, big big Kudos goes to Paul for casting James Downey as the (my apologies for not knowing the character name) guy who scouts the tracts of land and prices for Daniel Plainview. You may remember him from SNL...he was (don't know if he still is) The  lead political writer on SNL since way back when and is responsible for some genius work over the years. Also, some of you may recognize him from Billy Madison...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PDKcX0Ji90

Sorry to go on about Downey. But I think that is part of the brilliance of Paul; impeccable casting.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Sal on November 17, 2007, 12:17:14 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on November 16, 2007, 06:48:51 PM
Here's my take on the whole twin aspect:

Even if it wasn't planned, it added a whole other interesting dynamic to the story. Daniel encounters two sets of twins - Eli and Paul, and the two Henrys, and both sets play with image of the identical nature. Paul and true Henry are the real thing, in fact half-brother Henry, as it's found out, dies an honest death. Eli and the Henry in the flesh are both imposters; one of a Martin Guerre swap and the other a false prophet. And what becomes of them? Daniel kills them both. For Daniel and these two men are both two sides of the same coin; it's as if Daniel is looking at mirror images of himself. Duality plays a big theme in the film.

You might be reaching here. This film is about dirt blood and spit. It should be raw and unkind and had I not seen the film but read your interpretation I would have expected a story way more philosophical in tone. This isn't that kind of movie. There's no need to confuse audiences about duality, mirror images, etc.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on November 17, 2007, 11:05:00 PM
I was talking theme; not story.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on November 18, 2007, 11:49:48 PM
sal is right on this i suppose.  i asked the four who accompanied me to last week's screening, and they all felt the same way. 

Newsweek critic David Ansen, who was the only journalist on the set of the movie, moderated the Q & A and revealed that Paul Dano was originally cast as Paul Sunday, the guy who tips off Daniel Day Lewis's oilcatter to a possible oil strike in California. At the last minute, just as Dano was supposed to start filming, Anderson told him that he wanted him to play a second role, as Paul's twin brother Eli. Dano was surprised, but jumped right in. The problem is, the film is confusing. I was not sure that they were two separate people the first time. This time, I watched carefully; Anderson doesn't spell it out enough; it flies over people's heads. Several people at the screening were also confused.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: B.C. Long on November 19, 2007, 01:36:47 PM
This is probably a bad example, but what about the 241 people that walked out of the premiere of 2001: A Space Odyssey? Was it the fault of Kubrick or the audience that they didn't "get" (confused by) it.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: The Red Vine on November 19, 2007, 07:31:56 PM
Quote from: B.C. Long on November 19, 2007, 01:36:47 PM
This is probably a bad example, but what about the 241 people that walked out of the premiere of 2001: A Space Odyssey? Was it the fault of Kubrick or the audience that they didn't "get" (confused by) it.

No offense but I have to agree that isn't the best example. You have to consider the audience in the 60's when "2001" came out. It's true that some people today are still put off by anything unique in cinema but the differences between now and then are enormous. It could be that PTA's execution of the twins simply did not communicate well, but I have not seen the film. Judging from the script, the relationship between Daniel and Eli is much more important to the story than anything involving his twin.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gold Trumpet on November 20, 2007, 01:00:18 PM
Quote from: The Red Vine on November 19, 2007, 07:31:56 PM
Quote from: B.C. Long on November 19, 2007, 01:36:47 PM
This is probably a bad example, but what about the 241 people that walked out of the premiere of 2001: A Space Odyssey? Was it the fault of Kubrick or the audience that they didn't "get" (confused by) it.

No offense but I have to agree that isn't the best example. You have to consider the audience in the 60's when "2001" came out. It's true that some people today are still put off by anything unique in cinema but the differences between now and then are enormous. It could be that PTA's execution of the twins simply did not communicate well, but I have not seen the film. Judging from the script, the relationship between Daniel and Eli is much more important to the story than anything involving his twin.

"The differences between now and then are enormous"?

I definitely believe audience goers of 1968 were a much more alert audience and could be because foreign films were prominent everywhere. Ingmar Bergman said he loved that a film of his could open in the midwest and play after the run of a generic Western (paraphrase). That doesn't happen today. Challenging art cinema is regulated to large cities. Back then, Jean Luc Godard was a well known figure amongst cinephiles. A critic (who taught at university level) said if he asked people back in the late 60s/early 70s if they knew who Jean Luc Godard was, they'd throw chairs at him. In the 90s he'd be lucky to get one or two people. It seems cinephiles are dying out.

From what I've read it seems that There Will Be Blood is a film for an older generation. It isn't a comment on loud, over edited films. It also doesn't appease any sense of the entertainment value we find in most films. It has qualities found more in classical interpretations of art cinema.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on November 20, 2007, 02:51:19 PM
I disagree with the last three posts.
First of all, the comparison to 2001 is meaningless.  Walking out becomes an arbitrary link and it's not very useful because you fail to cite any other simliarity. 
Then you generalized the audience of the 60's by the "241" people who walked out of a Kubrick film.  That is probably not very useful either.
Then GT's anecdotes about the glory old days where serious people watched serious films everywhere, even in the Midwest, was total bullshit, and linking "There Will Be Blood" to some kinda return to the glory old days therefore became even bigger bullshit. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gold Trumpet on November 20, 2007, 04:59:01 PM
Quote from: pete on November 20, 2007, 02:51:19 PM
Then GT's anecdotes about the glory old days where serious people watched serious films everywhere, even in the Midwest, was total bullshit, and linking "There Will Be Blood" to some kinda return to the glory old days therefore became even bigger bullshit. 

I know we're friends and all, but fuck off for what you said there. You don't just disagree with me, but say something with enough hositility to make it a jerk comment. I'm not insinuating There Will Be Blood is a return to glory days, but I am saying it has little little recognition to most films made today. One reason is because it is a period film and seems to play out as such. I'm also talking about what it seems to be since I haven't seen it so don't try a debate with me there. It's called perception and I already labeled it as such. I have no comment about the midwest deal. There is little argument by anyone that foreign filmmakers weren't more prominent in the 1960s than they are today.

I should have kept it to a 'fuck off' because you didn't say shit yourself.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: B.C. Long on November 20, 2007, 05:11:28 PM
Quote from: pete on November 20, 2007, 02:51:19 PM
First of all, the comparison to 2001 is meaningless.  Walking out becomes an arbitrary link and it's not very useful because you fail to cite any other simliarity.

It may be a bad example, but far from meaningless. Sal pointed out that he thinks that it was the fault of P.T. Anderson that people were confused by the whole "twin" subplot and that Anderson should of made it more "clear". So the only example I could think of where a lot of people were turned-off or confused by was 2001. I don't give a shit about all the little cultural details that separate 1968 from 2007. I'm just trying to offer a different perspective because I don't think the confusion is the fault of Anderson, which is why I brought up Kubrick's 2001. Both films use intentional ambiguous subtexts.

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on November 20, 2007, 05:15:23 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on November 20, 2007, 01:00:18 PMFrom what I've read it seems that There Will Be Blood is a film for an older generation. It isn't a comment on loud, over edited films. It also doesn't appease any sense of the entertainment value we find in most films. It has qualities found more in classical interpretations of art cinema.

Which why I'm afraid it will get no Oscar love.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on November 23, 2007, 03:35:10 PM
we know the obvious, ddl cannot be ignored.  and if he is not nominated, i think it is truly time that i in turn turn my back on the ceremony.  so far he has my vote for best performance of the decade..  "DRAINAGE!  DRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAINAGE!"  gdamn you voters are fools if you say "yeah, he was good, but hanks + accent = daniel day-who?"

pretty sure theyll be happy enough that dano spoke, and that he did loudly.  so theyll book em.

i hav seen the film twice and must say that upon the second viewing i was looking forward to each sequence i knew was to come.  the editing is strong, i feel the strongest in any of pta's films.  dylan did amazing work in two of my favorite movies of the year, but if it had to be one, i would love to see him recognized here over taojjbtcrf.

the music... again, i give the cold shoulder to oscar if he dont say "what up" to jonny.

i want so badly (and prolly mostly) to see paul there waiting to be awarded as either best adapted writer or best director.  it's always tough for him to get the love he ALWAYS deserves.  so if there's too much ridley and nichols goin on, i think they might find room for him and do like theyve done with half his films by dropping him in the screenplay pool.

best pic is no doubt out of the question unless they think back to the old days that gt was talkin aboot.  but chere is still hope within me.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Derek on December 01, 2007, 12:27:25 PM
To those who have seen it, would you say it's his best work?

I've read the script. For anyone else who has read it and seen the movie (which I haven't) is it fair to say you get a good sense of the vibe of the movie from the script, or is it something different? I don't know if that makes a lot of sense...
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on December 01, 2007, 01:49:40 PM
Quote from: Derek on December 01, 2007, 12:27:25 PMTo those who have seen it, would you say it's his best work?

It's up there. I still hold Boogie and Magnolia higher, but it's a very close third for me. Of course, I say this just after one viewing.


Quote from: Derek on December 01, 2007, 12:27:25 PMI've read the script. For anyone else who has read it and seen the movie (which I haven't) is it fair to say you get a good sense of the vibe of the movie from the script, or is it something different? I don't know if that makes a lot of sense...

It's a good basis of the "vibe," but the film is entirely different entity from the script (the Final Shooting 7.25.06 copy, which I read after I saw the film). Scenes are expanded upon, you don't get what the score does to the senses, how the silences say so much and how DDL and Dano elevate the dialogue.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Sal on December 03, 2007, 01:45:57 PM
Quote from: Derek on December 01, 2007, 12:27:25 PM
To those who have seen it, would you say it's his best work?

I would say conceptually it's his least ambitious, but you probably gleaned that from reading the script. I know oil is epic and the fact it spans centuries should make it his MOST ambitious, but structurally it does not build like his other films. It just goes from one scene to the other. The scenes are individually well directed but when it comes together as a whole, I'd say you get more wallop aka bang for your buck with Boogie Nights, Magnolia and PDL.

QuoteI've read the script. For anyone else who has read it and seen the movie (which I haven't) is it fair to say you get a good sense of the vibe of the movie from the script, or is it something different? I don't know if that makes a lot of sense...

Yeah you get a good sense of the vibe from the script. Not a lot changed from when I'd read it in early 06.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: RegularKarate on December 06, 2007, 08:31:55 PM
I got to see it today.. how happy am I?

Loved it, of course, but it's not as immediate a love as I expected.... I really need to see it again (wish it were here already so I could see it tomorrow).

NCFOM gave me a much more immediate satisfaction in that I absorbed and processed it right away while I was watching it... that's not to say it didn't sit with me... I definitely thought about it a lot after I left, but with CMBB, the experience is so intense and raw that I wasn't taking it in real-time.

does that make sense?

Anyway, I feel like most of the main characters are the same person gone and going down different paths.

it's amazing... still playing in my head.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on December 07, 2007, 11:10:07 AM
Quote from: RegularKarate on December 06, 2007, 08:31:55 PM
the experience is so intense and raw that I wasn't taking it in real-time.

does that make sense?

it certainly does.  and that is the best way to put it.  when i fist saw it, right when it ended i was left with "that was it... i need to have a walkabout with it for a while."  the movie is indeed very raw and ends the same.  Plainview's voice was like an alarm clock the following morning and it played out amazingly in my head all the way thru my road trip back home.   
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: SiliasRuby on December 07, 2007, 09:52:21 PM
Quote from: pozer on December 07, 2007, 11:10:07 AM
Quote from: RegularKarate on December 06, 2007, 08:31:55 PM
the experience is so intense and raw that I wasn't taking it in real-time.

does that make sense?

it certainly does.  and that is the best way to put it.  when i fist saw it, right when it ended i was left with "that was it... i need to have a walkabout with it for a while." 
That's why I haven't really done a big review yet....but here it goes....

First of all, The chats with Mac and Omero were hilarious and wonderful...Mac actually thought one of my quotes of the night "If you give me enough sugar I could kill a man". Since I said that, the two of them were baiting me to drink more and more sprite and possibly have some-actually any- kind of sugar in my system, to see what the hell I would do.

I was getting more and more antzy as the day wore on and soon as the sun began to creep down I couldn't keep still whether it was physically or verbally. I am quite verbose and spurt out allot of explectives when I am antipating something or when I get nerveous.

Anyway, I saw it on my birthday. And what a present. I was entranced thoughout the whole screening. and I was completely quiet, the opposite of what I was outside. Daniel Day Lewis embodied everything about his character and I agree with others that you are not seeing him the actor on screen, you are seeing the character. This film is still with me after only one viewing. There are so many iconic images in the making presented on screen that, at least I, forgot I was in a theatre for the whole time. As far as the eli and his brother thing, I think it's brilliant that they didn't explain it, one iota, at least not a hit on your head explanation.

The score is mezmorizing and for the first few moments it seems to be out of place but the deeper you get into the movie and as far as the movie goes on, it seems to work more and more.

The film as a whole works on multiple levels. Now when it officially comes out, I won't be surprised if there are news reports from Fox News and other pundits that this is liberal propaganda about the bush administration, but none of us will notice and if we do we won't care. (Insert P's Joke: "Just like Silias's reviews")

It took a few days to really explain my feelings about how much I love and in love with this film I am. It's not my favorite of his, Magnolia is, but its now my second fav. I laughed at some parts and I thought I was going to be the only one, I wasn't.
All the hype that it's getting her and on other sites is true....

Another line we could put on the marque other than "You give me enough sugar and I'll kill a man" is.....

"We put on one hellava god damn show"
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on December 12, 2007, 01:20:52 PM
was the score from the 2nd trailer (not the youtube teaser, but the first real one, not the one on apple), that plays during the THERE WILL BE GREED type cards in the film?  i didn't notice it, i'm not sure if it's on the soundtrack either.  can anyone else remember/confirm/deny this?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on December 12, 2007, 01:49:57 PM
Quote from: modage on December 12, 2007, 01:20:52 PM
was the score from the 2nd trailer (not the youtube teaser, but the first real one, not the one on apple), that plays during the THERE WILL BE GREED type cards in the film?  i didn't notice it, i'm not sure if it's on the soundtrack either.  can anyone else remember/confirm/deny this?

The bookend parts are not. But the middle is the Convergence track from Bodysong.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cine on December 14, 2007, 11:39:37 AM
RE: the twin discussion, it was very clear to me they were twins when they show that eli has more hair.. i distinctly remember paul's hair being shaved in the back.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on December 16, 2007, 10:17:24 PM
i forgot i clapped when Vincent Froio's name came up in the credits.  i thought that was pretty funny.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: bonanzataz on December 17, 2007, 11:11:52 PM
Quote from: modage on December 16, 2007, 10:17:24 PM
i forgot i clapped when Vincent Froio's name came up in the credits.  i thought that was pretty funny.

yeah, i was looking for froio but i don't remember seeing him. where was he?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: grand theft sparrow on December 18, 2007, 07:50:07 AM
I didn't see Froio or Paul F. Tompkins.  Oh, well. I'll just have to see it again. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on December 18, 2007, 08:00:00 AM
i didn't notice froio in the film but i did notice paul f tompkins.  he was standing to the right (screen left) of daniel and his son i believe during their initial "ladies and gentleman" speech at the table. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: RegularKarate on December 18, 2007, 12:21:08 PM
Quote from: modage on December 18, 2007, 08:00:00 AM
i didn't notice froio in the film but i did notice paul f tompkins.  he was standing to the right (screen left) of daniel and his son i believe during their initial "ladies and gentleman" speech at the table. 

he also follows Daniel out of the house asking him to reconsider. 

My favorite thing about his (small) part is that once everyone in the room start yelling and making a ruckus, his voice is very discernible above the others.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on December 20, 2007, 07:03:43 PM
the last few days have been good for me. i finally decided that i REALLY loved the movie, and i've been thinking about it non-stop, watching the three trailers over and over, reading whatever i can about the movie. 

reading some blogs of those who saw it the night we did, there seems to be a whole crowd of people who think the movie really falls off the tracks in the 1927 sequence.  they argue that it becomes funny, and incongruous with the tone of the rest of the movie.  some argue, yes, it was funny, but intentionally so. 

did you guys even think it was funny? i didnt!  i felt like i laughed a few times, at appropriate moments, but the ending freaked me out.. no can argue about the last shot though, emiright? 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Astrostic on December 20, 2007, 08:22:57 PM
i was at the NYC screening, and i couldn't believe the laughter during the final scene.  The woman sitting directly to my right, for instance, was probably one of the loudest laughers during the scene, laughing almost hysterically and uncontrollably during the two minutes leading up to the murder, and I didn't laugh once.  I remember having no idea as to why everyone thought the film was turning into slapstick, but every time plainview tossed a bowling ball, there was another eruption.  It reminded me of the ending of little miss sunshine, when the whole family got up on stage, and i thought that whole scene was really sad, but the entire audience was laughing hysterically and i didn't know if I was just not seeing the humor or if the scene was so uncomfortable that the audience doesn't know how to react so they laugh.  I guess the same could be said about TWBB ending, it is so bizarre and absurd for a moment that laughter is the only way people can respond.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ©brad on December 20, 2007, 08:53:32 PM
Quote from: Astrostic on December 20, 2007, 08:22:57 PMI guess the same could be said about TWBB ending, it is so bizarre and absurd for a moment that laughter is the only way people can respond.

yeah sure, but wait what's wrong with laughing in the first place? the last scene is equal parts hysterical and terrifying. that's what makes it so cinegasmic. am i missing something? why would you complain about that?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: noyes on December 20, 2007, 09:00:05 PM
i don't know if the whole scene was meant to be funny
but lines like "Those areas have been drilled", after Eli totally humiliates himself, were.
like Brad says, it's a weird dichotomy of humor and horror show.
and i guess people laughed because of the whole absurdity of it all.
i mostly just stayed quiet and took it all in.. i'm dying to see it all again.

the movie definitely took a complete left turn tone wise near the end.
but i think it was, like others have said, intentional.
everything is reversed from 1927 on, from Plainview's relationship with H.W. to Eli's complete role-reversal.
to say that the last 25 minutes of the film was slow, dragged on, didn't make sense, "jumped the shark" is totally missing the point.
and i still can't get over that Brahms inclusion. what a perfect piece of music to end a movie with.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Astrostic on December 20, 2007, 09:21:55 PM
Quote from: ©MBBrad on December 20, 2007, 08:53:32 PM
why would you complain about that?

I'm not complaining, I just didn't associate the scene with humor, so when people, quite a few actually, were laughing, and not giggling or chuckling, but laughing hard, I had to reevaluate the scene for myself.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pubrick on December 20, 2007, 09:57:27 PM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2FColdplay_ChrisMartin_150x2001.jpg&hash=5caff84cb8ac118174429b190b23ca6a3fd092fe)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2Fpuppetc.jpg&hash=8d0bdeac851b4b827cf4f486ab67352852cc93b5)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2Fono.jpg&hash=a4bd38ca6219c6eda3fbcee54e19ffc319fe79e6)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2F03sheepcomparebw.jpg&hash=1786b44d153d79cf1f95c55743f7f9650d6078df)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2Farty%2Fsmufwalkin.png&hash=55a136126edf0727c4b4175a62bb34767f73bcf5)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi5.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fy154%2Fpubrick%2Farty%2Flizpapsmurfwachps.jpg&hash=de2fec2cac17bd5db2932a32c4828b81119308ef)
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on December 21, 2007, 10:22:00 AM
get out of here, devil!
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pubrick on December 21, 2007, 11:04:17 AM
i'm finished.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on December 21, 2007, 11:32:20 AM
somebody's spoiled the movie for himself  :(
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on December 21, 2007, 11:37:56 AM
Quote from: ©MBBrad on December 20, 2007, 08:53:32 PM
the last scene is equal parts hysterical and terrifying. that's what makes it so cinegasmic.

it goes FROM hysterical TO terrifying.  that is what makes it so cinegasmic.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: grand theft sparrow on December 21, 2007, 12:39:55 PM
How has no one made the comparison between the end and Little Bill's murder-suicide yet? 

Like I said in my initial reaction to the movie, I think that some of the laughter was simply out of pure joy of watching the performances.  I can't imagine why anyone would laugh HYSTERICALLY like Astrostic and JG's people there, but it's not just that it goes from hysterical to terrifying.  It's that, along the way, it's absolutely absurd.  As I recall, the shot of the bowling alley is one of the first shots inside Plainview's mansion, if not THE first.  And I think it was met with some laughter because it makes no sense showing it to us when, like Terry Gross said, we see nothing of anyone's pleasures; we don't know why we're seeing it until later.  So it makes sense to laugh in the final scene because it's an odd place for a scene like that to be staged and why it works so beautifully. 

But the absurdity of the placement, coupled with the fact that you're watching two great actors really working out on screen, and the fact that the characters they portray are so compelling, AND that it's the final showdown... well, I wouldn't write off everyone who laughed as inappropriate; I don't recall laughing during the end myself but I do recall being filled with such energy that I just wanted to scream in an astonished, "I can't believe what I'm seeing" way.  I bet some people laughed to relieve that same energy.



Quote from: Pubrick on December 21, 2007, 11:04:17 AM
i'm finished.

I'm hoping you saw the movie because otherwise this means that your dad and Matthew Fox's diction have sent you on a spoiling spree.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on December 21, 2007, 01:06:52 PM
by the way, my favorite line from daniel when he's making eli repeat that he's a false profit over and over:
"can't hear you, in the back."  i LMAOOL'd at that. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Sal on December 21, 2007, 05:02:26 PM
Quote from: noyes on December 20, 2007, 09:00:05 PM
i don't know if the whole scene was meant to be funny
but lines like "Those areas have been drilled", after Eli totally humiliates himself, were.
like Brad says, it's a weird dichotomy of humor and horror show.
and i guess people laughed because of the whole absurdity of it all.
i mostly just stayed quiet and took it all in.. i'm dying to see it all again.

the movie definitely took a complete left turn tone wise near the end.
but i think it was, like others have said, intentional.
everything is reversed from 1927 on, from Plainview's relationship with H.W. to Eli's complete role-reversal.
to say that the last 25 minutes of the film was slow, dragged on, didn't make sense, "jumped the shark" is totally missing the point.
and i still can't get over that Brahms inclusion. what a perfect piece of music to end a movie with.

The last scene was definitely a mix of humor and horror. It's my favorite from the movie. Interesting how people think it's poorly executed or the tone is uneven. When he throws the pins at Eli it might be what you'd see two kids doing on the playground. One is scared shitless of the other, etc. To me the last scene just builds and builds, I love it. I would like to see the movie again just for that scene.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on December 21, 2007, 11:51:47 PM
you're right sparrow, i was gonna point the little bill thing out.  maybe cos i listened to it recently, but pta points out in his boogie nights commentary that he was freaking out at the test screening cos everyone was cheering and having a good time during the murder scene. then macy shoots himself, and they shut the fuck up. 

its still a question of people not knowing how to react to some of pta's stuff.  he's clearly walking some strange line in his movies.  i still don't know if the laughing that went down at the theater that night was what pta would've wanted, but i think it says something about his writing. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cine on December 22, 2007, 12:10:44 AM
i think when theres a certain energy to the room.. an almost giddy energy.. one like we experienced in NYC.. people are going to react wildly to things when sitting at home they probably wouldn't do. it's just the atmosphere.. a lot of those scenes were more chilling than funny but a couple people start laughing and it's just contagious, a buncha PTA film nerds laughing nervously cause their idol will be in shortly, i don't know.

its funny because for me, i'm not religious.. so i'm essentially rooting for daniel because he's just running a business and he wants a monopoly on the oil, here's some jesus freak trying to brainwash him.. so anyway, it's interesting how i can take his side and laugh with him while he mocks him... and then you sit there kinda motionless when he bashes eli's skull with a solid wood bowling pin. so i think the Little Bill parallels are definitely there.. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on December 22, 2007, 01:09:32 AM
I think it's super annoying in general when people laugh at things, it's very distracting and can ruin your private moment.  but that is the risk you take everytime you go to a theater or a show or anything that involves having private experiences in a public setting, at its best it can be almost spiritual, at its worst it can be tainted.  however, if they're not heckling, if the audience is simply having a different reaction (as opposed to consciously trying to shit on everyone else's experience by bringing attention to themselves) and are not breaking any moral code (like laughing at a racist joke or clapping during a jingoistic speech) then unforunately it is completely within their rights to laugh outloud or whatever.  I personally hate it when they do, I've seen each Wes Anderson film four times (dunno why but that's always the number) in the theater, just to experience all of my favorite scenes without the guffaws at least once, but I don't retaliate against the ones that do ruin the scenes for me because they can't help it.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on December 22, 2007, 11:28:20 AM
i forgot about "I drink your milkshake".  how awesome was that?

has anybody here read Oil! and would like to fill me in on what was in the book and how much was Paul?  (or do i have to read it myself?)
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on December 22, 2007, 11:43:40 AM
can anyone remember when the greenwood score that plays at therewillbeblood.com is in this movie?  i know of at least one part at the end, but i can't remember what scene specifically. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: B.C. Long on December 22, 2007, 04:57:35 PM
Speaking of the ending...what Johannes Brahms song was that at the end?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: noyes on December 22, 2007, 05:34:08 PM
Quote from: B.C. Long on December 22, 2007, 04:57:35 PM
Speaking of the ending...what Johannes Brahms song was that at the end?

the third movement of his one and only Violin Concerto.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violin_Concerto_%28Brahms%29
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: md on December 22, 2007, 10:12:40 PM
What's interesting is that the ending was originally intercut with a long sequence of h dubya's marriage.  The scene works better without it imo.  "can't hear you, in the back" -- that is fucking classic. 

And on the question of is this PTA's best film to date...I'd say yes.  This one's going down for the ages.  As one blogger put it, this very well might be a perfect film.  On an unrelated note, is there anyone else who could fill the shoes of Daniel Plainview.  My friends and I were joking on the ride home that Bill Murray would be an incredible casting choice. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on December 23, 2007, 05:31:46 PM
how do you know the ending was originally intercut with that?   i havent read the script yet, but i wonder if it made it that way into the film if so.

also: does anyone have that brahms score they wouldnt mind uploading to mediafire or something?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on December 23, 2007, 07:02:36 PM
Quote from: modage on December 23, 2007, 05:31:46 PM
how do you know the ending was originally intercut with that?   i havent read the script yet, but i wonder if it made it that way into the film if so.

i think he was talking about the script cuz that's the way the ending was there.  better that it was excluded. 

i wish some more from the opening sequence of the script made it in like where his mule drops dead, BOTH his ankles snap from the fall, the cart tips over from the weight of the silver and his canteen has spilt out all its water (this wouldve gotten a great reaction - he finally makes it out of the mine shaft with both broken ankles and in horrible pain only to find another obstacle), and finally how he's forced to push the cart w/his upper body and then drag himself to catch up over and over.

wonder if he shot that or why he chose not to or why he cut it.

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: md on December 23, 2007, 07:21:56 PM
I'm assuming they didn't even shoot the original opening; the dry erase board had "dead mule" erased -- probably too graphic and logistical/PETA nightmares.  Also, Plainview kills Henry in a different way and there is a scene where he is tipped off by a Chinese servant who tells him that Henry might not be who he really is. 

Brahms would be nice:  http://youtube.com/watch?v=rIE2sX2dY4Q&feature=related
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: matt35mm on December 28, 2007, 01:10:57 PM
So I saw this at the Arclight yesterday (and I walked past a guy who looked a lot like Joe Wright).  It affected me, but I don't know how, yet.  It is an incredibly strange and haunting movie... one that I'll have to see several more times.

I feel like I won't really ever want to talk about the movie, but rather just let it live in my head.  I'm happy about that because I would have been disappointed if I could have given a simple yay or nay while walking out of the theater.  Right now I'm left with having to digest something new, which is what I was hoping to be able to do.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Ghostboy on December 30, 2007, 04:15:35 AM
Man, that last scene was amazing. The movie is an unwieldy monster that I think is brilliant and flawed, but it all crystallizes into perfect focus once we hit 1927. And I love that it galvanizes people so much - it's what's going to make the movie stick, more than anything else.

To answer Modage's question about the book and what made it to the screen:

1. The scene(s) where the father (named Arnold Ross) confronts the townsfolk in a hot house is how the book begins. Pretty much the same.

2. They go quail hunting as a subterfuge to check out the Sunday farm.

3. Eli is pretty much the only character who remains the same from the novel. He even makes the same transformation in the book, from crazed zealot to Hollywood sell-out.

4. Other than that, though, this is all new. There isn't a trace of Plainview in the novel. The dad in the book is a congenial old money type, a gentle loving capitalist. Not a trace of Plainview, really. The son (named Bunny) is really the main character, and the story is told through his eyes. He doesn't go deaf. The brother Paul is a much bigger character than this, and the major crux of the book is the Bunny's crux between the old fashioned capitalism his father's instilled in him and his growing admiration for Paul's socialism and the Bolshevik uprising. The religious aspect is more background coloring - Sinclair definitely paints a negative portrait of organized religion, strongly insinuating that it's an even more duplicitious industry than the oil business, but it doesn't affect the plot that much.

Now I need to read the script.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 01, 2008, 07:27:58 PM
Is Impotence Daniel Plainview's Problem?
Source: Cinematical

***SPOILERS FOR THE SCRIPT -- READ AT OWN RISK***


A number of people who've seen There Will Be Blood have commented on the fact that women don't seem to figure into lead character Daniel Plainview's life at all. As one commenter on David Poland's blog recently put it, "There's never a single woman in sight of him. Not when he becomes successful. Not even when he's older. Not even whores. There's no explicit point of this made, so much as it's just de facto." This is part of the commenter's argument that Plainview is a repressed homosexual. Another commenter pegs Plainview as simply a-sexual, noting that "his only love and appetite was for more money as a means to an end." But is that really what's going on? I recently sat down and read the script for There Will Be Blood and noticed something that I don't remember being included at all in the film. Since it's only one line I could have just missed it, but I don't think I did, and if I'm right it might go a long way towards explaining things.

On page 80 of the script, Daniel and Henry (a drifter who may be his brother) are sitting in a mess hall drinking and talking and Daniel tells Henry that H.W., who he's been passing off as his son, is "not even my son." "What do you mean?" Henry asks. At this point, the script says that 'Daniel begins to break down, holds his crotch' and then says to Henry "He's not my son. My cock doesn't even work. How am I gonna make a kid? Does yours work Henry?" So that kind of sheds a new light on things, doesn't it? His half-hearted attempts at finding male companions -- his adopted son and Henry, in addition to his manservant -- are his only option, really.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cine on January 01, 2008, 09:42:34 PM
jesus now we have SCRIPT spoiler warnings in the FILM spoiler thread? come on....
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on January 02, 2008, 12:48:25 AM
Quote from: Lucid on January 01, 2008, 09:26:22 PMSo I guess this is when we start discussing the significance of all the phallic symbolism that drilling for oil dredges up.  It's bigger than Boogie Nights, that's for sure.

Jesus Christ, that casts a whole new meaning behind my avatar too.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on January 02, 2008, 01:53:43 AM
no wonder I keep whacking off to it.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on January 02, 2008, 01:45:25 PM
In the Onion AV Club interview, there is a question where they ask him if he's happy at peolpe laughing at the end and he says he is even though it's not really a funny Part. Is that cool? Is it like when Barry beats up the restroom in PDL and people are laughing hysterically because they think they're supposed to? Or is it a genuinely funny scene?

PTA may be the kind of making audiences feel unfomfortable. Seeing PDL in the theater was AWFUL because people would laugh at everything because they felt like since Sandler was in it, it was supposed to be funny. It's like audiences only think it's funny if they're told it's funny. Reminds me of something someone said here once where if it's a comedy it's "fucking funny" because people can't distinguish between good funny and bad funny. Everything to them is just "fucking funny"
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: elpablo on January 02, 2008, 04:19:31 PM
I was really surprised to read that he didn't mean for it to be funny, because while I was watching that scene there was no doubt in my mind that it was supposed to be funny. Part of it is pure slapstick. People here were talking about how the slapstick gives way to horror and that complete 180 degree turn was great, so it's weird that he claims it was an accident.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on January 02, 2008, 04:29:38 PM
That's the weirdest thing I've ever heard. So the ending is actually funny? What makes it funny?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 02, 2008, 05:09:09 PM
DDL's performance and the way he taunts Dano is amazing.  a few lines of dialogue in particular get a solidly uncomfortable laugh.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on January 02, 2008, 09:28:46 PM
ah yes, the ***SPOILER FROM THE SCRIPT -- SWIPE AT OWN RISK*** impotence scene.. another one from the script that i think shouldve been left in.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 02, 2008, 10:07:53 PM
i havent read the script yet but the page on its own seems like its from another film, Boogie Nights maybe?, and definitely would be way too on-the-nose about simplifying WHY daniel is the way he is.  its much more ambiguous/mysterious that there are no women in the film without it. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: hedwig on January 02, 2008, 10:13:40 PM
agreed with mod. the cock exchange wasn't included in the movie so i wouldn't make too big a deal out of it. there's no denying the masculinity/represson aspect even if you never knew about that scene.

the absence of women from the movie is indeed a glaring omission. i remember at least two vague references to daniel's female relations: during the beach scene he and henry talk about getting liquored up and bringing some women to the peachtree dance, and eli accuses daniel of lusting after women during the baptism scene. one of his bad habits as a backslider.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on January 02, 2008, 11:21:52 PM
i like it and when reading it in the script thought of how well it fit.  a drunken plainview rEvealing for the first time to someone that it aint his kid and how he couldnt even make a kid for said reasons.  i dont think it's too on-da-nose or,, whatever.  i hope it makes dltd scns.

p.s. this is a drunken pozerview.   
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on January 03, 2008, 12:46:16 AM
its better left ambiguous. that way the second to last scene takes on more meaning cos its unclear whether or not plainview is trying to make h.w. feel bad or if its actually true.

articles like that are another reason why i don't like people prying into the process. things like that and the whole paul/eli recasting issue shouldn't matter to the audience - the final product should. same with going to the source material for 'answers.'

hedwig, when did u see the movie? one of the midnite showings? did you love love love it?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cine on January 03, 2008, 01:01:02 AM
Quote from: JG on January 03, 2008, 12:46:16 AM
its better left ambiguous. that way the second to last scene takes on more meaning cos its unclear whether or not plainview is trying to make h.w. feel bad or if its actually true.

what? dude, if you weren't always sitting front row, you'd have noticed in like the first 10 mins of the movie that HW was clearly not his son.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on January 03, 2008, 01:20:49 AM
really, its made explicit in the movie? how?

my post was inspired by the fact that my friend asked that very question and i didn't feel right giving him an answer i had read in an article earlier that day. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cine on January 03, 2008, 01:28:14 AM
the baby's dad is the first death of the film. the very next scene Daniel is staring down the baby who is CLEARLY all alone now. and he's crying.. and Daniel takes care of him.

.. honestly, i almost think you're joking that you didn't notice that.. but AGAIN.. i was dumbfounded in the first place that you sat ALL the way at the front... apparently both times you saw it  :yabbse-undecided:

if only samsong stole mod or sparrow's seat too, you could've seen this a lot sooner.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: hedwig on January 03, 2008, 01:32:43 AM
Quote from: JG on January 03, 2008, 01:20:49 AMmy post was inspired by the fact that my friend asked that very question and i didn't feel right giving him an answer i had read in an article earlier that day. 
i get the feeling this "friend" is you. (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Feyeroll.gif&hash=1502b8a47e50cf2c4f15d8dbf178cf64e8a3d8a7)
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on January 03, 2008, 01:41:34 AM
that's silly of me, but i don't think its totally inexcusable, nor do i think it really changes the movie for me anyway. heck, i'm willing to bet others missed that too (please tell me others missed that too).. 

i knew h.w. was in another dude's hands at first, but i don't think i made the connection that that was the guy who died first.

but thanks!

and no hedwig, i swear.. his name is jon and he has brown hair and he's very nice.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cine on January 03, 2008, 01:55:07 AM
you are a riot, man...
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: hedwig on January 03, 2008, 02:06:29 AM
Quote from: JG on January 03, 2008, 01:41:34 AM
(please tell me others missed that too)

"jon" missed it. (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi11.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa175%2FLeven321%2Feyeroll.gif&hash=1502b8a47e50cf2c4f15d8dbf178cf64e8a3d8a7)
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on January 03, 2008, 02:10:55 AM
I missed it.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: elpablo on January 03, 2008, 02:34:31 AM
I actually did miss it too. And when my friend explained it to me afterwards, I felt incredibly stupid. I blamed it on the fact that I had watched the trailer so much that I was absolutely convinced that HW was Daniel's son and partner. I think I may have actually thought during the opening "Why is that man always holding Daniel's son??" I'm really stupid.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cine on January 03, 2008, 03:33:19 AM
Quote from: elpablo on January 03, 2008, 02:34:31 AM
I blamed it on the fact that I had watched the trailer so much that I was absolutely convinced that HW was Daniel's son and partner.
yeah you must've also thought that eli sunday was actually a healer and a vessel for the holy spirit, eh..

not to mention that Daniel really ran a family business. he wasn't in it for himself or anything..



somebody back me up here, i can't keep doing this on my own... with these...... people....  :yabbse-undecided:
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on January 03, 2008, 11:47:03 AM
Quote from: Cinephile on January 03, 2008, 03:33:19 AM
Quote from: elpablo on January 03, 2008, 02:34:31 AM
I blamed it on the fact that I had watched the trailer so much that I was absolutely convinced that HW was Daniel's son and partner.
yeah you must've also thought that eli sunday was actually a healer and a vessel for the holy spirit, eh..

not to mention that Daniel really ran a family business. he wasn't in it for himself or anything..



somebody back me up here, i can't keep doing this on my own... with these...... people....  :yabbse-undecided:

don't BULLY us cinephile.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on January 03, 2008, 01:39:48 PM
If even PTA fans aren't getting this movie, imagine how mainstream America is going to accept it.

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cine on January 04, 2008, 04:30:16 PM
so watching it again now, my favourite scene hands down is the baptism.

and i've officially made this my favourite PTA film too.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 04, 2008, 08:21:16 PM
WARNING: FIERY GUSHING SPOILERS

(If you haven't figured that out before arriving at this thread, you probably deserve to be spoiled.)

I haven't read any reviews or reactions to this movie, so this is going to be straight from my brain. I'll do the reading after I post.

This was quite a bit different than my PDL experience, because I tried religiously to stay spoiler-free. I wanted an experience similar to that of Magnolia, which I saw cold. Going into this movie, I knew just a few things—that it's about oil and religion, that DDL stars (I thought he was the religious man and not the prospector, though, because of the poster), that DDL's character has some kind of rivalry with Paul Dano's character and that it was so intense that the first actor had to be replaced (where did I read that?), that there's a train, that the kid lights a match (thanks modage for the spoilatar), that Jonny Greenwood scored the film, and that the ending was remarkable in some way because people were discussing it here in the spoiler forum.

One effect of not knowing what to expect is that you're surprised. You can stay spoiler-free all you want, but you'll still have preconceptions, and the movie won't match them. It occurred to me for a moment after the movie that it might have been better to get spoiled a little to avoid that surprise, but I don't think I agree with that. It's a very honest movie that doesn't pretend to be anything it's not, and I accept it on those grounds. I was still surprised, though, that it lacked so many of PTA's signatures—his dialogue, his composition, his whip-pans, and even the editing. This was refreshing but at the same time frightening. We were navigating uncharted waters. I'm assuming that PTA wanted to get his eccentricities out of the way and let DDL take things over. I think it worked. And I think when I watch the movie again, I'll see PTA where I didn't know he was.

In the end, I really do love the movie... for all the obvious reasons. I'm not going to waste space gushing about it, though.

Let's try to put some pieces together. I'm sure you all have been doing this, and I'll go back and read it, but I'd like to give it a shot first.

On the surface, it's just a good story about greed, revenge, estrangement, betrayal, etc. And you have the typical PTA fatherhood issues being worked out with the bonus brotherhood element. But there's obviously a lot more.

First issue. Authenticity. DDL's character has the not-so-subtle name Plainview. While he is deceptive at times, he rather quickly reveals himself. The quail-hunting story rapidly unravels, and he comes right out and makes it clear that he's interested in oil. He parks HW on the train, but the trick is revealed right away. When he gets baptized to build the pipeline, he makes it very clear (verbally, even) that he's just trying to get through it so he can leave. I was completely expecting him to hide the body after that first accident and cover things up, but no, it's entirely public. Plainview is not very good at lying. In fact, he didn't even bother to construct a cover story about HW's mother, even after being repeatedly asked about it. Instead of lying about that, he just gets silent or uber-defensive, once again revealing himself. He is what he is—an oil man who wants to buy land, extract oil, and make enough money to get away from people (as he says).

In that bit of stark exposition to his false brother, he makes himself very clear:

"Are you an angry man? Are you envious? Do you get envious? I have a competition in me; I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people. There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I've built up my hatreds over the years little by little. <---Doesn't he say that to HW in their last scene together? I see the worst in people. I don't need to look past seeing them to get all I need. I want to earn enough money I can get away from everyone. I can't keep doing this on my own, with these... people." (Apparently that's from the trailer.)

Note his honesty, but also think about what it is, exactly, that he hates. He seems to hate two kinds of people—successful people and inauthentic people. I'm going to focus on the latter, because I think that's where the story is.

Remember the three murders—that of the false brother, HW, and Eli Sunday. (For my purposes, I'm calling the "you're not my son" revelation a murder.) (1) When he confronts the false brother and extracts the confession, he's not at all interested in the "we can still be friends" business. He wouldn't be able to live with that kind of fraudulence. (2) When HW goes deaf and gets a little weird, he is more of a distraction than an asset, an awkward and obstructive piece of inauthenticity that Plainview could do without. He brings HW back to him, though, suspecting that he can find a new use for him and justify the deception. But as soon as it's clear that HW is separating, becoming a competitor on top of his existence as a fraud (the two things Plainview doesn't tolerate), it's time to expose the inauthenticity and destroy it. Plainview is also clearly bothered that HW uses sign-language, communicating to him indirectly through a translator instead of speaking (which he forces him to do). (3) In that last scene, Plainview gets Eli Sunday to fully repent (which is sort of a good deed in itself, religiously speaking), once again exposing the fraudulence and completely (completely) destroying it. Plainview has this need to bring things into plain view, as it were—to expose inauthenticity and destroy its host. This—not drilling for oil—is his real job, what the movie is really about, and the final line, "I'm finished," tells us that his work is done.

That last scene really fascinates me, beyond the power of the performances. Plainview, from the beginning of the film, had a fake manner of speaking, an unconvincing professionalistic tone that extended through all areas of his conduct, even to his private moments with HW. This is a working-class guy who is suddenly a big-shot. It's almost understandable. Eli at the beginning has a pretty naturalistic manner of speaking. These things change. As Plainview unravels, his voice is more expressive, peaking in the final scene. As Eli becomes an entrepreneur himself, his speech becomes increasingly fake and professionalistic, which also peaks in the final scene. Full circle.

A little piece of mystery. Eli's church is called "The Church of the Third Revelation." Is this a reference to the three murders? The three phases of Eli's priesthood? Or is this a concrete biblical reference? I'm also interested to know if people have found any relevant biblical references in the film. Maybe not on the Exodus 8:2 level, but something like it. "Paul was the real brother" could be significant. Plainview says this in the final scene. I think he also says "this is the real church" (referring to his personal bowling alley). Does anyone have a better memory? Thoughts?

This may be a bit obvious: the corrupting power of oil. After the initial discovery, Plainview baptizes HW with oil. He also baptizes Eli in oil (post-referenced rather geniously by Plainview's church baptism). I'm not sure if the false brother had any similar obvious contact with oil prior to his death (help me out), but I do know that he was buried in oil-rich dirt.

One last note about Eli. He really is a less and less sympathetic character the more you think about him. I thought he'd turn out to be a "champion of the people" figure, defending the community's natural resources. Not at all. He wanted oil money to build his church. And then in the final scene, he was willing to entirely sell himself out and his neighbor to get more oil money for his ministry. What a punk.

Some final tidbits.

Initials for first names (HW) have been used throughout literature to denote inauthenticity or fraudulence. Take J. Alfred Prufrock (http://www.bartleby.com/198/1.html), for example.

Plainview and Eli are mirrors of each other. Other than the obvious stuff I've covered (their opposing characteristics), they both have estranged brothers.

The hills at the beginning with the Greenwood music seemed like an homage to 2001's monoliths. That must mean something.

What does the bowling alley represent? Success, probably. It's a manifestation of excess (we don't see anyone bowling, per se) and a reflection of Plainview's wealth. It's also where Eli meets his end, i.e. he pursued greed/success too far, got too close, succumbed to it, etc.

So that's it. Please correct me if you see something obvious, and help me answer some of these questions (if you haven't already).
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Ghostboy on January 04, 2008, 08:36:22 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 04, 2008, 08:21:16 PM
A little piece of mystery. Eli's church is called "The Church of the Third Revelation." Is this a reference to the three murders? The three phases of Eli's priesthood? Or is this a concrete biblical reference?

There's dialogue from the script that isn't in the movie (and which I believe is pulled directly from the novel, if I remember correctly) in which Plainview tells Eli that he recalls two revelations in the bible, and asks Eli what the third is. "I am," Eli says.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 04, 2008, 08:45:03 PM
Fuck, JB is back to reviewing movies. My agnostic prayers have been answered. I can't wait to see this film so I can have at that review. It looks good.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: hedwig on January 04, 2008, 11:40:07 PM
fucking fantastic review JB. i love what you've written about the idea of authenticity and how it drives so much of this film. it goes a long way in explaining why daniel, in spite of all his loathsome qualities, is still a sort of sympathetic character. he is certainly more sympathetic than eli, who explicitly embodies the phoniness that fills daniel with so much contempt.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 04, 2008, 08:21:16 PM
(2) When HW goes deaf and gets a little weird, he is more of a distraction than an asset, an awkward and obstructive piece of inauthenticity that Plainview could do without. He brings HW back to him, though, suspecting that he can find a new use for him and justify the deception. But as soon as it's clear that HW is separating, becoming a competitor on top of his existence as a fraud (the two things Plainview doesn't tolerate), it's time to expose the inauthenticity and destroy it. Plainview is also clearly bothered that HW uses sign-language, communicating to him indirectly through a translator instead of speaking (which he forces him to do).

he's really destroying his own inauthenticity here. that's why he is the one who ultimately suffers from this confession. HW had no idea he was a fraud. it was daniel's lie, and the revelation sends HW off into the world to operate with freedom from daniel's tyranny, and pushes daniel even deeper into his own madness. he hates people for their inauthenticity and tries to avoid it but he fails, and hates himself even moreso.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 04, 2008, 08:21:16 PM
Initials for first names (HW) have been used throughout literature to denote inauthenticity or fraudulence. Take J. Alfred Prufrock (http://www.bartleby.com/198/1.html), for example.
ah, so THAT'S why paul dropped the PT Anderson moniker for this film. :ponder:
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 05, 2008, 02:23:29 AM
Quote from: Hedwig on January 04, 2008, 11:40:07 PMhe's really destroying his own inauthenticity here. that's why he is the one who ultimately suffers from this confession. HW had no idea he was a fraud. it was daniel's lie, and the revelation sends HW off into the world to operate with freedom from daniel's tyranny, and pushes daniel even deeper into his own madness. he hates people for their inauthenticity and tries to avoid it but he fails, and hates himself even moreso.

Hmm... good call. HW the device is destroyed, but HW the person is freed? I guess that's what makes that "murder" different from the others, it has a positive effect on the victim. (That would be even more true if we're going by the script, which, as someone said, has the wedding at the end.)

But here's the thing. Is it really a descent into madness? He's still using the same logic he's used throughout the film. Does Plainview do anything irrational or inconsistent at the end, outside of his incredible drunkenness?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: hedwig on January 05, 2008, 04:05:53 AM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 05, 2008, 02:23:29 AM
But here's the thing. Is it really a descent into madness? He's still using the same logic he's used throughout the film. Does Plainview do anything irrational or inconsistent at the end, outside of his incredible drunkenness?

good point. unless you consider his actions right from the beginning to be indicative of insanity, it isn't a descent into madness so much as it's a descent into hatred. the eli murder follows the same logic as the henry murder, they're manifestations of daniel's need to destroy and punish inauthenticity.

HW's fraudulent existence eats away at him until finally he is pushed over the edge. daniel tells HW that he only used him as a business tool, but we know it's not as simple as that. the baptism scene (one of the most crucial moments in the film for many reasons) reveals that he sincerely regrets abandoning his child. we see his emotional attachment when he is reunited with him. this is an incredibly complex character but when it all backfires, daniel's sense of competition and his hatred for people outweigh everything else. and so when he learns that his own device of inauthenticity has come back to bite him in the ass, he confesses. he is an emotionally shattered man in the last scene because he has confronted his OWN deceitfulness. his actions--the taunting, the fury, the murder--are consistent with everything we've learned about daniel up to that point but at a higher intensity.

this post was written to the third movement of Brahms' Violin Concerto.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: noyes on January 05, 2008, 10:43:00 AM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 04, 2008, 08:21:16 PMAfter the initial discovery, Plainview baptizes HW with oil.

Some have missed it, because it's almost meant to be subtle, but that wasn't Plainview holding baby HW: that was his father. His real father.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 04, 2008, 08:21:16 PM
Remember the three murders—that of the false brother, HW, and Eli Sunday. (For my purposes, I'm calling the "you're not my son" revelation a murder.) (1) When he confronts the false brother and extracts the confession, he's not at all interested in the "we can still be friends" business. He wouldn't be able to live with that kind of fraudulence. (2) When HW goes deaf and gets a little weird, he is more of a distraction than an asset, an awkward and obstructive piece of inauthenticity that Plainview could do without. He brings HW back to him, though, suspecting that he can find a new use for him and justify the deception. But as soon as it's clear that HW is separating, becoming a competitor on top of his existence as a fraud (the two things Plainview doesn't tolerate), it's time to expose the inauthenticity and destroy it. Plainview is also clearly bothered that HW uses sign-language, communicating to him indirectly through a translator instead of speaking (which he forces him to do). (3) In that last scene, Plainview gets Eli Sunday to fully repent (which is sort of a good deed in itself, religiously speaking), once again exposing the fraudulence and completely (completely) destroying it. Plainview has this need to bring things into plain view, as it were—to expose inauthenticity and destroy its host. This—not drilling for oil—is his real job, what the movie is really about, and the final line, "I'm finished," tells us that his work is done.

very well put.
similarly, in essense, i related the "1927 and on" part of the film
and how it works regardless of the contrast to the first 3 halves of the film
to the "recapitulation" in the Sonata form in music.
the way the tables turn on just about every established idea of what everything was and who everyone was.

great review overall and props on that particular paragraph JB.
way to break shit down to the bitter bone.  :yabbse-thumbup:
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Reinhold on January 05, 2008, 12:01:35 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 04, 2008, 08:21:16 PM
What does the bowling alley represent? Success, probably. It's a manifestation of excess (we don't see anyone bowling, per se) and a reflection of Plainview's wealth. It's also where Eli meets his end, i.e. he pursued greed/success too far, got too close, succumbed to it, etc.


Note the use of a lot of polished wood tones in the bowling alley. To me, it evoked all the raw wood of the oil drilling sites transformed by Plainview's wealth. The space also provided the rich man's gutter in which Plainview was drunkenly resting.

Though we didn't see anyone actually bowling as you point out, I like it as an end location for a couple of other reasons. For example, I think the spatial politics of the game itself resonate with plainview-- the distance between the two ends of the lane (note that he was lying miserably in the middle), with calculation on one end and explosion of force on the other.  Additionally, I think that the bowling alley would have really appealed to PTA because it's one of the old manual ones, meaning that between turns one would have had to arrange all of the pins by hand before being able to knock them down in the next frame.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on January 05, 2008, 12:12:27 PM
JB: according to some theologians, there are three revelations that have been described in the Bible.  The first one is the law of god, ie. the Ten Commandments.  the second one was god in the flesh, ie. Jesus Christ.  The third one was the spirit of god, which communicates with the people through science and whatever everyday occurences.  In the mid 1800s there was a movement that celebrates the "Third Revelation" that started in France, called Spiritism.  It was founded by a French guy named Allan Kardec who claimed to be a codifier of god.  Spiritism and spiritualism began in Europe in the early 1800s, they celebrate I think, any spiritual point of view that opposes materialism.  that's history of the third revelation in the recent years, I dunno if that helps you or not.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 05, 2008, 02:48:00 PM
Fascinating stuff.

I first thought "the church of the third revelation" referenced the three key revelations (and corresponding murders) in the film, the third of which is in fact Eli. Maybe there's still something to that.

I guess I'm abandoning the "victims being baptized in oil" theory, because I'm not sure that it adds up, firstly because (as you corrected) Plainview didn't perform the first baptism. And now that I think of it, Eli did pass an oil pool on his way to the confrontation, but it was mostly mud that he was "baptised" in, and PTA talks about it as just "mud" in his Fresh Air interview. I don't know, was it oily mud? Is that connection a stretch?

Reinhold, that is some great insight about the bowling alley. I wonder if PTA or DDL were aware of all that (certainly the gutter bit). This could be a situation where the art has meaning beyond its creators' intentions.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on January 05, 2008, 03:30:39 PM
I'm gonna stay away, hopefully entirely away, from symbols and allegories in the following writing. 

to me it seems like the film is always almost solely focused on its fascination with the character of Plainview.  It wanted to know just how much humanity did he contain.  In my first review in this thread I said it was a film with no character development but only character revelation, I would like to take that back now.  I don't think he could've killed Eli in the beginning of the film.  He was capable of it, but some tiny part of him was convinced that he could be civil; that he could have a heart.  Then he just kept on getting betrayed, bit by bit.  He took the son's lost of hearing as some form of betrayal, and it irked him that he couldn't figure out how to work it out - because he knew it wasn't the kid's fault but he somehow also knew that he didn't have to be as nice to him as he did before.  He indulged in the distance.  Then the false brother came and went and showed a real betrayal, that was when he realized he was incredibly wrong about HW. 

Eli was someone he'd always despised.  Eli was always meant to be a poorman's Plainview.  The kid was clueless, and Plainview saw through him from the get-go.  However, Plainview realized that he couldn't just swat Eli away, and Eli turned out to be a bit fiercer and elastic than Plainview first surmised.  It just didn't make sense of Plainview, which made him even angrier.  Eli was supposed to be easily coaxable, like the rest of his family.  But instead Eli just had enough of Plainview in him to fuck things up, but not enough to garner any type of respect or attention.  This complexity infuriated Plainview, as did most complicated feelings did to him in this film.

Fast forward to the end, to Plainview's total loss of humanity.  It reminded me a bit of the Alan Partridge episodes.  Alan didn't like most people and was very bad at hiding it.  Therefore he savored anything gesture that came off as a sign of animosity, 'cause then he could indulge in opposition and deliver a hilarious monologue.  It felt like it was the same way with Plainview.  He had suspicions about HW, though they made no logical sense.  He knew the kid wasn't like him and he couldn't figure why he wouldn't like the kid.  Then when HW broke the news, it gave him what he was yearning for all these years.  He savored the animosity.  He felt like he'd been vindicated and he was right all along. 

But the film was still unsure, perhaps he had a little more left in him, perhaps he was just hurt by HW's news in his drunken state and said words he didn't mean.  The film therefore provided Eli.  Eli became even more detestable with his slightly serious wealth and even more weaselly techniques.  Plainview realized the boy was ripe for murder after all.  Eli's mild success and sleaze had uncomplicated Plainview's view of him.  With that he relinquished the last bit of humanity and completely immersed in his transformation.  Eli died and Plainview was a total beast.  By then the film had answered its own question, a savage without any trace of heart just wasn't very fascinating, therefore, it had to end.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 05, 2008, 05:44:22 PM
Quote from: pete on January 05, 2008, 03:30:39 PMHe had suspicions about HW, though they made no logical sense.  He knew the kid wasn't like him and he couldn't figure why he wouldn't like the kid.  Then when HW broke the news, it gave him what he was yearning for all these years.  He savored the animosity.  He felt like he'd been vindicated and he was right all along.

Ding ding ding!

Quote from: pete on January 05, 2008, 03:30:39 PMto me it seems like the film is always almost solely focused on its fascination with the character of Plainview.  It wanted to know just how much humanity did he contain.

Absolutely, and I'm still trying to figure that out. At the beginning, for example, before the deafness, to what extent did he love or value HW as a son, not just a marketing device? I'm not entirely convinced that the baptism revealed Plainview's true feelings.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 05, 2008, 06:57:43 PM
I might as well weigh in on the twin brother controversy. I knew something was off when Paul was introduced, because I was expecting the name Eli. I figured there was a 50/50 chance this was Eli pretending to be someone else. When Plainview and HW met Eli, I think that possibility was mostly eliminated. Eli (besides looking as though he really was meeting the pair for the first time) was clean-cut, extremely polite, and had this holier-than-thou grin on his face, whereas Paul was more abrasive and crude with his "don't insult my intelligence" attitude. I didn't specifically notice the hair difference, but I'm sure I did subconsciously. Everything Eli said at that dinner table, and the way he talked about oil, suggested that he was not Paul. There just wasn't a motive that would have made sense. Still, I kept it in the back of my mind as a possibility until the "beating up the old man" scene, which made things pretty clear. But I also have to admit that it was still there (residually) until the final scene.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: B.C. Long on January 05, 2008, 07:07:41 PM
My EX-girlfriend thought he (Eli) had a split-personality. But I don't think we can take her opinion seriously, because she also said things like "I loved the way Daniel dresses. He looks great in skinny pants." and "I really liked the soundtrack but why did they have to use music from LOST?"

"What do you mean "music from lost"?

"I mean the whole build-up scary thing. That's ripped off from LOST."

"................."

I think this is why we're no longer together.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 06, 2008, 02:29:07 AM
saw this a third time tonite.  it was better than the 2nd time.  a few thoughts...

above all, this is a story about fathers and sons.

vincent froio was the right hand man in the 1927 scene when daniel tells HW that his right hand man hears everything. there are actually 2 men in the room, the butler and froio. 

daniels eyes seem to really GLOW blue in the 1927 scenes.

al rose is thanked by daniel for the refreshments at the derrick unveliing ceremony.  alrose promotions put the initial Blood teaser on youtube.  i think al rose might have been the guy who evaluates the lands value.  "why don't i own this".  that could've been ricky jay if paul had wanted to stay with his company.

daniels descent seems to begin when HW goes deaf.  and certainly when he is sent away.  before this time he does not do anything too crazy.  he may hate people but he is still pretty good at concealing it and operating his business.  after HW goes away his bad behavior seems to come out full force.  he no longer has any way to communicate with him.  and the betrayal of his fake brother only sends him further away.  he tries to open up and finds himself being fooled by an imposter.  even when HW comes back things will never quite be the same.  HW maybe wont entirely forgive him for sending him away and daniel himself may have already gone too far.  but i know that he DOES love HW.  i wasnt sure on first viewing if he did or not.  but his speech at the end is a result of alcohol and a sense of betrayal. 

is that water or vodka that daniel chugs in the final scene?

my friend had a theory that when daniel is asleep on the floor at the end that he actually dies and the final confrontation with eli is all in his mind.  as wish fulfillment for  what the person he would want to see and final wish he'd like to carry out.  this is a pretty out there theory, but interesting nonetheless.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on January 06, 2008, 03:34:02 AM
Quote from: modage on January 06, 2008, 02:29:07 AM
above all, this is a story about fathers and sons.

As are all of PT's films so far (including PDL, which was a story about a son in the complete absence of a father).  I finally got to see this tonight, and it's still swimming around in my brain, but one of the things that struck me hardest about Plainview was the way that his entire humanity was reduced to his... respect, I suppose, or perhaps reverence... for family, or at least the concept of family.  He's a man who hates everyone, yet takes in an orphaned child as his own, and completely opens himself up to a man whom he believes to be his brother.  When he first starts drilling in Little Boston, part of his speech is about how important it is for the men working there to have their families with them, and while it's tempting to write that off as more pandering, I'm inclined to believe it's the one part of his sales pitch that he truly means.

I know that JB questions how much he actually means what he says in the baptism scene, but I'm inclined to think that he means it wholeheartedly.  When he brings H.W. back, he has a line of dialogue along the lines of, "It does me good to have you here."  He says it so sincerely and so happily, in marked contrast to his typical demeanor, I find it impossible not to believe it.  And when H.W. eventually "betrays" him, thereby severing whatever tenuous connection to a family that Plainview ever had, he loses it completely.  He has nothing left to lose, which ends up boding quite poorly for Eli, a man who had a family, but violently and intentionally dismissed them.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on January 06, 2008, 02:40:53 PM
Quote from: modage on January 06, 2008, 02:29:07 AM
is that water or vodka that daniel chugs in the final scene?

It was almost certainly vodka.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 05, 2008, 06:57:43 PM
I might as well weigh in on the twin brother controversy. I knew something was off when Paul was introduced, because I was expecting the name Eli. I figured there was a 50/50 chance this was Eli pretending to be someone else. When Plainview and HW met Eli, I think that possibility was mostly eliminated. Eli (besides looking as though he really was meeting the pair for the first time) was clean-cut, extremely polite, and had this holier-than-thou grin on his face, whereas Paul was more abrasive and crude with his "don't insult my intelligence" attitude. I didn't specifically notice the hair difference, but I'm sure I did subconsciously. Everything Eli said at that dinner table, and the way he talked about oil, suggested that he was not Paul. There just wasn't a motive that would have made sense. Still, I kept it in the back of my mind as a possibility until the "beating up the old man" scene, which made things pretty clear. But I also have to admit that it was still there (residually) until the final scene.

I'm actually really surprised that there is any controversy regarding the brothers.  The movie made it explicitly clear throughout that they were two separate people.  The only moment of confusion is when Eli first appears, but that's alleviated the moment he introduces himself.  The only way it could have been made clearer would have been in Paul had reappeared at some point in the story, but that would have been needless.  And, as JB points out, Paul Dano gave very different performances for each brother.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on January 06, 2008, 03:12:19 PM
I have a really good buddy who also thinks it's split-personality.  I went along for like a minute before I realized, hey, split-personality is nothing like that!  split personality is not just "hi I'm Eli, hi I'm Paul".  That's like TV copshow split personality.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 06, 2008, 03:17:48 PM
paul has confirmed its two brothers.  and he liked the whole accidental Cain Abel thing with them being twins.

one thing i didn't understand was: when eli says to daniel that he has lusted after women.  is he just making that up?  or is it possible that has happened?

i love the music when the film transitions from young HW to getting married HW and the cut after Mary jumps off the porch.  it's the best.

also its funny at the end when eli offers daniel a drink but comes back with 3 glasses.  was the third for himself?  or did he expect daniel to take 2?  either way, he's holding the 3 glasses hilariously. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cine on January 06, 2008, 03:54:49 PM
Quote from: modage on January 06, 2008, 03:17:48 PM
also its funny at the end when eli offers daniel a drink but comes back with 3 glasses.  was the third for himself?  or did he expect daniel to take 2?  either way, he's holding the 3 glasses hilariously. 
i'm pretty sure eli had two but i could be wrong on that..
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on January 06, 2008, 04:20:41 PM
Quote from: Cinephile on January 06, 2008, 03:54:49 PM
Quote from: modage on January 06, 2008, 03:17:48 PM
also its funny at the end when eli offers daniel a drink but comes back with 3 glasses.  was the third for himself?  or did he expect daniel to take 2?  either way, he's holding the 3 glasses hilariously. 
i'm pretty sure eli had two but i could be wrong on that..

I noticed three glasses, too.  I think they were all intended for Daniel.

Quote from: modage on January 06, 2008, 03:17:48 PM
one thing i didn't understand was: when eli says to daniel that he has lusted after women.  is he just making that up?  or is it possible that has happened?

Pretty sure he was talking out of his ass with that one.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 06, 2008, 04:38:20 PM
Quote from: Cinephile on January 06, 2008, 03:54:49 PM
Quote from: modage on January 06, 2008, 03:17:48 PM
also its funny at the end when eli offers daniel a drink but comes back with 3 glasses.  was the third for himself?  or did he expect daniel to take 2?  either way, he's holding the 3 glasses hilariously. 
i'm pretty sure eli had two but i could be wrong on that..

you can be and are wrong.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cine on January 06, 2008, 05:04:20 PM
i really do hate you.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 06, 2008, 07:15:27 PM
I found a few crucial DDL snippets in this New York Q&A (http://www.theaspectratio.net/twbbq&a.htm) (don't remember where I got linked to that).

DDL on Eli & Plainview

"They're locked together in clear recognition of each other's fraudulence, really."

DDL on the father/son relationship

"Plainview's relationship with his son, his adopted son, is that of a man who has elevated a junior partner into a senior position and feels, you know, both affection and responsibility for them, but nonetheless expects them to be able to come to work every day and do their job. I mean, Plainview, there's no part of him that understands what the responsibility is of a parent. And he's not so consciously cynical as to see, except perhaps at the end when he's had time to ruminate upon his life and look back upon it to see that this young man was a cute face to buy land. And that was in fact a part of the attraction. He understood pretty quickly that it was no bad thing to have this appendage with him. But, you know, there was real love, real affection, but nonetheless, he regarded this unnaturally mature child as a partner, as a working partner in his life. And the minute he began to malfunction, he had no way of dealing with that, he had no understanding of how to deal with this very central figure in his life being, umm, you know, working at a substandard level. So, he kind of cauterizes the wound and excises him, pushes him away, as he tends to do with all figures as he begins to bring them closer to himself, revealing, then, as he begins to see the fallibility of another human being, then he cuts them away and gradually separates himself step by step from mankind."

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 06, 2008, 09:23:00 PM
Quote from: modage on December 12, 2007, 01:20:52 PM
was the score from the 2nd trailer (not the youtube teaser, but the first real one, not the one on apple), that plays during the THERE WILL BE GREED type cards in the film?  i didn't notice it, i'm not sure if it's on the soundtrack either.  can anyone else remember/confirm/deny this?

yeah its not.  bummer. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ml2Ae2SIXac&feature=related

that one (the 2nd) is still my favorite trailer.  and the score from 1:40 to the end is sorely missed in the film.  i wonder why the hell he didn't use it?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: depooter on January 06, 2008, 09:25:08 PM
I finally got to see TWBB this past Thursday night. I can't say that I "enjoyed" the film. What I mean is that I found the film extremely well acted, shot, edited, scored, etc. I was completely engaged he entire time and think it was a step forward in Paul's progression as a filmmaker. I also found it quite bleak and don't think it's a film that I will watch repeatedly in the future (as I still watch PTA's first four films on a regular basis)...

That being said. I have been thinking about it a lot since Thursday and look forward to revisiting again on DVD (or via import on Blu-Ray)......
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on January 06, 2008, 11:07:41 PM
Quote from: modage on January 06, 2008, 02:29:07 AM
saw this a third time tonite.  it was better than the 2nd time. 

me too and it was for me too.

HOLY SHIT i noticed the blue eye thing and froio too!  i was really looking for froio tho.  strange movie. 

i want nothing more than for drunk pubrick to see this now.  ill only start getting in depth about it if he does.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Ravi on January 07, 2008, 03:01:23 AM
Quote from: depooter on January 06, 2008, 09:25:08 PM
I also found it quite bleak and don't think it's a film that I will watch repeatedly in the future (as I still watch PTA's first four films on a regular basis)...

There's no redemption or forgiveness in this film, unlike in PTA's other films.  Plainview irreparably severs his tie with his son, and as far as we know, they never make up.  Plainview is no better a person at the end of this film than at the beginning.  The film doesn't end tragically per se, but Plainview likely would have died alone and unloved if the film continued on to the rest of his life.

I saw this on Friday and am still digesting it.  More thoughts later.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 07, 2008, 09:55:16 AM
Quote from: modage on January 06, 2008, 02:29:07 AM
my friend had a theory that when daniel is asleep on the floor at the end that he actually dies and the final confrontation with eli is all in his mind.  as wish fulfillment for  what the person he would want to see and final wish he'd like to carry out.  this is a pretty out there theory, but interesting nonetheless.
he elaborated a bit more this morning and said the Eli is an anagram for Lie, (whoa, mind blown) and also  that he doesn't seem any older in the final scene let alone 20 years older.  daniel seems aged but not eli which could support that its a figment of daniels imagination.  i had initially thought they didn't bother to age him because it looks terrible (a la brokeback mountain). 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on January 07, 2008, 10:47:40 AM
Sounds like PTA has left alot to the imagination in this film. Without seeing it, I can't say whether it's lazy or brilliant filmmaking. I'm learning towards the latter.

I NEED TO SEE THIS.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: RegularKarate on January 07, 2008, 02:31:58 PM
Thanks, JB, for sparking my brain on this one again.

Some (perhaps obvious) things I've been thinking about:

- Daniel is so upset that HW needs an interpreter during their final scene.  Eli is supposed to be an interpreter for God, but clearly is a false one... this is why he's so upset to find out that what the interpreter is saying is the same as what HW is saying (from his own mouth).

- Daniel's separation from HW begins when HW becomes deaf.  His silver tongue will no longer work on him... his son can see through to his real self now and he can't stand being caught in a lie (which is part of why he hates Eli).

More on the bowling alley:
-Here (http://www.latimes.com/features/home/la-hm-blood27dec27,1,6977925.story) is an article that talks about the restoration of the bowling alley... interesting (also funny that they shot Lebowski there and there was a bowling alley... wonder if the dude knew that).

- Notice there are two lanes... Daniel loathed other people... there's no way he had those installed because he loved to bowl with other people... if we assume he continued to do some business with others, he would need a place to entertain them... a place for him to tell them lies and make them think he enjoyed their company.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Alexandro on January 07, 2008, 03:31:32 PM
i feel like the semi poor kid in the classroom whose father didnt't get him the same cool expensive toy everyone already has.  :yabbse-sad:

saludos to everyone from guatemala...in fucking april or some shit, when they release there will be blood in mexico, we'll talk motherfuckers.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gold Trumpet on January 07, 2008, 04:14:12 PM
Quote from: Alexandro on January 07, 2008, 03:31:32 PM
i feel like the semi poor kid in the classroom whose father didnt't get him the same cool expensive toy everyone already has.  :yabbse-sad:

You and me both. I think it's absurd the film doesn't immediately go to my city and it's 19,000 people strong. I hope when you do see it you give it a strong review because then a discussion can commence.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on January 07, 2008, 05:26:35 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on January 07, 2008, 04:14:12 PM
I hope when you do see it you give it a strong review because then a discussion can commence.

Discussion's commenced.  We couldn't wait around for you guys forever.   :yabbse-smiley:
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: The Red Vine on January 07, 2008, 05:58:46 PM
BIG BLOODY SPOILERS!

"There Will Be Blood" has been my most anticipated film for the last couple of years. After driving 6 hours to Dallas, I was able to see it twice. It was a shock seeing Anderson reinvent his style for his relentlessly bleak portrait of Daniel Plainview. As good and interesting as the film is, I'm not convinced it's a masterpiece.

Daniel Day Lewis does give an award worthy performance as Plainview. But I felt I was watching only a side of the character instead of other elements which could've been explored further. Anderson focuses on his descent into insanity so closely that I wanted a little more of his behavior before going into Little Boston. Is there more humanity to Plainview than his bitterness and determination? I'm not sure.

The film is unique in balancing scenes of terror, sadness, and confusion. Despite it's incredible intensity, I found there to be a slight comical edge to the final scene of Plainview's madness. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not. It's difficult to keep a straight face at lines such as "I told you I would eat you!", "I'm the Messiah!", "I drink your MILKSHAKE!", etc... It's over the top to the point of the film losing some of it's power on me. Particularly with the heartbreaking scene with the son taking place just before it.

Although I've seen it twice, I feel I need to see it again (when it comes to my town). It's an odd and challenging movie, but there's no denying it has power and originality.  
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on January 07, 2008, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: The Red Vine on January 07, 2008, 05:58:46 PMI found there to be a slight comical edge to the final scene of Plainview's madness. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not. It's difficult to keep a straight face at lines such as "I told you I would eat you!", "I'm the Messiah!", "I drink your MILKSHAKE!", etc... It's over the top to the point of the film losing some of it's power on me.

Ugh. This is what I was afraid of when I heard that the ending is funny in an unintentional way. I drink your milkshake? Please tell me you're kidding.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on January 07, 2008, 07:01:30 PM
Quote from: Stefen on January 07, 2008, 10:47:40 AM
Sounds like PTA has left alot to the imagination in this film. Without seeing it, I can't say whether it's lazy or brilliant filmmaking. I'm learning towards the latter.

I NEED TO SEE THIS.

oh youve seen the movie.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ©brad on January 07, 2008, 07:16:41 PM
Quote from: Stefen on January 07, 2008, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: The Red Vine on January 07, 2008, 05:58:46 PMI found there to be a slight comical edge to the final scene of Plainview's madness. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not. It's difficult to keep a straight face at lines such as "I told you I would eat you!", "I'm the Messiah!", "I drink your MILKSHAKE!", etc... It's over the top to the point of the film losing some of it's power on me.

Ugh. This is what I was afraid of when I heard that the ending is funny in an unintentional way. I drink your milkshake? Please tell me you're kidding.

dude honestly what are you doing here?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on January 07, 2008, 08:20:22 PM
Quote from: ©MBBrad on January 07, 2008, 07:16:41 PM
Quote from: Stefen on January 07, 2008, 06:38:02 PM
Quote from: The Red Vine on January 07, 2008, 05:58:46 PMI found there to be a slight comical edge to the final scene of Plainview's madness. I'm not sure if it was intentional or not. It's difficult to keep a straight face at lines such as "I told you I would eat you!", "I'm the Messiah!", "I drink your MILKSHAKE!", etc... It's over the top to the point of the film losing some of it's power on me.

Ugh. This is what I was afraid of when I heard that the ending is funny in an unintentional way. I drink your milkshake? Please tell me you're kidding.

dude honestly what are you doing here?

You mean on this site or in this particular spoiler forum? I got a smart ass response for both.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ©brad on January 07, 2008, 08:36:30 PM
Quote from: Stefen on January 07, 2008, 08:20:22 PMYou mean on this site or in this particular spoiler forum? I got a smart ass response for both.

hah, the latter. but please, give me both. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on January 07, 2008, 08:44:18 PM
Quote from: ©MBBrad on January 07, 2008, 08:36:30 PM
Quote from: Stefen on January 07, 2008, 08:20:22 PMYou mean on this site or in this particular spoiler forum? I got a smart ass response for both.

hah, the latter. but please, give me both. 

Because I'm a pussy. And because I have no will power. And because I got the rules to the forums mixed up and kept reading this one and eventually unfortunately read spoilers about the ending. No use peaking with one eye covered. I just opened them both. Might as well.

I won't be able to see this for awhile anyways and my expectations aren't as high as they were before and that'll probably help me enjoy the movie more.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 07, 2008, 09:39:55 PM
The milkshake bit was absolute genius. It's a lot like the Boogie Nights firecracker scene.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 08, 2008, 09:37:53 AM
still looking for the brahms track but someone at work kindly passed along this bit of score that ISNT jonny and IS amazing.

It's by an Estonian contemporary classical composer named Arvo Pärt. The piece is called "Fratres"
http://www.mikearauz.com/2008/01/mp3-from-there-will-be-blood-that-you.html

edit:

the Brahms track also courtesy of guy from work...

http://www.mediafire.com/?dydrtjtxxpt

and Convergence from Bodysong courtesy of me...

http://www.mediafire.com/?emjmgthlpdj

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on January 08, 2008, 02:11:32 PM
Quote from: modage on January 06, 2008, 03:17:48 PM
also its funny at the end when eli offers daniel a drink but comes back with 3 glasses.  was the third for himself?  or did he expect daniel to take 2?  either way, he's holding the 3 glasses hilariously. 

the two were for himself.  or they ENDED UP being for himself at least.  after daniel declines, he sets one down and keeps the two.  all of a sudden it cuts back to him and there are two glasses behind him - one of them is empty.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: picolas on January 09, 2008, 02:30:07 AM
when i left the screening i still felt like i hadn't seen it.

parts of it were undeniably incredible, but part of me was shocked and unable to process elements of it.. i figured this came from how different it was from what i thought i was going into. having the trailers and interviews and clips and spoilers swimming in my mind for the last long while i had committed the inevitable sin of having a kind of movie made in my head. it was totally unintentional. and i consciously tried not to because i remembered feeling that way a tiny bit after the first pdl view, taking a while for me to understand what it really was. i felt like that part of me was just grasping it.. and i would full-on love it in the viewings and days to come, when i had washed the old idea of it from my mind. i thought of the incredible parts for a while, trying to replay every detail from the final scene in my head, read a lot i couldn't read before, and went to sleep.

i thought about it a lot this morning, and felt a sinking feeling in my stomach. part of me began to feel it was actually a misfire.. i felt a lack of satisfaction from the story itself. from the writing. the writing! this shook me.. had pt written a weak screenplay? i couldn't settle the idea that there was something off about the whole thing.. i read some bad reviews. and i agreed with the recurring argument that this isn't a good movie: daniel and eli don't change. not really. that's the central problem. they just get bigger, and more free to express their evil.

the idea that this was a bad movie really threw me. i downloaded the available 12% of the screener and watched the seconds i could... and thought about the context of it.. and its relationship to pdl. and i realized i was watching it the wrong way.

pdl was the beginning of this idea of a movie for him.. like pdl, twbb's 'story' isn't entirely literal. it's deeply symbolic/metaphorical. moreso than i thought going in. and not just in the obvious church vs. business way. twbb takes the pdl ball and runs with it by not even really attempting to develop a story. sure, things happen. but they only really serve to look deeper into the souls of these two men. the men don't learn anything about themselves, the audience learns about them. it develops the notion of these two evils. expands them. paints them. this is a dense painting. it's not an epic in the way you think of an epic.. it's like a very long zoom. and that's revolutionary to pt as a storyteller. sydney, boogie, maggie, were all for the most part movies about things that were actually happening. pdl is about a change in a person, and it's still a fair degree of literal. its essence is fable, mythic, image-based... it's a painting, but it's a moving painting. twbb is just a painting. an enormous painting that you walk into from a mile away, all the way up so you can make out the enormous, towering smears. this is not a bad thing. this is a tantalizing, incredible thing. and now i cannot wait to walk into it again.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on January 09, 2008, 01:07:44 PM
that is the best written reaction to the film ive heard and will hear cuz it is so true and honest. 

i actually think of myself as weak for not illustrating my initial thoughts like picolas did here from my first encounter w/the film.  when it ended, i felt that same sinking feeling.  i walked out of the theater and felt i had seen something grand, but the other side of the coin was ringing loud in my ear... was it a bad film?  wait, did i even see the film? 

it wasnt til the next morning when i woke up w/it (still heavy hearted) and carried it w/me throughout the day.  then on may way home from San Francisco, i wanted to spread nothing but hype here.  i wish i had just done exactly what picolas did cuz that was exactly my reaction.  i went straight to my goo-gaw over the painting.

what is it about the following day?  it is so kubrick w/to me.  i imagine this is how i wouldve felt w/his films as they progressed.

either way, strange movie.     
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 09, 2008, 01:13:18 PM
Quote from: picolas on January 09, 2008, 02:30:07 AM
when i left the screening i still felt like i hadn't seen it.

parts of it were undeniably incredible, but part of me was shocked and unable to process elements of it.. i figured this came from how different it was from what i thought i was going into. having the trailers and interviews and clips and spoilers swimming in my mind for the last long while i had committed the inevitable sin of having a kind of movie made in my head. it was totally unintentional. and i consciously tried not to because i remembered feeling that way a tiny bit after the first pdl view, taking a while for me to understand what it really was. i felt like that part of me was just grasping it.. and i would full-on love it in the viewings and days to come, when i had washed the old idea of it from my mind. i thought of the incredible parts for a while, trying to replay every detail from the final scene in my head, read a lot i couldn't read before, and went to sleep.

this is exactly how i felt too which is why not only did i not review it or write up any thoughts at all after my first viewing, when the screening ended and cinephile asked me what i thought i didn't really answer.  i never thought it was a bad film but it's SO different and after so much buildup and creating your OWN film it takes a while to reconcile it.  but unlike Life Aquatic which i tried to qualify after i saw it, this film really sat well with me.  its all i thought about for a few days.  the 2nd viewing is where you can try to accept the film for what it is and as i said earlier 3rd viewings better than the 2nd because you can really take it in. 

i know that i will never love any of his movies as much as i love magnolia, and thats okay.

seeing it a 4th time tonite, i wonder how it will go...
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Ravi on January 09, 2008, 10:07:59 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 07, 2008, 09:39:55 PM
The milkshake bit was absolute genius. It's a lot like the Boogie Nights firecracker scene.

Reminded me of Burns Slant Drilling Corporation.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on January 09, 2008, 10:56:53 PM
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywood-elsewhere.com%2Fimages%2Fcolumn%2F11508%2Flewismilkshake.jpg&hash=86012dd812886f6755a5d4f1fbac582c7bc30991)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hollywood-elsewhere.com%2Fimages%2Fcolumn%2F11508%2Fmilkshakeshirt.jpg&hash=6a05d83cf2f0eacf6955218a5ca18432c000f02b)
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 09, 2008, 11:01:39 PM
Quote from: modage on January 09, 2008, 01:13:18 PM
seeing it a 4th time tonite, i wonder how it will go...
here's how it went.

we got to the theatre a half hour early and were the only ones there.  by the time the previews ran, not a seat was empty (seriously!  even the front row). 

i love how pta gets away with no opening credits.  and how the title card comes up at the beginning and the end.  the hum over the opening title is especially unnerving. 

i like how both HW and Fletcher are introduced.  they're both being completely covered by someone in the frame and then are finally revealed. 

when Fletcher asks if Daniel is bringing Henry to meet with the oil company you get just a hint of the jealousy that might come from no longer being Daniel's #2.  i wonder if there was any more material here. 

i love Daniel fighting back tears when he puts HW on the train.   as i said before, i would completely disagree with anyone who doesn't think A. Daniel doesn't care about anyone else or B. that his character does not change throughout the film.  there is a clear change when HW goes deaf and is sent away.  'henry's' betrayal is the last straw.  he definitely loves his son.  he wants to love his 'brother', but is betrayed.

i love when daniel puts the napkin over his face when he's talking to Tilford in the restaurant.  i'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet but how crazy is that?

i never noticed the song being sung in the initial "are you an angry man" teaser is actually sung in the church when daniel is baptized. 

at the end of the film daniel tells eli that he paid paul $10,000 cash in hand and that paul now owns his own drilling business.  he's lying, correct?  he only paid paul $500.  i wonder what the falling out was between eli and paul so that they have not had contact in many years.  its also interesting that the actions of eli at the end directly mirror paul at the beginning. 

the final sequence with eli all being a dream/hallucination/death theory could also be bolstered by the "wake up mr. daniel" of his butler right after he heads down the stairs.

there are a billion cross dissolves in this movie. 

the music really IS incredible.  every sequence is elevated by it.  not just jonnys stuff either.  all of it.

why does daniel pick out mary and decide to be kind to her?  stepping in and making sure she isn't going to be beaten by her father any more and just the way he treats her throughout the film makes him a compelling character.  more than just a villain. 

after 4 viewings the film really really still holds up.  i think it's great.  there is no qualifier.   i don't think its flawed or too harsh, i think its amazing.  i love pta. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on January 10, 2008, 12:54:29 AM
saw it for a third time. things:

telling moment comes when h.w. and daniel first approach the sunday ranch: daniel swiftly moves forward, pressing on toward his target, pauses for a moment, and waits for h.w. he holds h.w. close, but oil closer. he prioritizes the things he holds dear.

everyone is right, its when h.w. goes deaf that daniel begins to unravel. a breakdown in communication. i would like to argue that the major theme twbb, prolly pta's career, is communication. i would like to elaborate on this soon, maybe i'm too lazy i don't know. in the very least, this movie certainly runs deeper than any political message. i also think there are benefits in approaching this movie in relation to his other movies.

baptism scene is one of the best acted scenes ever.

no one laughed at this screening.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Mesh on January 10, 2008, 11:24:17 AM
Quote from: Sal on November 14, 2007, 11:21:56 AM
Quote from: ponceludon on November 13, 2007, 08:17:19 PM
I thought that Paul and Eli were the same person until the very end of the movie

Don't you agree that's a huge miscalculation on the part of PTA? I can't believe something like that would even happen. I'll be seeing the film again obviously, and I'm sure that will be clearer, but basically the entire audience was just scratching their heads at this. It's a major blow in my opinion. It's one of the main reasons I will never call this film a masterpiece.

I'm sure this has already been covered, but the confusion about Paul/Eli may have been intentional. It plants seeds of distrust and suspicion about the Sundays in the minds of the viewer, which makes them a more potent metaphor for religion.

BTW, I've seen it twice, and I was thoroughly confused about Dano's character(s) the first time through.

Quote from: Sal on November 17, 2007, 12:17:14 PM
This film is about dirt blood and spit.

I don't think it's about dirt or spit at all.  It's about greed and religion, which is why I said what I said above.

The Plainview = impotent theory is interesting, but there is a moment in the baptism when Eli accuses Daniel of "lusting after women."  He might still be impotent, but that at least shatters the idea that women aren't a concern for him.

I would also argue that the identity of H.W.'s real father is left slightly ambiguous by the film.  We see the baby held by the worker who is struck by the derrick equipment. We assume they are father and son.  They may not be.  I agree that the strong implication is that the child is orphaned, but it's not conclusive. So much about this movie is left unresolved. Empty, unresolved things are a major theme, in fact.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on January 10, 2008, 12:50:43 PM
Quote from: Mesh on January 10, 2008, 11:24:17 AM
The Plainview = impotent theory is interesting, but there is a moment in the baptism when Eli accuses Daniel of "lusting after women."  He might still be impotent, but that at least shatters the idea that women aren't a concern for him.

Unless Eli was making this up, which is a reasonable assumption since we see nothing in the movie to make us suppose it to be true.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 10, 2008, 01:25:39 PM
Paul Dano Talks 'Blood' In-Depth, Answers Key Plot Questions
Source: Cinematical

One of the best moments in There Will Be Blood comes when oilman-misanthrope Daniel Plainview first meets preacher Eli Sunday, after having already met and done a business deal with Eli's identical twin brother Paul earlier in the film. The camera lingers on Plainview's face as he examines Eli, trying to ascertain whether this is some kind of scam and if the person he's talking to is really Paul, passing himself off as the new brother for some nefarious reason. Some have speculated that this scene and the whole identical twin device P.T. Anderson uses has a lot of resonance because it shows what a disadvantage Plainview typically finds himself in when trying to know the mind of another person. (It's a problem that he deals with again in the film when a man arrives claiming to be his long-lost brother.) But it seems that we may be reading too much into it -- in a new half-hour Fresh Air interview, Paul Dano, who plays both Eli and Paul, says his casting in the roles of both brothers had a much more mundane genesis -- another actor was originally cast as Eli and then let go.

"Somebody else was cast in that role and replaced with you?" the NPR interviewer asks Dano, to which he replies "Yeah. For what reason I'm not sure. I don't care to know, or I didn't want to know." Dano says that the unknown actor had already been filming for a short while when Anderson approached him about taking over the role and he had less than a week to prepare for the part. "We looked at some scenes and talked about the part a little bit and he said 'I'd like you to do this part' and they'd been filming for a little bit already, so I said 'Okay, that's great. It's a little bit of a shock.' And he said 'And why don't you still play the Paul part and we'll just make them twins?'"

Dano also talks at length about how he views Eli, saying that "he's somebody who I think made himself up. He invented himself. I think he's quite a bit of an actor. He created this persona at a very young age once he saw what religion and his curiosity with religion could do for him." If you want to hear the rest of the interview, and I recommend it, get yourself to NPR and click on the recent Fresh Air programs.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17926946
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Mesh on January 10, 2008, 01:35:51 PM
Quote from: polkablues on January 10, 2008, 12:50:43 PM
Quote from: Mesh on January 10, 2008, 11:24:17 AM
The Plainview = impotent theory is interesting, but there is a moment in the baptism when Eli accuses Daniel of "lusting after women."  He might still be impotent, but that at least shatters the idea that women aren't a concern for him.

Unless Eli was making this up, which is a reasonable assumption since we see nothing in the movie to make us suppose it to be true.

Possible, but I have to reject that theory without more evidence. Could Eli get away with a lie like that in front of a small-town congregation of people who obviously know each other's dealings very well?

More on Daniel's relationship with women:  Has this forum considered the possibility that part of Daniel's all-out rejection of the grown/married H.W. stems from an unfulfilled lust he may harbor for Mary? She's the only female who ever touches him; Daniel names the first derrick after her; she's the one female he defends, not so subtley warning Abel never to hit her again; at Daniel's baptism, she rushes to console him in his new "acceptance" of faith; and she can communicate directly with H.W. and is the only person close to him who does so.  Sorry if this repeats what's already been posted.  I'm not done reading the thread yet.

Outright heresy:  I do believe I may've seen a golf course flag in the deep distance of one shot. It's during Daniel and Henry's surveying expedition for the pipeline. There's an obvious neon red/orange area just to the right of the frame's dead center. At first I thought it was one of their red-tipped metal stakes, but no. Impossible to prove or disprove, really, until we've got a DVD or, better, screenshots from a Blu-ray DVD.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: w/o horse on January 10, 2008, 08:57:41 PM
Quote from: modage on January 09, 2008, 11:01:39 PM
why does daniel pick out mary and decide to be kind to her?  stepping in and making sure she isn't going to be beaten by her father any more and just the way he treats her throughout the film makes him a compelling character.  more than just a villain. 

Or like how arbitrary it nears makes him more of a villain.  And I think that TWBB has obvious personal god themes (and my opinion has always been that Magnolia's foundation is cinema-as-god).  So if you take DDL as inhabiting blasphemous values, i.e. here the quality of isolated values (not culturally or socially derived), and more drastically in the end the ability to control an individual's happiness, life's direction, and ultimately a person's right of living, and DDL as a smart man building an empire (a god would have to have an empire to control or what would make him a god) then there would be indications of growth in the treatment or release of these desires as he becomes more powerful.

It's a hint of what's in him.  You can extend it into places that it needs to go:  you can point out that this specific incident is intended to disrupt a particularly confrontational (to DDL) family, his main competitors in the judiciating of moral values, that it isn't some random action or mission, but another throwing-of-the-gauntlet.  It directly follows the scene that is one huge statement of autonomy:  his rejecting of Eli's request to bless the oil drill.  You can begin to see that DDL will be doing things his own way.  It should be said that Eli attempt to be the mouthpiece of an unseen god (this is what preachers are called I think) while DDL becomes his own mouthpiece, and that Eli's conduit is religion and DDL's is capitalism.  They both seek control, and respect and authority and they're obvious parallels to each other and you can see that in the end (there's good evidence to support that the end is possibly an illusion but the whole film is symbolic enough that I don't see why it'd matter anyway, like if the whole film was an illusion it wouldn't really matter.  You'll probably feel one way or the other depending on how logical what DDL seems to you, how possible or in-character etc, which is a great way for PTA to do something risky and have everyone rationalizing it in different ways.  Again, I think it's trivial).  Eli is unable to supercede DDL's role in the community and DDL essentially replaces Eli.

I don't think there's enough to support a view of a failed Holy Trinity in DDL's family.

And has the thread yet explored the resemblances between this film and contemporary politics?  GW as his own personal god is right there.  What DDL expresses is the capitalistic urge to a)  suppress outside influence for maximum control and easier growth and b)  becoming the person who gets to do this.  Eli isn't the Christian religion:  he's the eccentric, harmful and power hungry side of the religion.

I started writing more about that but man are there a lot of places you could take it.  It's all in there.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Ghostboy on January 10, 2008, 11:49:33 PM
For anyone who's interested, I expanded upon my comparison of the film and Sinclair's novel over at my blog - the post can be found here. (http://www.road-dog-productions.com/cgi-bin/2008/01/oil_to_bloodi_1.html)
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Mesh on January 11, 2008, 03:52:55 PM
I love what David Edelstein does with the Plainview/John Huston thing here:

Quote...[the] voice of Plainview's is something to hear: cadenced, deep-toned, a plangent rasp. Day-Lewis sounds like John Huston, and his Plainview could be the up-and-coming Noah Cross from Chinatown. Except Plainview sublimates his dark sexual impulses. He sinks his drill into the virginal land.

Read more: http://nymag.com/movies/reviews/42087/
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on January 11, 2008, 10:19:28 PM
love me, XIXAX! (http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/January2008/ThereWillBeBlood/page1.php)

I put it here 'cause it's got some spoilers.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pas on January 12, 2008, 08:36:35 AM
Quote from: Stefen on January 03, 2008, 01:39:48 PM
If even PTA fans aren't getting this movie, imagine how mainstream America is going to accept it.

Mini spoilers that everybody on this thread knows.


I believe mainstream america will love it more than too-cool-for-christmas-people because unlike PDL or Magnolia, liking this movie isn't about bein cool. This is a classic epic movie with no attempt at being a wiseass or proving you understand things more. Your grandma and your sister will like this.

And I seriously think the people who critic the 'lack of change in Daniel and Eli' are really searching for something that isn't there.

1)People in life don't change, they reveal themselves. There is no redemption. There is nothing that will change your roots.
2)That is exactly what Plainview does. The character evolves on the basis of his initial envy and anger.
3)The (stupid) people who critic the fact that the character doesn't change mean that they wanted Daniel to get all crazy and evil and then come to terms with his life, get friends with Eli, share a drink with HW and live merrily ever after. Or the exact opposite, being all nice and become all evil. I hear there are still some good Meryl Streep movies out there so go out and rent one.


This movie has made me a PTA fan, which I wasn't before (don't ask me what I'm doing here).

The only word for it is Epic. I think it's one of the best movie I've ever seen.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: hedwig on January 12, 2008, 12:38:33 PM
Quote from: Pas Rap on January 12, 2008, 08:36:35 AM
This is a classic epic movie with no attempt at being a wiseass or proving you understand things more. Your grandma and your sister will like this.

agreed.

when i saw it again yesterday the theatre was filled with old people and i heard them all praising it as they walked out. that's cool, but jesus christ i hate seeing movies with old people. after daniel killed eli this lady goes "there's the blood! they said there will be blood and there's the blood." :doh:
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on January 12, 2008, 02:57:13 PM
haha same w/me when i saw it w/real ppl.  old folk galore and they all loved it/took ALL the free posters the theater gave away. 

old woman behind me as i was walking out of the theater: 'i'm finished.'  what a line.  couldnt have chosen better words to end it.

:yabbse-smiley:
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Ravi on January 12, 2008, 03:12:19 PM
Lots of old people at the show I went to as well.

Why was this film rated R?  There was no bad language or sex/nudity, and the "violence" that the MPAA cites isn't all that violent.  Is there a certain level of blood that pushes a film into R territory?  Even the murder of Eli wasn't THAT bloody.

Quote from: Pas Rap on January 12, 2008, 08:36:35 AM
3)The (stupid) people who say that the character doesn't change mean that they wanted Daniel to get all crazy and evil and then come to terms with his life, get friends with Eli, share a drink with HW and live merrily ever after. Or the exact opposite, being all nice and become all evil. I hear there are still some good Meryl Streep movies out there so go out and rent one.

This is a depiction of what happens to a person if he doesn't change.  He never gets over his misanthropy, superiority, or greed, and it destroys his soul.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 12, 2008, 03:30:41 PM
Quote from: Hedwig on January 12, 2008, 03:16:31 PM
Quote from: bigideas on January 12, 2008, 02:45:13 PM
DDL called Paul his 'evil twin brother' in his Critic's Choice acceptance speech.
the speech in shit quality youtube clip. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZd1Wnvs_LY)
i love that he tells paul dano that dillon slaps harder than him.  its like he's still trying to one up him!
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pas on January 12, 2008, 05:28:53 PM
Quote from: Ravi on January 12, 2008, 03:12:19 PM

Quote from: Pas Rap on January 12, 2008, 08:36:35 AM
3)The (stupid) people who critic the fact that the character doesn't change mean that they wanted Daniel to get all crazy and evil and then come to terms with his life, get friends with Eli, share a drink with HW and live merrily ever after. Or the exact opposite, being all nice and become all evil. I hear there are still some good Meryl Streep movies out there so go out and rent one.

This is a depiction of what happens to a person if he doesn't change.  He never gets over his misanthropy, superiority, or greed, and it destroys his soul.

Yeah and that's what make the film so powerful.

Anyway I reckon my Greatest Hit of that post will be the Old People Theory.

WHY DON'T YOU GUYS ADORE THIS FILM ????????????? :(
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on January 12, 2008, 06:02:33 PM
Quote from: modage on January 12, 2008, 03:30:41 PM
i love that he tells paul dano that dillon slaps harder than him.  its like he's still trying to one up him!

i wonder how many people went, "who the hell is Dillon Freasier?"
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Myxo on January 13, 2008, 01:11:32 AM
Some asshole behind me was eating boxed candy during the first ten or so minutes of the movie. Tiny little pieces of candy rolling out of a box over and over again followed by *crunch* *crunch* *crunch*. I was too big of a pussy to turn around and tell him to wait. Then there's the guy who kept checking his cell phone for text messages two seats away, ruining my movie vision every twenty minutes or so.

:yabbse-undecided:

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie, but I need to see it again. I can't remember a character study of this magnitude in anything I've seen before. There were times when I felt bored. But I think that is partly because I expected something that I didn't deserve. I wanted more interaction with Eli. The molten quality of Plainview's relationship with people around him was frustrating. The fast forward to his confrontation with a grownup H.W. was expected but felt misplaced somehow. Eli is on a train and then all of a sudden we're several years into the future. I absolutely loved the end of this film. I just felt like something else needed to happen before we wrapped up H.W. & Eli's story.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: hedwig on January 13, 2008, 01:57:38 AM
Quote from: Myxo on January 13, 2008, 01:11:32 AM
Some asshole behind me was eating boxed candy during the first ten or so minutes of the movie. Tiny little pieces of candy rolling out of a box over and over again followed by *crunch* *crunch* *crunch*. I was too big of a pussy to turn around and tell him to wait. Then there's the guy who kept checking his cell phone for text messages two seats away, ruining my movie vision every twenty minutes or so.

ok everyone let's make a pact:

if we are in a movie theatre watching CMBB and there are people making noise, we are going to SILENCE THEM.

of course it is easier to do this after you've seen the movie for the first time, you're less worried about missing something when you turn to shush somebody. so once you've seen the film there is no excuse for allowing this bullshit to continue. find the bravery inside yourselves. make a difference!

good people of xixax, it is our DUTY to put an end to this. it must stop, and we must do our part in stopping it.

here are some tips on what to say when you're asking somebody to be quiet:

- "if you don't shut the fuck up.. one night i'm going to come inside your house, wherever you're sleeping, and i'm going to cut your throat."
- "now you must really shut the fuck up, please. shut the fuck up."
- "SHUT UP! SHUT THE FUCK UP! SHUT UP, WILL YOU, SHUT UP, SHUT UP, SHUT SHUT SHUT SHUT SHUT UP! SHUT UP!"
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: last days of gerry the elephant on January 13, 2008, 02:20:17 AM
Quote from: Pas Rap on January 12, 2008, 08:36:35 AM
Quote from: Stefen on January 03, 2008, 01:39:48 PM
If even PTA fans aren't getting this movie, imagine how mainstream America is going to accept it.

Mini spoilers that everybody on this thread knows.


I believe mainstream america will love it more than too-cool-for-christmas-people because unlike PDL or Magnolia, liking this movie isn't about bein cool. This is a classic epic movie with no attempt at being a wiseass or proving you understand things more. Your grandma and your sister will like this.

And I seriously think the people who critic the 'lack of change in Daniel and Eli' are really searching for something that isn't there.

1)People in life don't change, they reveal themselves. There is no redemption. There is nothing that will change your roots.
2)That is exactly what Plainview does. The character evolves on the basis of his initial envy and anger.
3)The (stupid) people who say that the character doesn't change mean that they wanted Daniel to get all crazy and evil and then come to terms with his life, get friends with Eli, share a drink with HW and live merrily ever after. Or the exact opposite, being all nice and become all evil. I hear there are still some good Meryl Streep movies out there so go out and rent one.


This movie has made me a PTA fan, which I wasn't before (don't ask me what I'm doing here).

The only word for it is Epic. I think it's one of the best movie I've ever seen.

I'm totally behind this idea. I saw this late like some of you so I'm not sure what people on here already said (but, I will surely get through ever single page and post). Overall, I didn't come out of There Will Be Blood in the same way I did with No Country For Old Men. There Will Be Blood was more of a complete observational piece, it delivered a story (and characters) innate within all of us. Situations and characteristics we often find true in human nature as universal laws. Coming out, I didn't feel like I needed to go out for coffee and cigarettes afterwards to discuss the movie at all. Instead, the film was delivered in the most concise and comprehensible way. DDL's character out dates the conflicts and hardships of the industrial age. However, it helps that the movie takes place in that particular point in time (progressive/industrial age) because it can play a grand role showing the contrast between the business man and the common simple man. And more importantly, the effect. Which it does. I wouldn't like to come off as saying that DDL might as well have been just any business man... because it's still HIS story and the plot revolves around events that could have only shaped him to those outcomes. But we have to be careful seeing it in this light (ie. it's the story of Daniel Plainview, his kid, a poor town and their preacher) because then we would naturally suspect the character's issues only exist in the confines of the film/story. We won't get to see that we all have a little bit of DDL in our blood. Well, at least I found that as something rather important.

About people making noise... someone mentioned this before on here, it's inevitable once you decide to go to the theaters. You should expect it and face the fact that more than likely there will be douche bags attending that could care less for PTA, DDL, or basic moral ethics.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: hedwig on January 13, 2008, 02:27:49 AM
Quote from: overmeunderyou on January 13, 2008, 02:20:17 AM
About people making noise... someone mentioned this before on here, it's inevitable once you decide to go to the theaters. You should expect it and face the fact that more than likely there will be douche bags attending that could care less for PTA, DDL, or basic moral ethics.
what are you talking about?

this isn't about facing facts. the fact has already been faced.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on January 13, 2008, 06:01:32 AM
Quote from: Hedwig on January 13, 2008, 02:27:49 AM
Quote from: overmeunderyou on January 13, 2008, 02:20:17 AM
About people making noise... someone mentioned this before on here, it's inevitable once you decide to go to the theaters. You should expect it and face the fact that more than likely there will be douche bags attending that could care less for PTA, DDL, or basic moral ethics.
what are you talking about?

this isn't about facing facts. the fact has already been faced.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.  In other words: silence that shit.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pas on January 13, 2008, 08:52:51 AM
Saw this a second time...

Appreciated more the subtleties... the acting of DDL is perfect. I was bored in some parts but seeing a movie twice in a week makes that effect.

One thing about the Paul/Eli situation... Paul does tell Plainview that he has a brother named Eli so I wonder why I was so confused the first time around. I guess it's because that we don't remember that he named his brother because it's seems trivial.

Oh also, I edited the 'point 3' of my earlier critic to clear a confusion. I'm fucking french so give me a break.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 13, 2008, 11:58:22 AM
i can't believe anyone could be bored during this!  i've seen it 4 times and have yet to be bored, it actually seems to move faster them more i watch it.  i've also lucked out with all the crowds being pretty heavy film/PTA geeks and totally respectful.  i kinda dig the crowds that seem to laugh a bit more. 

the thing that bothered me about the last time i saw it was: the goddamn print was already scratched up!  they'd only had a week or less and it already had a big line running through it.  plus the screen it was being projected on had like creases on it.  AND the time before the fucking RED PIRACY DOTS were especially annoying.  i saw them about 7 times in the span of 5 minutes during the lighter scenes when Daniel arrives at the Sunday Ranch.  it totally took me out of the film.  something has to be done about these.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on January 13, 2008, 12:15:00 PM
Quote from: Myxo on January 13, 2008, 01:11:32 AM
Some asshole behind me was eating boxed candy during the first ten or so minutes of the movie. Tiny little pieces of candy rolling out of a box over and over again followed by *crunch* *crunch* *crunch*. I was too big of a pussy to turn around and tell him to wait. Then there's the guy who kept checking his cell phone for text messages two seats away, ruining my movie vision every twenty minutes or so.

:yabbse-undecided:

This should be expected when you go to a movie. It's the reason I don't go anymore. It's too much of a hassle. It's fun to watch movies that meatheads dig in a theater, but anything I plan on taking seriously, I'm waiting to watch it by myself.

If you have a nice entertainment center setup, it's better just to hang back and wait for a screener to leak. Screeners (dvd quality) for No Country, Juno, Atonement, Before The Devil Knows You're Dead, Charlie Wilsons War, Gone Baby Gone, and tons others were online very quick and sometimes before the movie even hit theaters. It's better just to stay home and watch them by yourself.

CMBB screeners are out there, but noone is ripping them right. The current one is alright quality, but the sound is out of sync by about 4 seconds on the second disc.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on January 13, 2008, 01:38:22 PM
So, last night, I went to see Atonement with two other dudes, after deciding between that, There Will Be Blood (which we had all seen, and wanted to see again, but were weary of the saturday night Berkeley crowd), and Persepolis.  Afterwards we came out from Atonement, got into the car, and we all decided that none of us was feeling the movie.  I took out my mp3 player and said, "hey guys, lets pretend we came out of a better movie."  Then, on cue, my buddy said "I'm finished!" and we played Braham's violin concerto on the drive home.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cine on January 13, 2008, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: modage on January 13, 2008, 11:58:22 AM
AND the time before the fucking RED PIRACY DOTS were especially annoying.  i saw them about 7 times in the span of 5 minutes during the lighter scenes when Daniel arrives at the Sunday Ranch.

can you blame them though? stefens been having people record it for him way more times than that!
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on January 13, 2008, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: pete on January 13, 2008, 01:38:22 PM
So, last night, I went to see Atonement with two other dudes, after deciding between that, There Will Be Blood (which we had all seen, and wanted to see again, but were weary of the saturday night Berkeley crowd), and Persepolis.  Afterwards we came out from Atonement, got into the car, and we all decided that none of us was feeling the movie.  I took out my mp3 player and said, "hey guys, lets pretend we came out of a better movie."  Then, on cue, my buddy said "I'm finished!" and we played Braham's violin concerto on the drive home.

haha, what a bunch of nerds!
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on January 13, 2008, 02:06:25 PM
Quote from: Cinephile on January 13, 2008, 01:53:44 PM
Quote from: modage on January 13, 2008, 11:58:22 AM
AND the time before the fucking RED PIRACY DOTS were especially annoying.  i saw them about 7 times in the span of 5 minutes during the lighter scenes when Daniel arrives at the Sunday Ranch.

can you blame them though? stefens been having people record it for him way more times than that!

haha, hey, I got standards! Theres been a cam floating around for awhile that I will not touch. Maybe if didn't like sucking Elswit's dick so hard I could lower my standards.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pas on January 13, 2008, 05:29:45 PM
Quote from: Stefen on January 13, 2008, 02:04:44 PM
Quote from: pete on January 13, 2008, 01:38:22 PM
So, last night, I went to see Atonement with two other dudes, after deciding between that, There Will Be Blood (which we had all seen, and wanted to see again, but were weary of the saturday night Berkeley crowd), and Persepolis.  Afterwards we came out from Atonement, got into the car, and we all decided that none of us was feeling the movie.  I took out my mp3 player and said, "hey guys, lets pretend we came out of a better movie."  Then, on cue, my buddy said "I'm finished!" and we played Braham's violin concerto on the drive home.

haha, what a bunch of nerds!

I hope this is a version of what you hope had happened and not what really happened, for your own nerd sake.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 13, 2008, 06:19:05 PM
Just had my second viewing this afternoon. Wow, what a difference. Instead of worrying about the lack of obvious PTA visual stylings or being concerned with the story, I was able to focus on the important things, like DDL, who is amazing in more ways that my feeble mind can process. His physicality, the way he moves his body and his hands, the way his eyes fight with each other, the voice. It really blew me away this time.

Words can't describe how skillfully made this film is. I love how much meaning the camera can extract from the scenes with its small movements. Watch how, at that first sales pitch, the camera moves slowly and its focus changes from Plainview, to HW, and back to Plainview again. Just beautiful. The film actually looks a lot like Magnolia at times, with the sweeping tracking shots and the slow dolly-in scenes. It's so perfect. It was much easier to appreciate TWWB on the second viewing.

I noticed a ton of other detail this time that I missed last week. Here we go...

Paul is actually the more clean-cut brother. He has a business-like appearance. Eli, by contrast, has a dirty, ungroomed head of hair, at least in the beginning. They both have a sort of gentle manner of speaking. But Eli has that holier-than-thou grin and stands up straighter than Paul.

After Henry has arrived, HW finds that book with the picture and figures out that Henry is a fake. He sets the fire to destroy Henry or at least send a message to Plainview. It's only after the murder on Bandy's property that Plainview figures it out. The pages with singed edges help him make the connection between HW's fire and Henry's fakery. I completely missed this the first time.

Daniel is awakened from a drunken state lying on the ground three times, and each one is connected with a death. First, on the floor of his shack, he is awakened by Fletcher Hamilton, who informs him that they lost a man in the well. Second, he is awakened by Bandy, the morning after Henry's murder. Third, he is awakened by his servant before he murders Eli.

Eli catches the oil workers as they walk down the wooden stairs. ("The Church of the Third Revelation welcomes you.") Some of them just walk by, some of them are abrasive, but Eli finds a worker who's interested and pins a little white cloth cross on his jacket. This is the same worker who died at the bottom of the well. ("He was a man of considerable faith," Plainview says to Eli.) When they go through his possessions, they find the cloth cross, and the camera definitely lingers on it. Another not-so-subtle moment. We're meant to infer something. Did Eli, the unholy false prophet, mark the man for death? Perhaps it's a good thing that Eli didn't bless the well. When Eli confronts Plainview about the well blessing, it's right after his sermon, and Plainview ends this conversation by saying, "that was one god-damned hell of a show." So Plainview is responding to the fact that he didn't allow the well to be blessed by pointing out Eli's showmanship—his falseness, or even his "damned"-ness and "hell"-nes—and then walking away. Plainview knew more than we thought earlier than we thought. Remember the dinner table negotiation, when Eli said he wanted money for his church? How did Plainview respond? "That's a good one."

The sequence of the scenes is crucial. The first time it worked on a subconscious level, but this time I consciously noticed it. Immediately following the "HW is deaf" scene is the scene where Plainview slaps Eli around in the mud. Plainview's "hatreds" have definitely been unleashed. No more Mr. Nice Guy, as they say. That scene is followed by the dinner table scene, where mud-caked Eli slaps Abel around, in a way that closely mimics what Plainview just did to him. And who knows, maybe Abel will pass along that anger to Mary. Now, at the end of this scene, Eli mentions his brother Paul, says bad things about him, etc. Cut to Henry (this is not very subtle). We see the back of his head as he walks from a train station, and he turns a bit so we can see his face. Cut to Plainview finding Henry at his shack (the "brother from another mother" scene), and the connection has been made between the two sets of brothers.

Now, the gusher scene (where the oil explodes from the ground and eventually ignites). Remember what immediately preceded that scene? Plainview was sitting in "the mess hall" (the screen porch type thing), and the sky was bright. When the oil explodes from the ground and HW is knocked back, the sky turns suddenly darker (yes, before the fire). This scene goes on into the night through the next morning, so we don't think much of it after the fact, but the sky definitely turned dark rather suddenly after HW hit his head. This obviously reflects Plainview's inner experience.

Also, notice what happens when Plainview brings the oil-covered (and deaf) HW to the mess hall. HW tells him not to let go, but Plainview forces himself out of his arms and exits the little building. Watch what DDL does here. As Plainview starts awkwardly bounding toward the oil, away from HW, you can see his internal conflict in the way he moves. When faced with this choice between HW and oil, he chooses oil. Also notice the way he responds later when Fletcher Hamilton asks him if HW is okay. It's cold. HW pretty much instantly lost all of his meaning to Plainview. I think it's during the fetal position scene that Plainview really lets go of him.

That said, it was clear to me on this second viewing how meaningful their father/son relationship was before the deafening. Notice how they interact in the quail hunting sequence and especially the flashback, which puts a fine point on it. It was the real thing.

Plainview walks with a slight limp because of his early injury, but, immediately after the oil explosion and the deafening, it turns into a severe limp, and he kind of hunches over a bit, stiffly folding forward. You can see this right away, even in the first scene with Henry. By the end of the film, in the bowling alley, Plainview is really bending forward and limping almost cartoonishly, a physical manifestation of his inner experience.

I had questions before about how sincere Plainview's baptism confessions really were. I think I have a pretty good grasp of it now. Paraphrasing:

You abandoned your son.
I abandoned my son.
You abandoned your son.
I abandoned my son.
Louder!
I abandoned my son!
Louder, Daniel!
I abandoned my son!
I abandoned my boy!

Plainview was repeating after Eli, just saying what he was supposed to say, until that last line, where he says "my boy." This is his statement, not Eli's, and he definitely means it. The rest of it was recital, but this is real.

Also, it's interesting that a baptism scene like this would normally be a moment of catharsis, release, forgiveness. Instead, this is a high point of conflict, and you can see Plainview's anger building and building and building. He takes that with him. There was no release.

While I don't necessarily believe it, the "Plainview is dead before the final scene" theory is sort of supported by what happens near the end. During the final HW/Plainview confrontation, Plainview says, "You're killing us." That's immediately followed by the short scene with Plainview sort of stumbling down the dark stairway. Cut to the final scene, which has some very blurry shots at the beginning. And, of course, the servant has a completely unnatural reaction to what he finds at the end.

Quote from: picolas on January 09, 2008, 02:30:07 AMsure, things happen. but they only really serve to look deeper into the souls of these two men. the men don't learn anything about themselves, the audience learns about them. it develops the notion of these two evils. expands them. paints them. this is a dense painting. it's not an epic in the way you think of an epic.. it's like a very long zoom. and that's revolutionary to pt as a storyteller. sydney, boogie, maggie, were all for the most part movies about things that were actually happening. pdl is about a change in a person, and it's still a fair degree of literal. its essence is fable, mythic, image-based... it's a painting, but it's a moving painting. twbb is just a painting. an enormous painting that you walk into from a mile away, all the way up so you can make out the enormous, towering smears.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 05, 2008, 05:44:22 PMDing ding ding!
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 13, 2008, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 13, 2008, 06:19:05 PM
After Henry has arrived, HW finds that book with the picture and figures out that Henry is a fake. He sets the fire to destroy Henry or at least send a message to Plainview. It's only after the murder on Bandy's property that Plainview figures it out. The pages with singed edges help him make the connection between HW's fire and Henry's fakery. I completely missed this the first time.
HOLY SHIT.  how did i never catch this?  THIS is a revelation.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on January 13, 2008, 07:22:26 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 13, 2008, 06:19:05 PM
Quote from: picolas on January 09, 2008, 02:30:07 AMsure, things happen. but they only really serve to look deeper into the souls of these two men. the men don't learn anything about themselves, the audience learns about them. it develops the notion of these two evils. expands them. paints them. this is a dense painting. it's not an epic in the way you think of an epic.. it's like a very long zoom. and that's revolutionary to pt as a storyteller. sydney, boogie, maggie, were all for the most part movies about things that were actually happening. pdl is about a change in a person, and it's still a fair degree of literal. its essence is fable, mythic, image-based... it's a painting, but it's a moving painting. twbb is just a painting. an enormous painting that you walk into from a mile away, all the way up so you can make out the enormous, towering smears.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 05, 2008, 05:44:22 PMDing ding ding!

i don't know if i wholly agree with this - are you implying that there isn't really an arc for plainview's character? nonetheless, i still think its great to look at this movie as a "very long zoom."

if you approach the movie as an attempt to peer into the lives of plainview and co., the camera then takes on more meaning. the first notable scene  i can think of - and probably the most stylized moment of the whole movie - is when eli pushes us out of the church.. "get out of here devil," eli says, like a condemnation for trying to pry into the souls of these men. there are also quite a few shots where we watch the characters through screens and archways, namely the last moments of the 1905 sequence when h.w. and mary are jumping off the porch. my memory fails me, but i want to say the shot starts at the altar of the church and slowly pushes toward them.. we never get out the door.

going on this, it interesting to try and resolve the fact that the first time we see daniel we are far closer to him than the final shot of the film. in the last moments, we assume the role of his butler: watching from the back of the room, trying to make sense of it all.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ©brad on January 13, 2008, 07:43:37 PM
Quote from: modage on January 13, 2008, 06:51:42 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 13, 2008, 06:19:05 PM
After Henry has arrived, HW finds that book with the picture and figures out that Henry is a fake. He sets the fire to destroy Henry or at least send a message to Plainview. It's only after the murder on Bandy's property that Plainview figures it out. The pages with singed edges help him make the connection between HW's fire and Henry's fakery. I completely missed this the first time.
HOLY SHIT.  how did i never catch this?  THIS is a revelation.

yeah i totally missed that too, and many other astute obversations in jb's fantastic follow-up analysis. i'm really itchy to see this sucker again.

Quote from: Stephanie Zacharek's salon.com reviewThere are no women in "There Will Be Blood" -- Plainview is apparently so fixated on oil he has zero interest in sex -- and that's fine. But their absence is never addressed; the understanding is that a world of power-hungry men is interesting by itself (which it isn't).

a female co-worker just last friday came to me with a similar complaint, although she was a bit more candid ("this movie is in desperate need of one thing: pussy"). i didn't have an immediate response, and after thinking about it briefly i referred back to the "i see the worst in people" speech and the scene when henry asks daniel for hooker money, and the look of utter disgust on daniel's face as he concedes w/ the dough. the question remains, does the movie suffer from its lack of women, or does it suffer from not overtly explaining why it lacks women, or does it benefit from sidestepping a potentially superfluous female subplot in favor of a more single-minded, father-son exploration?

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on January 13, 2008, 07:55:18 PM
Quote from: JG on January 13, 2008, 07:22:26 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 13, 2008, 06:19:05 PM
Quote from: picolas on January 09, 2008, 02:30:07 AMsure, things happen. but they only really serve to look deeper into the souls of these two men. the men don't learn anything about themselves, the audience learns about them. it develops the notion of these two evils. expands them. paints them. this is a dense painting. it's not an epic in the way you think of an epic.. it's like a very long zoom. and that's revolutionary to pt as a storyteller. sydney, boogie, maggie, were all for the most part movies about things that were actually happening. pdl is about a change in a person, and it's still a fair degree of literal. its essence is fable, mythic, image-based... it's a painting, but it's a moving painting. twbb is just a painting. an enormous painting that you walk into from a mile away, all the way up so you can make out the enormous, towering smears.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 05, 2008, 05:44:22 PMDing ding ding!

are you implying that there isn't really an arc for plainview's character?

No, I think he was saying it outright.  And I'm inclined to agree.  The changes in Plainview's character throughout the film are more a matter of revealing his true self, peeling back the layers of the onion, than an actual arc in the traditional sense.  He's affected by the events that take place, but he responds not by evolving as a person, but rather letting the veneer fall away until we see him not as the man he's trying to pass himself off as, but as the man he really is, deep down.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 13, 2008, 08:41:13 PM
Exactly. He has his "hatreds," but he's keeping them locked up so he can play the business man role. That accounts for his pseudo-professionalistic, almost constipated manner of speaking.

You can see it bubbling up in that very first sales pitch scene, with the extended close-up on his reddening face.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: hedwig on January 13, 2008, 09:50:36 PM
Quote from: ©MBBrad on January 13, 2008, 07:43:37 PM
the question remains, does the movie suffer from its lack of women, or does it suffer from not overtly explaining why it lacks women, or does it benefit from sidestepping a potentially superfluous female subplot in favor of a more single-minded, father-son exploration?
the women issue is getting out of hand.

it's not true that women are ENTIRELY absent. how about mary, mary's an important character, wouldn't you say? there you have it, female quota filled. i just don't understand the need for one in the first place. not every story must directly involve women.

the role women play or don't play in plainview's life is definitely worth discussing, but it's crazy that people are actually thinking of it as a FLAW. why! does the lack of women take away from 2001, or strangelove, or plenty of other movies that don't focus on women characters? that's kinda missing the point.

it's interesting to think about this in contrast to PTA's treatment of women in PDL. that movie was ALL ABOUT WOMEN and the permutations of barry's relationships with them.. as shallow escape from loneliness (phone sex), as a cause of weakness and insecurity (his sisters), and ultimately as the source of rebirth and salvation (lena). with CMBB, paul is tackling this idea from a different angle, another reason why this film marks a great evolutionary step for him, by removing women almost entirely from plainview's life. it's not that women are unimportant, not at all. the same impulses, hungers, desires, and needs that might manifest themselves in relationships with women are instead channelled into other areas of plainview's life. which goes back to strangelove.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on January 13, 2008, 10:59:27 PM
Quote from: Hedwig on January 13, 2008, 09:50:36 PM
Quote from: ©MBBrad on January 13, 2008, 07:43:37 PM
the question remains, does the movie suffer from its lack of women, or does it suffer from not overtly explaining why it lacks women, or does it benefit from sidestepping a potentially superfluous female subplot in favor of a more single-minded, father-son exploration?
the women issue is getting out of hand.

it's not true that women are ENTIRELY absent. how about mary, mary's an important character, wouldn't you say? there you have it, female quota filled. i just don't understand the need for one in the first place. not every story must directly involve women.

the role women play or don't play in plainview's life is definitely worth discussing, but it's crazy that people are actually thinking of it as a FLAW. why! does the lack of women take away from 2001, or strangelove, or plenty of other movies that don't focus on women characters? that's kinda missing the point.

also, during one of the outcries in the scene where plainview rejects the lease, a woman in the crowd says something and a man shouts back "sit down woman, you have no business here!" i don't think it really matters, but i think that subtle moment shows that the filmmakers were aware of the lack of women. did anyone else catch this?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: picolas on January 14, 2008, 03:11:56 AM
(JB has inspired me to write a really long post about this)

the second time was far better. i can now wholeheartedly say that this is an amazing film. i'm certain now that my first view was ruined by trailer exposure. the opposite of JB. the most important thing that was messed up was the "i don't like most people" speech, which shouldn't be thought of or even known going in. it's really meant to be more of a surprise. i watched it as though i didn't know which scenes were coming, and never thought of or judged plainview outside of what he had done up to whatever point in the film. yknow, like a normal person watching a movie.

some thoughts:
this is an extremely internal film.  ddl could almost be credited as a writer, because his non-verbal acts are SO crucial to understanding the movie. i realize this is what an actor does, but this goes beyond characterization and subtext. his face speaks in ways that his voice never does. we are very cleverly primed for this by the mostly silent opening. watch this guy. he's not a talker. two shots that illustrate this and are also among the most important moments in the film:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq293%2Fnoveltyhat%2Frange.jpg&hash=3ffab066d662c19e508242ec26c713fb95e1b3c6) (https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi139.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fq293%2Fnoveltyhat%2Frange1.jpg&hash=74a3905fd64ccb38e12fb652a2a35559bdfe126e)
recognition/admiration/hate/self-hate

in both moments he's looking into eli, and as ddl has said in interviews, recognizing himself. the awful fact is that he hates what he sees. the mirror. they're both frauds, and though he feels/knows eli is the worse fraud, he also can't bear the thought that they're both very similar. he also recognizes that he's the only other person he's met who can bend an audience like him, to believe all the false intentions, which is a skill that he admires in the way a secret agent might admire another secret agent. this is all spoken by his face. and you need a gif to see the range of it. a single photo doesn't work.

another moment where the performance is more important than what is being said is the negotiation with the bankers, which is the first time he begins to manifest what has been building in him. he's finally confessed his feelings about the world in general to his "brother" and lost the ability to communicate with the only person he loved. he is liberated from the role of the father. it's a wonderfully complex scene. and deceptively so for the lack of dialogue. plainview takes offense at the mention of his son, or the notion that he might raise his family, or simply do anything with his life outside of hunting for oil. the other guy at the table is subtly using HW as a negotiation tool, just as plainview had been doing. and plainview recognizes that. the threat to slit the guy's throat comes from all these angles. the mirror, the idea that there's life beyond oil. the walk away from the table coupled with the score show how profound this scene is for him. he's finally really tapping into the silent, shadowy part of himself. the part of him that guarded against that side/reversed it left with HW. he is, in a way, beginning to live the dream of escaping 'these.. people'. slavoj zizek, whose film analysis film 'the pervert's guide to cinema' i really dig, brings up a recurring theme in cinema: the dream realized is really the ultimate nightmare. this theme echoes throughout Blood.

i disagree with JB's analysis of the HW fire. how does the photo tip off HW? he certainly can't read since the book is upside-down. i think HW is disturbed by the idea that a stranger could take his place at his father's side so suddenly, and that mixes with the silent, alien world he's found himself in. and that explodes in an attempt to light a bed on fire with oil. you can tell from his reaction that he didn't really mean for it to get so out of hand. it's a frustrated youthful moment. i believe daniel's tears as he reads the diary by the fire after killing the fake come from the fact that he is now TOTALLY alone and has no one to share himself with. the only remaining person who could listen to him would've been his brother, who's already dead.

did bandy know plainview had killed a man? i like to think he didn't, because it's not the most believable reaction if he did, but it's tough to explain the giving of the gun to him after "what sin have i commited?" otherwise. someone clear this up!

the transition to the final section of the film (scored with "HW/Hope of New Fields") is one of my favourite parts of the film. the only piece of hope/light that escapes the madness of the plainview's legacy is HW, who is the only living product of and witness to plainview's love. though that has very little to do with the conclusion.

which brings me to "i'm finished."

the first time i saw the film i felt a wealth of connotations and potential meanings behind this line. the most prominent was that of a man recognizing his life was over. that's not invalid, but i like the second viewing connotation better. and that has to do with the delivery and the look on the servant's face. the servant isn't shocked at all. nor is he rushing down the stairs. i think, therefore, the final moment of the film suggests plainview literally gets away with murder. this is the movie at its most insane and allegorical. and the score perfectly reflects this. a man of enormous wealth got to where he is by tunneling underground, away from people, and risking his life in search of a liquid. he's mad. extravagantly mad. and the tragedy of the end of his path is not as simple as an old man flailing wildly in the air. it's a hugely intricate madness. like the derrick itself, which is tied to the concerto, which also represents an intense intricacy.

the most striking and obvious metaphor in the film is the oil deafening HW and then setting on fire.

the flashback to the love he had for HW ends appropriately with daniel walking towards the derrick.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: B.C. Long on January 14, 2008, 02:46:27 PM
Quote from: picolas on January 14, 2008, 03:11:56 AM
i believe daniel's tears as he reads the diary by the fire after killing the fake come from the fact that he is now TOTALLY alone and has no one to share himself with. the only remaining person who could listen to him would've been his brother, who's already dead.

Can someone also clear-up who's baby photo that Daniel was looking at right before he breaks down?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 14, 2008, 03:48:52 PM
Quote from: picolas on January 14, 2008, 03:11:56 AMi disagree with JB's analysis of the HW fire. how does the photo tip off HW? he certainly can't read since the book is upside-down. i think HW is disturbed by the idea that a stranger could take his place at his father's side so suddenly, and that mixes with the silent, alien world he's found himself in. and that explodes in an attempt to light a bed on fire with oil. you can tell from his reaction that he didn't really mean for it to get so out of hand. it's a frustrated youthful moment. i believe daniel's tears as he reads the diary by the fire after killing the fake come from the fact that he is now TOTALLY alone and has no one to share himself with. the only remaining person who could listen to him would've been his brother, who's already dead.

I actually like this better.  :yabbse-thumbup:

Quote from: picolas on January 14, 2008, 03:11:56 AMdid bandy know plainview had killed a man? i like to think he didn't, because it's not the most believable reaction if he did, but it's tough to explain the giving of the gun to him after "what sin have i commited?" otherwise. someone clear this up!

I'm guessing Bandy knew about the murder. He may have heard the gunshot in the night, and it was probably easy for him to identify the hastily-dug grave. You're right, though, it's a confusing reaction. I mean it's not exactly the old west, but maybe murder and death are not as surprising in this context as we'd expect them to be.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Ghostboy on January 14, 2008, 10:59:02 PM
In the script, it's specified that HW is illiterate. I think the only trace of this left in the film is that, indeed, he is holding the diary upside down, and doesn't bother to right it.

As for the murder and whether Bandy knew about it, I found myself wondering whether his drunken slumber after the murder and his awakening the next morning were in fact consecutive. I believe he kills Henry near the ocean - it's right after the night of whoring, and when he digs the grave it quickly fills with water, indicating that they're still near the ocean and not near the ranch (where water is so scarce). He probably drank himself silly every night on the journey home, and I'd wager there's probably a space of about a week in between the murder and Bandy's discovery of him.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gamblour. on January 15, 2008, 12:18:18 AM
The milkshake dialogue is probably going to be incredibly famous. Like you'll see it in an Oscar montage as they remember the great movies. And the way DDL walks away and playfully dances with the straw, it's pure joy watching him.

I saw this for my second time and it was wonderful, went by so much faster. The final scene is almost restrained in containing the mania exhibited. One of my favorite elements that nobody's really touched on, because it's pretty obvious, but the signature at the gold/silver assay office at the beginning and at the end as he writes a check. It's a very telling detail.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: B.C. Long on January 15, 2008, 01:45:16 PM
Quote from: Ghostboy on January 14, 2008, 10:59:02 PM
and when he digs the grave it quickly fills with water, indicating that they're still near the ocean and not near the ranch

I'm pretty sure that was Oil or does it say it's water in the script?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gamblour. on January 15, 2008, 05:39:05 PM
It's oil, I thought, because it's part of the seepage that Paul describes. And it's really really black.

My favorite favorite thing about Plainview, and someone mentioned the sleeping parts, is that he is such a heavy sleeper. Most 'badasses' sleep with one eye open in movies, but he sleeps like a rock, and to me it shows that he is vulnerable. Also, at the beginning when he's digging in the first oil pit, and he is nearly suffocated by the fumes, he is as weak as any other man.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on January 15, 2008, 11:39:19 PM
'I drink your milkshake' may become one of those lines you can't forget
Daniel Day-Lewis's line in There Will Be Blood could be up there with Humphrey Bogart's 'Here's looking at you, kid'. So which movie catchphrases stick in your mind?
Source: Killian Fox; The Guardian

What enables a line of dialogue to leap out of a movie and burrow its way into the popular consciousness, clinging to everyday speech with the tenacity of a tick in a dog's ear? If it's a lurid, jolting quality, made even more outlandish by the context in which it is said, then the bloggers who reckon "I drink your milkshake!" will soon enter the "pop-culture catchphrase lexicon" may well be on to something.

Daniel Day-Lewis utters those words at the end of Paul Thomas Anderson's magnificently loopy new film, There Will Be Blood, which is on staggered release in the US at the moment and will open in the UK on February 8. Here's (http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/images/column/11508/milkshake.mp3) an audio recording of him saying it, with the sort of all-dials-up-to-10 theatrical exuberance we haven't heard since Anthony Hopkins went overboard with Hannibal Lecter. (In fact, blogger Jeffrey Wells reckons Day-Lewis is paying tribute to Hopkins when he makes his milkshake slurping noises.)

Don't worry, this shouldn't give away anything about the film's (brilliant, mad) finale. Virulent catchphrases rarely do: they thrive on insider-ish glee at the shared knowledge of something that makes the uninitiated go, "huh?" - until everyone's seen or at least heard about the movie and the catchphrase either fizzles out (Is anyone still gabbling brainlessly about "snakes on a plane"? or lives on forever ("Here's looking at you, kid"; "Frankly my dear I don't give a damn").

Another mark of the successful catchphrase is malleability: its meaning can mutate dramatically once released from its original context. Thus, "I'm going to make him an offer he can't refuse" could quite literally mean that a generous and attractive business proposition is on the cards and no one needs to make a trip down to the nearest stud farm with a saw.

Will "I drink your milkshake!" tick that particular box? In this rapacious day and age, I'm sure fans (such as the one who has just established a website dedicated to the line) will be able to apply it with ease to any number of self-serving situations, not least the shameless siphoning off of a neighbour's semi-liquid dessert.

None of this matters, of course, if There Will Be Blood sinks at the box office, as some fear it will - although it's surely bound for cult status if it does, and cult cinema is a great swampy breeding ground for unhatched catchphrases. Maybe a throwaway milkshake reference will be the lifebelt that brings Anderson's titanic movie back to the surface in the long run.

You can refer to the AFI's 100 Greatest Movie Quotes of All Time if you want all the big lines, but, in honour of Day-Lewis and his ill-gotten shake, which, in your opinion, are the most memorably weird movie catchphrases in circulation? From the creepy banality of "All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy" (OK, I realise it's not actual dialogue or even original to The Shining) to the splendidly OTT "That thing in the cellar is not my mother!", what are the sick little puppies and the uncanny lines that crawl under your skin for some reason you can't quite identify?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on January 16, 2008, 01:44:05 AM
whoa, my friends just formed a band called milkshake like a month ago.  what good/bad timing!
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on January 17, 2008, 10:40:18 PM
you splash around in here. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=N2RN3-A31QI)
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: edison on January 18, 2008, 08:30:35 AM
Quote from: pozer on January 17, 2008, 10:40:18 PM
you splash around in here. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=N2RN3-A31QI)

I think PTA should have kept the campfire scene in because I like how Daniel references Abel's line of "my son is a healer and a vessel for the holy spirit." I liked how Daniel was able to use his fathers praise against him.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: elpablo on January 18, 2008, 09:45:16 AM
Am I just stupid or was this scene: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRAWXi2uTf4 not in the movie

I want to talk about it. Because I like it. Is it supposed to be before they "bless" the derrick? It's kind of clear why it was taken out - because all it does is show us that HW is there to serve Daniel, and that's already clear enough without it, but it's such a nice little scene. And Daniel's "That was my fault" makes you question whether or not he really cares about HW because he doesn't want him to feel bad. It's a nice scene.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 18, 2008, 10:42:26 AM
not in the film.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: idk on January 19, 2008, 04:07:15 PM
Quote from: pozer on January 17, 2008, 10:40:18 PM
you splash around in here. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=N2RN3-A31QI)
Does anyone else think it looks like Eli is "walking on water oil" as he makes his way towards daniel

This scene is also a good example of how the trailers really took away a lot of what would have been a surprising moment, with the slapping, etc.

As for the diary, one thing i noticed that hasn't been discussed is the couple words we got a closeup of as daniel is reading it right before he breaks down crying(i think thats when), i couldn't make out what it said... also lets remember there was a picture of a women, which i think is what H.W. saw and then daniel sees the picture of the young boy (not sure who looked at which picture). And from what i remember at the time when H.W. is reading it we don't know it belongs to Henry(or rather daniel's real bro). I also originally assumed the picture of the women to be H.W.'s mom but since we know thats not the case does this mean its Daniel's Mom? AND what about the newspaper ad for the guns that H.W. looked at? Could possibly this mean Henry had bought a gun to kill Daniel's real bro so he could come and try and get rich off Daniel, but that dosen't make much sense cause isn't it supposed to be Daniel's real bro's diary that was stolen by Henry. Which leads to the real question of how do we know this is Daniel's real bro's diary? Does the movie make this clear or am i just thinking this because someone in a previous post said it was.... or am i just crazy, i have only seen this movie once so i might be missing something

To clarify the important questions. Why did H.W. set fire to Henry's bed, was it his way of telling his father that this guy is a fake, if this is the case then maybe the reason Daniel crys is because he realizes H.W. was looking out for him, a show of loyalty, when at the time this was probly one of the reasons that led Daniel to sending H.W. away. Or was it a show of malice towards Henry because H.W. felt Henry was replacing him as his fathers "righthand man".? And who's diary/journal is read by H.W. and then later on by Daniel? Who are the pictures of that fall out of the diary/journal?

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 19, 2008, 05:38:37 PM
Quote from: idk on January 19, 2008, 04:07:15 PM
Does anyone else think it looks like Eli is "walking on water oil" as he makes his way towards daniel

Good call... that seems legit. We know PTA is not averse to biblical references.

Quote from: idk on January 19, 2008, 04:07:15 PMThis scene is also a good example of how the trailers really took away a lot of what would have been a surprising moment, with the slapping, etc.

Yeah, I'm so glad I didn't watch the trailer... I was actually considering it. (Though I did play the trailer for someone else. I ran out of the room, came back back when it was done, and asked them how it looked.) PTA wasn't involved with the trailer, was he?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: idk on January 20, 2008, 07:09:01 PM
I just looked at the script and it does specify that it is the real Henry Plainview's journal that the fake Henry had brought with him.

Does anyone have any ideas about the significance of the red painted stakes Daniel and Henry are driving into the ground for the pipeline, I remember the camera holding on them for quite a while. Maybe a connection with the red stripes usually painted at the tops of bowling pins (probly not)

I asked my friend who hasn't scene the movie what he thinks about when he thinks of bowling/bowling alleys and he said that he thinks of it as a game that older people play or something people play to fall back on cause they aren't good at any other sport. He really painted it as ungrand, kind of a sport without much dignity. He also pointed out bowling alleys usually have bars and they're always filled with cigarette smoke...maybe kind of a place for the common man... Also i thought of the cliche "back alley fight", which fits nicely.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: RegularKarate on January 21, 2008, 12:56:30 PM
Seeing this again, I think that we're maybe putting too much thought into why HW sets the fire. 
Children with communication problems (speech impediments etc...) often lash out against the world from frustration.
HW can't communicate... when he looks at the book, he can't make heads or tails out of it... he wants to know who these people in the pictures in this book are, but he can't read it and he can't ask anyone, not even his own dad (who he's already mad at) so he starts the fire out of anger.

It was also nice to see it this time with a big group of friends, almost all of whom laughed in the right places.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 21, 2008, 01:14:49 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 13, 2008, 06:19:05 PMI had questions before about how sincere Plainview's baptism confessions really were. I think I have a pretty good grasp of it now. Paraphrasing:

You abandoned your son.
I abandoned my son.
You abandoned your son.
I abandoned my son.
Louder!
I abandoned my son!
Louder, Daniel!
I abandoned my son!
I abandoned my boy!

Plainview was repeating after Eli, just saying what he was supposed to say, until that last line, where he says "my boy." This is his statement, not Eli's, and he definitely means it. The rest of it was recital, but this is real.

Also, it's interesting that a baptism scene like this would normally be a moment of catharsis, release, forgiveness. Instead, this is a high point of conflict, and you can see Plainview's anger building and building and building. He takes that with him. There was no release.

Here (http://xixax.com/files/jb/twbb/twbb_baptism.mp3) is an audio clip of the baptism scene that I pulled from the very spoilerish Paul Dano Fresh Air interview. I think it might be edited down a little, but the part I was talking about is there.

A more accurate transcript. DDL parts are in red.

So say it now. I am a sinner.
I am a sinner.
Say it louder. I am a sinner.
I am a sinner.
Louder, Daniel! I am a sinner!
I am a sinner.
I am sorry, Lord.
I am sorry, Lord.
I want the blood!
I want the blood.
You have abandoned your child.
I have abandoned my child.
I will never backslide.
I will never backslide.
I was lost but now I am found.
I was lost but now I am found.
I have abandoned my child. Say it, say it!
I have abandoned my child.
Say it louder, say it louder!
I have abandoned my child!
I have abandoned my child!
I have abandoned my boy!



Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: picolas on January 21, 2008, 01:42:19 PM
it's available as a clip here...

http://www.movieweb.com/news/60/25360.php

4th down.

i don't think i've seen one part of the movie more. and yet EVERY TIME.. it gets me.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 21, 2008, 04:13:12 PM
Them right there is some superhuman acting skills. His face in that scene just blows my mind.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cine on January 21, 2008, 06:05:51 PM
i apologize for predicting they'd give it to clooney this year to spite all of us. they can't shun DDL this year, no sirrey.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: grand theft sparrow on January 22, 2008, 11:30:28 AM
***SPOILERS***

This made me angry today.  Not because he disliked the movie but because he's not giving any good reasons.  This review isn't so much from someone who "doesn't get it" as from someone who doesn't want to.  Like how one of my friends always quotes John Mayer, who supposedly said that the definition of a douchebag is someone who gets bent out of shape when you tell them you don't watch Lost. 

The "PT Anderson" nitpick is just silly; I don't expect everyone to remember that he has "A PT Anderson Picture" at the beginnings of his films, but who gives a fuck what his fans call him?  And why is that pretentious?  And how does that factor into the film itself?

(The original review had no paragraph breaks.  I did my best to add some.)

Up through the ground came a bubblin' crud
By Edward Copeland

F. Scott Fitzgerald famously said that there are no second acts in American lives. I was thinking about coining the phrase, "There are no third acts in Paul Thomas Anderson films," except that in the case of There Might Be Blood, there isn't much of a first or second act either. I think my father, who saw the film with me, summed it up best. "At first, I thought it was going to be about an oil war, then I thought it was going to be him versus the preacher, but eventually I realized it wasn't going to be about anything." To paraphrase Bob Dylan's "Maggie's Farm," Anderson has a head full of ideas that may be drivin' him insane.

This isn't to say that There Will Be Blood lacks any positive qualities, because the cinematography by Robert Elswit is phenomenal. However, the film really is a thudding bore, so much so that parts of the annoying score by Jonny Greenwood seems to actually drone like an amplified tuning fork and bear an uncanny resemblance to that sound that used to accompany the old THX "The Audience Is Listening" promos played in movie theaters. For most of the film, Daniel Day-Lewis' performance held my attention, despite the film's ponderous pacing and lack of focus. In fact, I was at first puzzled by the people who complained that Day-Lewis was over the top. I wished I'd never read whoever said Day-Lewis was aping John Huston, because every time he spoke that image did come to mind.

Unfortunately, Day-Lewis' performance goes off the rails as the film drags on and he suddenly starts devouring the scenery as if he needs it for nourishment. I can pinpoint the exact moment when he goes wrong: The scene where he's dining with his son and a group of rival oil executives are seated at a nearby table. For some reason, Day-Lewis begins talking out loud so they can hear while a cloth napkin covers his face. I can only assume that by this point Day-Lewis was as bored with the movie as I was. The ham gets the better of him from that point on so by the time we get to the scenes of him as an aging recluse in a large Kane-esque mansion in 1927, he's stooping and shuffling around as if he's a cousin to Marion Cotillard's Edith Piaf, dancing across the two-lane bowling alley he's built in his home. Of course, as soon as we see the bowling alley, you have to know what's coming. It's not placed there by accident, so as Day-Lewis meanders around the bowling lane, you know that balls will be employed and pins will be used for other purposes.

So much is wrongheaded about There Will Be Blood, that I hardly know where to start. Do I complain about how the portion of the film involving Paul Dano's character covers 16 years, yet the actor looks no different in age in the 1911 scenes than he does in the 1927 ones? Do I ask why Daniel Plainview makes such unnecessary complications for himself? Do I ask what is the true deal about Paul and Eli Sunday? Are they twins? The same person with multiple personalities? It hardly matters anyway. At one point, Plainview says that he doesn't like to explain himself and that seems to apply to Paul Thomas Anderson's film as well. Now many great films have been made that toiled in the soil of the ambiguous, but they aren't all as goddamn boring as There Will Be Blood.  Do I debate whether the film is asking whether it's Daniel or preacher Eli Sunday who is truly the false prophet? Perhaps Anderson is the false prophet at work here and his proponents, many of whom I know well, like and admire, are the ones being hoodwinked.

One thing I never quite understand is the insistence some of his fans have about calling him P.T. Anderson. The credit on There Will Be Blood clearly says it was written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. Is it possible some of his fans could be more pretentious than the filmmaker himself? During one outburst, Eli Sunday yells at his father that God doesn't love stupid people. I don't know if any part of that is true, but my guess is that if there is a God, he doesn't love stupid movies.


EDIT: Sorry, I forgot to put in a link to the site (http://eddieonfilm.blogspot.com).  Have at 'em, fellas.
   

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Sleepless on January 22, 2008, 02:22:28 PM
To be fair, he liked the cinematography :lol:
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Ravi on January 22, 2008, 05:23:02 PM
http://www.tnr.com/booksarts/story.html?id=565c05e2-3f81-42e1-ae45-0caa84716bb9

The New Republic
The Movie Review Spoiler Special by Christopher Orr
How Paul Thomas Anderson Screwed Up the Conclusion of 'There Will Be Blood.'
Post Date Thursday, January 17, 2008

If you are reading this, you hopefully have already seen There Will Be Blood and perhaps read my review as well. Those who haven't seen the film will a) have very little idea what I'm talking about; and b) encounter numerous spoilers. So get thee to the multiplex and come back when you've gotten religion.

Ready? In the review, I described There Will Be Blood as a flawed masterpiece, and cited the closing scenes, and the last in particular, as its crucial flaws. First, what I see as the broader--though less debilitating--misstep: Before the film's final temporal jump, it seems to be at a point of moral and psychological ambiguity. Daniel Plainview has just gotten his pipeline, but has done so, uncharacteristically, by submitting to the authority of Eli (and by extension his God) and the elder Bandy. His baptism by Eli seems to be fraudulent on all parts, but there is at least a hint that this fraudulent baptism may nonetheless have released him from some of his demons. He has won the imagined dispute with Standard Oil that had gnawed at him, and brought H.W. back home--a reunion that, though coerced, does not seem to be without love. When the boy first comes to him and begins punching wildly, Daniel responds with what appears to be genuine tenderness, accepting the blows and afterward soothing the boy gently.

It's worth noting that throughout the film, Daniel has always needed a "family member," however artificial, to act as his mirror and companion. First it was H.W., whom he treated as confidant and partner despite his youth (and despite the presence of more plausible candidates such as Fletcher Hamilton), and then Henry, the false brother. In both cases, he treated them with clear (if limited) affection. Indeed, his lines in the penultimate scene with a fully grown H.W. make clear his genetic narcissism: If he imagines another to share his blood (even knowing it's not true) he can "see himself" in them; take that away and they become another of the faceless rabble of "people" Daniel has no use for.

So at this juncture, while Daniel's redemption is far from assured, the possibility at least exists. He is reconciled with his boy; the primary competition driving him (with Standard Oil, over the pipeline) has been resolved in his favor; he has something resembling a truce with Eli Sunday; and the baptism, though forced upon him by Bandy, has washed away his murder of Henry (or at least any likelihood he'll ever be charged with it).

But we shortly speed forward in time to a scene--his confrontation with a fully grown H.W.--in which any hope for Daniel's redemption is treated as a dead letter. At some point in the intervening years, he has given himself over entirely to the monstrosity that had always lurked but had never fully possessed him. How? Why? It's not hard to imagine answers, but the film has elided them. As Ross Douthat said (I think) in our bloggingheads discussion, it's like a Shakespeare play that's missing the fourth act and the first half of the fifth.

Now, I don't think this elision is a disastrous one, just disappointing in a film that has taken its time up until this point and been very careful about setting the stage for each subsequent development. Had the film ended with some variant of the scene between Daniel and H.W.--or in its immediate aftermath, with Daniel alone and doomed in his immense mansion--it might have seemed rushed, but the overall shape would still have made perfect sense. Daniel's decision to tell H.W. that he was an orphan would even give a certain ironic resonance to the movie's title: For Daniel, there will be no blood.

Alas, the final scene offers an all-too-literal reading of the title and does far more to undermine the film than the earlier elisions. There are so many things I find wrong with Daniel's violent confrontation with Eli that I have trouble keeping them all in mind. It is loud, silly, unpersuasive, out of control, simultaneously obvious and ridiculous, and, to my mind, utterly unworthy of such a thoughtful, well-crafted film.

It also feels highly artificial, as if Anderson knew he wanted to have a confrontation between Daniel and Eli, realized there were no real dramatic grounds for one, and awkwardly threw together a rationale. Specifically, Eli approaches Daniel about drilling rights to the Bandy tract as if this is some grail for which Daniel has long lusted. In fact, Daniel has never shown any interest at all in the Bandy tract, except for the pipeline, which he's long since completed. He didn't bother to meet Bandy when he was first buying land; later treated the tract as an afterthought when he noticed it on the map; and, when he finally discussed the pipeline with Bandy, gave no suggestion that he wanted drilling rights. Eli may not be an oilman, but given his proximity to this last negotiation, you'd think he would have noticed Daniel's profound lack of interest in the property. Instead, he puffs and struts and demands $100,000 to broker an agreement on this land Daniel has never expressed the slightest enthusiasm for.

There are other inconsistencies, too. Daniel tells Eli that he paid his brother, Paul, $5,000 (if I recall correctly), and that Paul is now a successful businessman himself. But, as far as we know, Daniel only paid Paul a small fraction of that, when he first pointed the way to Little Boston. Has Daniel had subsequent contact with him? Is he making this all up to further humiliate Eli? We have no way of knowing; it's just tossed out there to dangle awkwardly.

One argument in favor of the scene, I suppose, is its symbolic rationale as the final smackdown between capitalism and religion. But of all the readings of the film, the God vs. Mammon one strikes me as perhaps the most inert. Does it really matter whether Eli is a true believer or a fraud? (I found the ambiguity more compelling.) Is the idea that capitalism will eventually co-opt and destroy religion that interesting--and even if so, is there no more sophisticated way to convey it than by having the businessman bash in the believer's skull with a bowling pin?

To my mind, the film's moral and psychological currents are vastly more compelling than its socio-historical ones. After all, this is not a film about two men--as the final encounter between Daniel and Eli suggests--but about one man. Yes, Daniel is a stand-in for capitalism, but he's so particular, so unique and fascinating, that he breaks the frame. He's not merely a metaphor, but a man wrestling with his own humanity, a man whose soul, long in peril, is ultimately lost. His fate is one of emptiness and isolation, and he deserves an ending that conveys this, a la The Godfather or Citizen Kane. Instead we get "I drink your milkshake," which is drawing comparisons not with such classics but rather with Scarface's "Say hello to my little friend." There Will Be Blood deserves better.

And so, of course, does Daniel Day-Lewis, whose supremely evocative performance descends into inevitable caricature here, Daniel Plainview by way of Bill the Butcher (or worse, Hannibal Lecter, the pantomimed milkshake-slurping recalling the good doctor's post-fava-beans-and-Chianti sucking sounds). The lame, concluding joke, as the butler arrives and Daniel, sitting on the floor next to his bloodied victim, announces "I'm finished," seems almost an admission of cinematic sabotage on Anderson's part.

I can't help but feel we've been here before. Anderson's last ambitious project (I don't count Punch Drunk Love as such), Magnolia, is another film I consider magnificent but flawed. And while its flaws are spread more liberally throughout, the largest is likewise its frogs-from-the-sky conclusion, which doesn't line up at all with the impossible-coincidences frame established at the beginning of the film. In both films, it seems to me, Anderson is trying to chronicle a spiritual state of being (redemption in Magnolia, the lack thereof in Blood) and can't figure out how to do it without physicalizing it, without inventing some cinematic "event" that can serve as a metaphor for what he's trying to say. He seems to think that showing us a bitter old man alone in his mansion, or two people making an unexpected human connection, is somehow insufficient to convey the enormity of the sentiment he intends, that something rowdier and more visceral is needed to make us pay attention. He should give his viewers-and himself-a little more credit.

Christopher Orr is a senior editor at The New Republic.

© The New Republic 2008
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gamblour. on January 22, 2008, 07:06:23 PM
Orr's thought about the film deserving an ending like Godfather or Kane is stupid. I really am hating the comparisons to Citizen Kane. Apologies if this has been detailed already, but this is way more like 2001 than any other film. Not just for the silent, primitive beginning that unfolds to more advanced tools and techniques, but the ending. 1927 is Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite. It is that elevated state of consciousness, where Plainview has become a Howard Hughes type recluse (shooting at randomly stacked pieces of furniture) and is forced to reconcile a hatred that's been boiling for years. I view that last half hour with the same attentive awe as the last 17 of 2001. It is all hyperreal, because we are meeting this man at the far end of a tunnel with no light. Dave doesn't really encounter his elder, aging self in 2001, or does he? I feel the same way when I think about the ending of the film. It's a sequence that transcends the previous logic and elements, but then it does a lot to justify that. Suddenly, we're in his mansion, the symbol of his success. It may as well be a place in his mind. Time has no relevance anymore. The fact that Eli shows up so suddenly has no matter in light of the fact that Eli has just shown up. Eli serving as an apparition, but certainly as the real thing, comes to Plainview's mercy, but he has none.

I do not understand how the last scene for anyone is the fault of the film. It makes the entire film come together for me! I didn't even know that was a point of contention until today, when I someone mention it. NCFOM and this film have great endings, people are just too stupid.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: SoNowThen on January 22, 2008, 08:59:18 PM
All of Orr's comments lead one to the (correct) assumption that he is a complete idiot. He obviously understood nothing of the film.

"Daniel is a stand-in for capitalism". Please.

'I will go see a film. It doesn't matter what is in that film, I will project myself upon it and see whatever it is I want to see, then, whenever that film deviates from what I demand it to conclude, I will consider it a gaping weakness. Teach me nothing, don't ask me to leave my comfort zone or think. I clearly hate art.'

I agree with Gamblour -- it makes the whole thing come together. Perfectly. It sends me back through the film again and again in my mind, replaying each moment with this new and unexpected revelation before me. It is a mark of beauty.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: picolas on January 23, 2008, 01:55:37 AM
i think he misinterpreted the state of Daniel right before the 1927 part. yes, he has a genuine revelation about what he's done, but it's immediately LOST in the phoniness of the ritual. he hides behind the ridiculousness with "yes, give me the blood lord!", the slapping, and "yes i do!" that's part of what's so amazing about that scene. a genuine revelation, the thing the church is supposed to be built on/NAMED AFTER, is discarded in the name of spectacle. when HW returns, it's not the reunion Daniel was hoping for because they still can't communicate. and just before the cut to the future, the beginnings of his insanity come out in the restaurant (fffffool). he's on the path to complete deterioration.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: private witt on January 23, 2008, 02:24:02 AM
Quote from: H.(sparro)W. on January 22, 2008, 11:30:28 AM
***SPOILERS***

This made me angry today.  Not because he disliked the movie but because he's not giving any good reasons.  This review isn't so much from someone who "doesn't get it" as from someone who doesn't want to. 

Agreed.  Some critics just want the attention of talking shit about a flawless film.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: squints on January 23, 2008, 05:22:22 AM
Quote from: H.(sparro)W. on January 22, 2008, 11:30:28 AM

By Edward Copeland

I wished I'd never read whoever said Day-Lewis was aping John Huston, because every time he spoke that image did come to mind.

Quote from: Roger Ebert
The performance by Day-Lewis may well win an Oscar nomination, and if he wins he should do the right thing in his acceptance speech and thank the late John Huston. His voice in the role seems like a frank imitation of Huston, right down to the cadences, the pauses, the seeming to confide.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B506BgwtQTU&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B506BgwtQTU&feature=related)

I'd be inclined to agree. But i don't think its a bad thing at all. It's actually quite fascinating.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cinemanarchist on January 23, 2008, 12:15:44 PM
I don't know if this needs its own thread or not...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=6tZ5Itj5b6k (http://youtube.com/watch?v=6tZ5Itj5b6k)

Go to about 4 minutes in and you will see why I posted this in the TWBB thread. I know, I know, who needs another reason to hate Diablo Cody...but why not have one more? I also posted a vague description of this in the Juno thread.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: cquiroga on January 23, 2008, 12:41:39 PM
Quote from: Gamblour. on January 22, 2008, 07:06:23 PM
Orr's thought about the film deserving an ending like Godfather or Kane is stupid. I really am hating the comparisons to Citizen Kane. Apologies if this has been detailed already, but this is way more like 2001 than any other film. Not just for the silent, primitive beginning that unfolds to more advanced tools and techniques, but the ending. 1927 is Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite. It is that elevated state of consciousness, where Plainview has become a Howard Hughes type recluse (shooting at randomly stacked pieces of furniture) and is forced to reconcile a hatred that's been boiling for years. I view that last half hour with the same attentive awe as the last 17 of 2001. It is all hyperreal, because we are meeting this man at the far end of a tunnel with no light. Dave doesn't really encounter his elder, aging self in 2001, or does he? I feel the same way when I think about the ending of the film. It's a sequence that transcends the previous logic and elements, but then it does a lot to justify that. Suddenly, we're in his mansion, the symbol of his success. It may as well be a place in his mind. Time has no relevance anymore. The fact that Eli shows up so suddenly has no matter in light of the fact that Eli has just shown up. Eli serving as an apparition, but certainly as the real thing, comes to Plainview's mercy, but he has none.

I do not understand how the last scene for anyone is the fault of the film. It makes the entire film come together for me! I didn't even know that was a point of contention until today, when I someone mention it. NCFOM and this film have great endings, people are just too stupid.

Great thread, great site.  Somehow stumbled upon all of this a few days ago, and I love the insight and commentary, especially regarding this wonderful film.

Gamblour, I agree with this comparison completely, and I'm surprised there hasn't been more made of the connection to 2001.  I thought it was fairly obvious when I saw the film, but was just another layer of depth to unfold and ponder on.  P.T. Anderson's cinephilia is well-documented, and I thought most of the allusions (Citizen Kane, Giant, Treasure of the Sierra Madre, Chinatown, et al) were covered in several mainstream reviews, but for some reason nobody seems to mention 2001.  Jeremy Blackman made a mention of 2001 back on Page 8 when he talked about the loud crescendo set against the opening landscape shot of the hills, saying it, "seemed like an homage to 2001's monoliths."  I thought the same exact thing (and I must admit, I was expecting that the film would have more direct involvement of the geography after that, like the very land that they walked on and tussled with in order to extract the oil would come off as a character of its own-- it didn't, really, except perhaps in a few wonderful set pieces that showed work at the derrick and the "geyser of flames").

Now I have only seen the film once, and it was about 3-4 weeks ago in LA, but I've wanted to talk about this ever since.  My memory of some of these things may be a bit sketchy, but I can't shake the initial impression without at least another viewing.

In addition to the structural similarity to 2001 with the intertitle and seemingly abrupt shift in temporal/spatial diegesis, I felt there were direct quotes in TWBB's final epilogue in the performance and action.  Daniel Plainview hunches and prances around like a stark caricature, pushing his performance to the brink of plausibility (for me-- and I know some have complained that he went *beyond* that point for them, and took them out of the movie).  He taunts and mocks Eli Sunday before chasing him down the alley to the inevitable conclusion where he catches him with the bowling pin, and bashes his head repeatedly.  This is the key moment of parallel to 2001, and perhaps some of you see where I'm heading  or had the same feeling yourself. . . Daniel Plainview is like the ape in 2001's opening, but his story is nearly the reverse-- whereas the ape's slow recognition of the long bone's functionality as a tool served as the precise moment that began the rapid evolution of humanity, Plainview's use of a bowling pin to bash the skull of Eli Sunday marked the final dissolution of his own humanity.

I half expected Plainview to throw the bowling pin up in the air in a slow-mo extreme close-up.

This obviously agrees with all interpretations of complexity and multi-entendre to the film's final line, "I'm finished," where it represents the literal end of the film, the accomplishment of Plainview's longstanding mission to snuff out Eli Sunday's fraudulence, and also the acknowledgment of Plainview's practical/social life being ruined (like a movie villain would say, despondently and defeated, when they realize they have finally gone too far and that there is no escape, and their comeuppance is nigh).
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: hedwig on January 23, 2008, 12:45:17 PM
great post, cquiroga. please introduce yourself... here. (http://xixax.com/index.php?topic=2.720)

welcome to xixax.


EDIT: fixed the link.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: idk on January 23, 2008, 02:04:34 PM
Quote from: picolas on January 23, 2008, 01:55:37 AM
i think he misinterpreted the state of Daniel right before the 1927 part. yes, he has a genuine revelation about what he's done, but it's immediately LOST in the phoniness of the ritual. he hides behind the ridiculousness with "yes, give me the blood lord!", the slapping, and "yes i do!" that's part of what's so amazing about that scene. a genuine revelation, the thing the church is supposed to be built on/NAMED AFTER, is discarded in the name of spectacle. when HW returns, it's not the reunion Daniel was hoping for because they still can't communicate. and just before the cut to the future, the beginnings of his insanity come out in the restaurant (fffffool). he's on the path to complete deterioration.
I totally agree.... and remember what daniel says when he is reunited with H.W., he is hugging him and he says "This does me good". This line seems revealing.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gamblour. on January 23, 2008, 02:28:30 PM
Yeah, nice analysis cquiroga. You know, if you're in search of a monolithic figure, I think a geyser of oil serves nothing better.

People use the word primitive often in regards to the beginning of the film, but I agree that it most definitely defines the end, even moreso.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: I Love a Magician on January 23, 2008, 02:59:22 PM
Quote from: idk on January 23, 2008, 02:04:34 PMand remember what daniel says when he is reunited with H.W., he is hugging him and he says "This does me good". This line seems revealing.

from the way i took it, daniel was genuinely happy to have HW back (i think it made for a very touching scene). at the time he figured HW's hearing was better but it wasn't so he slowly distanced himself.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Ravi on January 23, 2008, 03:08:34 PM
Quote from: Gamblour. on January 23, 2008, 02:28:30 PMPeople use the word primitive often in regards to the beginning of the film, but I agree that it most definitely defines the end, even moreso.

The whole film could be labeled "primitive."  Plainview's existence consists of nothing more than to exist and dominate.  Every action he takes, everything he says, is to that end.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: john on January 24, 2008, 04:20:21 AM
I saw this for a third time tonight...

It was a pretty full auditorium, which was nice...

They were quiet, receptive.... then the end....

This might teeter into the "stupidest thing you've ever heard someone say about a film" thread... but I guess it's all subjective...

Right before Daniel is, you know, finished... the woman directly behind me lets out a loud, concerned "Ooooohhhhh!" followed by "well, that is just too far. He should NOT have done that."

Her husband whispers, "I don't like that."

She responds, "Me neither."

The film ends, silence... the audience clears out immediately.

I also saw a pissed hipster broad and her apologetic boyfriend in the lobby.

People are fools.


Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: grand theft sparrow on January 24, 2008, 09:06:13 AM
Quote from: john on January 24, 2008, 04:20:21 AM
I also saw a pissed hipster broad and her apologetic boyfriend in the lobby.

There should be a hipster summit soon where people can come together and decide once and for all what qualifies one as being a hipster and what doesn't.  Because I'm getting confused.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: john on January 24, 2008, 12:59:03 PM
Eh, I really wouldn't have an answer... other than she looked like she probably really, really liked Diablo Cody and "hipster" seemed to be the most disparaging (glib) term I could use at the moment.''

In short, she looked like a fucking asshole.


Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on January 24, 2008, 01:09:48 PM
john, you're in the Yay right?
not to sound like a superior east coaster, but the Bay Area has some of the worst theater audiences in the country.  They'd go to indie movies and they even look the part, but once they open their mouths...they sound just like Miss America.  I'll also venture out to say that for a region with like 12 indie theaters all next to each other, they have really bland selections.  they also have some of the most boring revival scenes, alternately playing "liberal" documentaries, and curatorial-masturbatorial old classics.  they might be shooting cool ads and cool music videos, even cool movies in this city, but cinema is as dead as hiphop over here.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gamblour. on January 24, 2008, 03:11:22 PM
The best experience I had with an audience was my second viewing. Right as he raises the bowling pin, a rolling crescendo of shocked gasps, and then WHAM. I wish Paul was there. It was definitely something to behold/hear.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Tictacbk on January 24, 2008, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Gamblour. on January 24, 2008, 03:11:22 PM
The best experience I had with an audience was my second viewing. Right as he raises the bowling pin, a rolling crescendo of shocked gasps, and then WHAM. I wish Paul was there. It was definitely something to behold/hear.


The same exact thing happened the second time I saw it.  It was fantastic.  Then the friggen old guy sitting next to me ruined it when he turned to me and said "That'll make a mess." 

There was also a low "ooo" from the whole audience when Daniel said "Those areas have been drilled."
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: john on January 24, 2008, 06:05:12 PM
Quote from: pete on January 24, 2008, 01:09:48 PM
john, you're in the Yay right?
not to sound like a superior east coaster, but the Bay Area has some of the worst theater audiences in the country.  They'd go to indie movies and they even look the part, but once they open their mouths...they sound just like Miss America.  I'll also venture out to say that for a region with like 12 indie theaters all next to each other, they have really bland selections.  they also have some of the most boring revival scenes, alternately playing "liberal" documentaries, and curatorial-masturbatorial old classics.  they might be shooting cool ads and cool music videos, even cool movies in this city, but cinema is as dead as hiphop over here.


Yeah, man... I can't even muster the patience/energy anymore to go to the Embarcadero, or any other art house in this town.... I've taken to driving out to suburban two screens and shopping center multiplexes, at least there the audiences are minimal because nobody gives a shit. But to see something truly unique, truly "art house", forget it... at the art houses, or the multiplexes around here.

And the revival circuit.... Jesus, don't get me started... so many little unique theaters, and college campuses... and it's all for nothing. The Bay Area is a wasted opportunity for cinema, unless someone truly kicks it in the ass.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on January 24, 2008, 06:53:43 PM
Quote from: Tictacbeekay on January 24, 2008, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Gamblour. on January 24, 2008, 03:11:22 PM
The best experience I had with an audience was my second viewing. Right as he raises the bowling pin, a rolling crescendo of shocked gasps, and then WHAM. I wish Paul was there. It was definitely something to behold/hear.


The same exact thing happened the second time I saw it.  It was fantastic.  Then the friggen old guy sitting next to me ruined it when he turned to me and said "That'll make a mess." 

There was also a low "ooo" from the whole audience when Daniel said "Those areas have been drilled."

Got both the gasps and the "ooo's" on my second viewing too.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: SiliasRuby on January 24, 2008, 08:35:12 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on January 24, 2008, 06:53:43 PM
Quote from: Tictacbeekay on January 24, 2008, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Gamblour. on January 24, 2008, 03:11:22 PM
The best experience I had with an audience was my second viewing. Right as he raises the bowling pin, a rolling crescendo of shocked gasps, and then WHAM. I wish Paul was there. It was definitely something to behold/hear.


The same exact thing happened the second time I saw it.  It was fantastic.  Then the friggen old guy sitting next to me ruined it when he turned to me and said "That'll make a mess." 

There was also a low "ooo" from the whole audience when Daniel said "Those areas have been drilled."

Got both the gasps and the "ooo's" on my second viewing too.
Same here. My second viewing was a week or so ago and I'll probably see it once more before it comes out on DVD. I actually whispered 'jesus' the first time I saw it with mac, when that particular line came up. I caught more the second time around and most of the audience I saw it with the second time walked calmly out of the theatre, but short mumblings of unhappiness and strait up frustration about the ending.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: idk on January 24, 2008, 08:46:58 PM
yeah i had good reactions in my theater too, the first time i saw it there was actually applause at the end which i havent experienced at the end of a movie since Star Wars episode 3.

i even heard a nice reaction to the shot of the drill bit falling allll the way to the bottom of the mine shaft in the beginning and then the subsequent bubbling of the oil   
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: idk on January 24, 2008, 09:11:10 PM
There is a podcast on itunes called Filmspotting which is free to download. In a recent episode they discuss twbb at length and they also talk about it breifly in their "top 10 movies of 2007" episode in which both hosts put blood in the middle of their lists due to the final act which "derails" the movie which would have otherwise been the best of the year.

And here is a link to a really good article from the magazine American Cinematographer.... Elswit says pta had "A Clockwork Orange" in mind when designing the bowling alley.... (once you get there if you click on "dvd playback" you can also find an article about the restoration of "Days Of Heaven")

http://www.ascmag.com/magazine_dynamic/January2008/ThereWillBeBlood/page1.php
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on January 24, 2008, 09:27:01 PM
Quote from: SiliasRuby on January 24, 2008, 08:35:12 PMI actually whispered 'jesus' the first time I saw it with mac, when that particular line came up.

Going in the second time, I knew I would never have that perfect audience experience again that we got at that Writers' Guild/Backstage West screening. And I was right. Because at the mall theater, I saw a couple cell phones of becon lights open up, a couple of late-comers that proceeded to tell the whole audience while taking their seats that "It just started," and I had a popcorn chewing pig behind me that ruined the quietness of the opening.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: godardian on January 26, 2008, 12:40:18 AM
Quote from: pete on January 24, 2008, 01:09:48 PM
john, you're in the Yay right?
not to sound like a superior east coaster, but the Bay Area has some of the worst theater audiences in the country.  They'd go to indie movies and they even look the part, but once they open their mouths...they sound just like Miss America.  I'll also venture out to say that for a region with like 12 indie theaters all next to each other, they have really bland selections.  they also have some of the most boring revival scenes, alternately playing "liberal" documentaries, and curatorial-masturbatorial old classics.  they might be shooting cool ads and cool music videos, even cool movies in this city, but cinema is as dead as hiphop over here.


Everything you say about S.F.&environs seems to apply to Seattle, too (or even the whole Northwest). I think there's this S.F./Seattle/Portland/Austin hipster axis. I can't stand it, that lazy, spoiled arrogance and insularity. I hate to gratify the tired (and still not entirely true) stereotype that people who seem to care too much about their clothes/hair/shoes etc. must be dumb, but I've found that the most intelligent and sensitive people when it comes to music, cinema, etc. rarely "look the part"--they're usually just as aware of more superficial fashion-type things as the hipsters, but they're evidently too busy actually putting some effort into their reading, viewing, and listening to bother too much with making a show of how cool they are. In other words, I think there are people who are there for the film, concert, or reading itself, and then there are those who are there just to be seen at and thereby somehow associated (in their heads) with whatever specific film, concert, or reading it is.

I have to say that the best people at the movies, at least around here, are those senior citizens (there do seem to be a fair number of them) that I see kind of regularly at There Will Be Blood, or The Savages, or other interesting films. With their decades of filmgoing experience and real passion for the medium, you can have a great conversation with some of them and there's no petty/competitive, pissing-contest aspect to it the way there can so often be with the "in the know" kids. Like politics, the cinema is only demeaned and ruined when you bring the horse-race mentality into it.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 26, 2008, 01:55:04 AM
Godardian!
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on January 26, 2008, 04:15:15 AM
I dunno, I think the old people are the ones that can't help but to comment outloud about stuff.  and they're definitely the ones falling for all those cheap oscar contenders.  I distrust them too.  When I worked at the landmark in Boston, there were about a dozen or so real real cool old folks, with amazing knowledge about everything who never minded sharing their thoughts on top of everything else, but then 90% of the senior population were snobby rich people who couldn't stand fast cutting.  I'm still friends with the cool old folks, we still correspond regularly.
I think it's somewhat of a vicious cycle - awful programming draws in an awful crowd, who in turn prevent change and encourage the status quo.  Before anything takes place, the population needs to start taking non-studio films for granted; they cannot pat themselves on the shoulder just for showing up, and cannot go on to support things only because they're about them.  That is, middle-aged people watching all those suburban meltdown dramas and young kids watching movies with endless indie product placement.  Indie theaters also need to stop advertising movies with trailers that are trying to con the audience.  Foreign trailers need to put subtitles into their movies, non-comedies need to stop packing their trailers with all the punchlines from the films.  Psychological movies stop pretending to be action movies.  French trailer need to stop acting like they might be good.  Last one was stupid, sorry.  Documentaries need to stop claiming that they can be as entertaining as anything else.  I know some actually are, but you ain't gonna weed out the heckles with those trailers.
or maybe the problem with these audiences have nothing to do with the cinemas.  maybe these fun cities leave its inhabitants too comfortable.  they lose both their wit and courtesy because no population is forcing them to be on their toes constantly or always be polite.  then, as their aggressions remain unchecked, they become the hooligans; just as the Pilgrams, they become the very people they migrated from.
when lucid took me to see untraceable, we saw a physical altercation between two older ladies, sitting right next to me, when the movie was over!  I also got in on the action, but I'll save that story for the other thread. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on January 26, 2008, 04:20:10 AM
Is anybody else totally picturing Pete roundhouse kicking two old ladies in the head?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: godardian on January 26, 2008, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: pete on January 26, 2008, 04:15:15 AM
they cannot pat themselves on the shoulder just for showing up, and cannot go on to support things only because they're about them.  That is, middle-aged people watching all those suburban meltdown dramas and young kids watching movies with endless indie product placement.  Indie theaters also need to stop advertising movies with trailers that are trying to con the audience.

I think that is 100% on the ball. Those deceptive trailers! Like, the poster for the U.S. Funny Games captures what the film is about, but the trailer makes it seem a lot more ha-ha satirical (instead of lacerate-the-audience satirical) than it's sure to be.

If people only said to themselves, "There are so many other kinds of people in the world besides me and the kind of person I am, and maybe I need to go to a movie expecting that some of those people might appear as characters, and be prepared to understand them in some way." Of course there's nothing more off-pissing than when someone boasts about how they went to a "different" movie about "weird" people. I'm sure we all experienced more than our share of that when we went to see Magnolia a dozen times (or more--I only speak for myself) when it came out. And who can say they really identify directly with either of our anti-heroes in There Will Be Blood, yet who cannot fail to recognize their humanity (however negative a connotation that has in this context)? Speaking of that film (which is supposed to be the topic here, sorry for veering), here's my take on it: I don't think it's capital-W Wrong to interpret it politically (this can legitimately be done with any film if the one doing the interpreting is sage enough and doesn't just ignore what's there to brand it with their own ideology), but I see it as a really vivid, pessimistic, nightmarish depiction of how these very normal, understandable, and possibly even sometimes admirable human impulses (material success, spiritual belief) are like all our normal cells that can turn cancerous, metastasizing, starting to grow too fast and take over everything. It's a thin line between passion that's fruitful and fulfilling and passion that turns insatiably destructive.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: pete on January 26, 2008, 02:56:21 PM
yeah, the cheap political interpretation is bullshit.  there are these kids raised by the public and private american education system who have come to "solve" metaphors like they're algebra.  like if plainview was x and if you plugged in george w. bush, then the film would just explain itself.  I'm gonna go a bit further and actually reject all sorts of readings in this thread about drinking oil or walking on water or whatever.  it's not that these readings are not creative or intelligent or deep (actually, maybe they're not so deep), but I just never think PT Anderson would be so kitschy. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 26, 2008, 03:08:35 PM
Speaking as someone who saw Spider-Man as a political movie, I don't see much politics in TWBB.

As much as I wanted to see TWBB as a mediation on the corrupting power of oil in society (or something like that), it turned out to be a small piece of the film, and the viewing experience mostly pulled me away from that.

You could say PDL says a lot about capitalism with the plungers and the frequent flyer miles and the phone sex and even (or especially) MM. You could say Magnolia says a lot about patriarchal society, misogyny, etc. But we don't see them as political movies, because they're totally introspective.

Sure, PTA is politically aware, as any friend of Altman must be, but I think he'd rather reflect those things in inner experiences, i.e. the suicide providing the introduction to the 80s in Boogie Nights, not Reagan or the Carter democrats or anything like that. Even when he discusses the decades in interviews, he talks about film instead of politics, i.e. blaming Jaws and Star Wars for the 80s.

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: edison on January 27, 2008, 03:09:03 PM
Wonder what happened to this (http://www.cinemaisdope.com/news/films/therewillbeblood/twbb-13-1024.jpg) shot.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on January 27, 2008, 04:51:28 PM
Quote from: edison on January 27, 2008, 03:09:03 PM
Wonder what happened to this (http://www.cinemaisdope.com/news/films/therewillbeblood/twbb-13-1024.jpg) shot.

The publicity still might just be of them hanging out on set, it might not have had anything to do with an actual scene in the film.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: idk on January 28, 2008, 05:22:14 PM
I thought this to be an interesting review

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsupFgnNU0o
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 28, 2008, 06:48:07 PM
I like how people keep calling PTA "Paul Anderson." Even Paul Dano in his Fresh Air interview.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: SiliasRuby on January 28, 2008, 07:33:12 PM
Quote from: idk on January 28, 2008, 05:22:14 PM
I thought this to be an interesting review

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsupFgnNU0o
I love this part:
Talking about boogie nights:
"He (Paul) makes you Love these people and likes the fact that they are all together"
"That's one View of it, yes."
"Well that's the one way that made it successful"
"No, it was all gorgeous Naked girls"
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on January 28, 2008, 09:39:52 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on January 28, 2008, 06:48:07 PM
I like how people keep calling PTA "Paul Anderson." Even Paul Dano in his Fresh Air interview.

at least theyre not calling him PTA.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on January 28, 2008, 11:10:58 PM
PTA.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: P.T.A. on January 29, 2008, 12:16:19 AM
Yes?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on January 29, 2008, 01:07:13 AM
Nothing, go back to sleep.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: 72teeth on January 29, 2008, 05:02:07 AM
Finally saw this... yes. Lord yes.
It's been here in my town for about 4 days and tonite was the first time i was able to get tickets... the usher said that litterally every showing has been a sell out so far... nice
you guys seem to have tapped out the whole picture pretty good, so ill just add this note:

-Notice that whenever (if i recall correctly) a new time card comes up, it cuts to Plainview drinking out of cup, and the cups get progressively better and better (tin mug < glass with gold trim)

-Also, when DDL is doing his milkshake bit, when get gets to "Acroooosss the room," with his hobble and his finger in the air, i swear he's doing a tin man impersonation, what do you think. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThZI-p8SKe0)

And my audience was great too! Gasps, Laffs, Claps were all in the right order and everyone just loved it which is always nice... only bad thing was that I live in San Luis Obispo which was mentioned during the "Why don't i own this," scene and it caused everyone to go "WWOOO" and applaud which was kinda annoying... SLO is also a pretty big college town, which was evident by everyones guttural shutters when Plainview started chugging that vodka, that in turn made everyone laugh...

i am seeing this again tomorrow.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 29, 2008, 08:20:48 PM
somebody at work today called me into his office and pointed to a black cd sized slipcase on his desk that said THERE WILL BE BLOOD.  it was the screener.  i hate this man.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on January 30, 2008, 12:39:15 AM
Being a SAG member, I was hoping for a screener since Paramount Vantage sent me ones for Into The Wild and No Country, but all I got was a free ticket and a press book like this one:

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi14.ebayimg.com%2F04%2Fi%2F000%2Fd5%2Fa1%2F71ec_1.JPG&hash=a22c90d852e4e3fc211c1eff028af28d9f9b7fce)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi15.ebayimg.com%2F01%2Fi%2F000%2Fd5%2Fa1%2F758b_1.JPG&hash=22b2f6b8dfaf3872e6479a0b6245b0d4c8d098e6)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi17.ebayimg.com%2F04%2Fi%2F000%2Fd5%2F5c%2F64c9_1.JPG&hash=4971da43e55e89a16d89e2010c3dc8ef82b20e5a)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.ebayimg.com%2F07%2Fi%2F000%2Fd5%2F5c%2F66c4_1.JPG&hash=6cfc169d98342dbc69601750266f3b5498a10dad)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.ebayimg.com%2F06%2Fi%2F000%2Fd5%2F5c%2F65bc_1.JPG&hash=d89ad2c3927315d703ce56b8f78bbafd8518626b)

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: md on January 30, 2008, 08:52:17 AM
you lucky fuck
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on January 30, 2008, 10:31:03 AM
Quote from: Lucid on January 30, 2008, 09:02:52 AM
"I'd give blood to see this movie again"?  Who the fuck said that?

Baz Bamigboye; Daily Mail
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: grand theft sparrow on January 31, 2008, 10:21:49 AM
PTA on The Treatment. (http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/tt/tt080130paul_thomas_anderson)

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on January 31, 2008, 11:06:19 AM
that was good.  but it was only 16 minutes!  The Treatment is ALWAYS 28 min.  wtf paul!
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tlong on January 31, 2008, 07:21:33 PM
FYI....

The Treasure of the Sierra Madre will be playing on Friday morning (Feb. 1) on TCM.


I tried to see BLOOD again on Sunday afternoon.

Packed theatre.

Teenager next to me makes a call just as the movie starts. Talking very loudly. He is texting while talking.

His girlfriend makes comments. About movie. "Why is he alone?", "What's he doing?" in a tone that one cannot be confused with a whisper.

Then Daniel blows up something.

Woot. Silence.

"man, that was cool."

The teenage girl responds -

"Yea, but he lost all his tools. How's he going to get his tools back?"

Silence.

I think maybe I will live through this....

Then Daniel falls.

"DUDE. You ARE so in trouble now..."

"why did he have to fall?"


i left.


Is that too much of a spoiler for the movie?


Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: hedwig on January 31, 2008, 09:42:37 PM
Quote from: tlong on January 31, 2008, 07:21:33 PM
i left.
you don't LEAVE so early in the game, tlong. you'd already seen the film, it's not like you'd miss anything big if you turned and asked them to be quiet. come on people! don't be afraid to shush the geezers, the young stupid couples, and the annoying families who are determined to ruin your movie experience.

Quote from: tlong on January 31, 2008, 07:21:33 PM
Is that too much of a spoiler for the movie?
this is the thread for people who have seen the movie. so.. no.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: The Red Vine on February 01, 2008, 12:40:06 PM
I've seen TWBB 5 times so far and plan on going again tonight. My initial criticisms of the film have diminished the more I think about them within the film's context. SPOILERS. While there's no denying the final scene is over the top, the more I watch it the more I feel it makes sense within the progression of Plainview's madness. He's an alcoholic, melodramatic, and bitter character defeating his final competition, and ultimately himself. There's nothing left for him to fight or hope for. I couldn't help but get tears in my eyes during the flashback of Plainview's "son" playing with his hat. I suppose I could relate on a personal level considering my relationship with my father.

All of PTA's films are so unique and beautiful in their own ways, so I don't want to compare TWBB with any of them. I'll never be able to pick the "best PTA film". I just know my instincts from years ago were correct about PTA and Alfonso Cuaron being special talents. Both filmmakers have grown tremendously in their work.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on February 02, 2008, 12:42:42 AM
having just read through this thread:

in reference to laughter at the final scene - it's something Kubrick did as well, especially in ACO - present a horrible scene in a theatrical way......especially the part where Daniel jumps up to throw a pin at the right and then Eli pops his head up on the left - that is Looney Toons-ish to me.

but wow.......i was giddy all day just waiting for 4pm to come.

and something someone else mentioned in reference to the close up of the diary - several times you see the phrase "my brother."

did anyone make out what Daniel says at the end of the baptism?
it's something about the pipeline i believe.

one thing that is sticking in my mind with the final line - he promised twice to kill the banker, but he did not.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: theyarelegion on February 02, 2008, 02:56:35 AM
Quote from: bigideas on February 02, 2008, 12:42:42 AM
he promised twice to kill the banker, but he did not.

or did he... :ponder:
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: picolas on February 02, 2008, 04:15:50 AM
Quote from: edison on January 27, 2008, 03:09:03 PM
Wonder what happened to this (http://www.cinemaisdope.com/news/films/therewillbeblood/twbb-13-1024.jpg) shot.

perhaps it's from the shooting of

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv401%2Facrophobe%2Ftwbb1.jpg&hash=860059b5a89d01ce053e257278e2be245bf51fd8)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv401%2Facrophobe%2Ftwbb2.jpg&hash=bc168e688c58bc4575fbe0d8d41414ef6a6b3f7f)

another thing: boogie and maggie are siblings. i feel pdl and blood are more like good/evil twins.

plainview has love but the derrick destroys his relationship with his son and makes his business flourish whereas the harmonium brings love into barry's life and disrupts his slavish relationship with his small business.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Sunrise on February 02, 2008, 08:17:14 AM
Quote from: H.(sparro)W. on January 31, 2008, 10:21:49 AM
PTA on The Treatment. (http://www.kcrw.com/etc/programs/tt/tt080130paul_thomas_anderson)

Man, it's so fun listening to him...makes me nostalgic for his audio commentaries. The interviewer had a little too much self-confidence for my taste, but a nice little interview nonetheless.

Also, Paul pretty much clears up the water/vodka issue in the last reel...at least what they intended it to be.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: edison on February 02, 2008, 06:11:16 PM
Quote from: bigideas on February 02, 2008, 12:42:42 AM

did anyone make out what Daniel says at the end of the baptism?
it's something about the pipeline i believe.

this part actually got a lot of laughs when I saw it. Though I could only make out the word pipeline, I always figured he said something along the lines of "all this for a pipeline." The things we put ourselves through to get what we want.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on February 02, 2008, 10:41:54 PM
Quote from: edison on February 02, 2008, 06:11:16 PM
Quote from: bigideas on February 02, 2008, 12:42:42 AM

did anyone make out what Daniel says at the end of the baptism?
it's something about the pipeline i believe.

this part actually got a lot of laughs when I saw it. Though I could only make out the word pipeline, I always figured he said something along the lines of "all this for a pipeline." The things we put ourselves through to get what we want.

and he says it loud enough that Eli hears it, right (unless i'm imaging that there is an Eli reaction shot afterwards)? that's telling - Eli doesn't really care if Daniel is truly converted, he just wants to increase numbers/have more control and build status.

speaking of screenshots, i thought there were DVD screeners out there. i am wanting to see a grab of the final shot before credits roll.

btw, whomever mentioned the cross, that was a very keen observation - relating it back to when the girl pinned it on the worker and Eli's blasphemy. i remember wondering why PT held on the passing of the cross when they were going through the dead worker's things.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on February 03, 2008, 01:03:10 AM
I'm finally going and seeing it for the second time tomorrow.  I'll try and remember to pay close attention during the end scene and see if I can crack the case of the glass/plastic vodka/water bottle.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: I Love a Magician on February 03, 2008, 03:42:43 AM
Quote from: edison on February 02, 2008, 06:11:16 PM
Quote from: bigideas on February 02, 2008, 12:42:42 AM

did anyone make out what Daniel says at the end of the baptism?
it's something about the pipeline i believe.

this part actually got a lot of laughs when I saw it. Though I could only make out the word pipeline, I always figured he said something along the lines of "all this for a pipeline." The things we put ourselves through to get what we want.

both times i've seen the movie i've heard "god is a pipeline"
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: FrunLg on February 03, 2008, 11:53:23 AM
After he mumbles "this for a pipeline" or something to that effect, doesn't he get up and walk over to eli (with the blood of lamb music playing), shakes eli's hand and says something to him which the audience cannot hear? But as he walks into the crowd we see a very concerned look on eli's face. Did this happen, i cannot remember, but it's nagging me. What do you think he said? I can only imagine it was like something he said eariler..."I'm going to bury you..." Which is probably the next scene after "i'm finished", no?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on February 03, 2008, 02:06:05 PM
is the 'pipeline' line in the script?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on February 03, 2008, 02:09:09 PM
Quote from: bigideas on February 03, 2008, 02:06:05 PM
is the 'pipeline' line in the script?

No.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on February 03, 2008, 05:17:30 PM
Quote from: FrunLg on February 03, 2008, 11:53:23 AM
After he mumbles "this for a pipeline" or something to that effect, doesn't he get up and walk over to eli (with the blood of lamb music playing), shakes eli's hand and says something to him which the audience cannot hear? But as he walks into the crowd we see a very concerned look on eli's face. Did this happen, i cannot remember, but it's nagging me. What do you think he said? I can only imagine it was like something he said eariler..."I'm going to bury you..." Which is probably the next scene after "i'm finished", no?

I just got back from seeing it again, and that bit bugged me in a way that it hadn't the first time I saw the film.  I really, really want to know what Daniel whispers.

Also, I thought it was vodka the first time around, but now I'm about 98% convinced that it's water.  And it's definitely a glass bottle.  I think it's like picolas suggested, it's a used liquor bottle that he now uses as a water bottle.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: B.C. Long on February 03, 2008, 08:35:26 PM
Quote from: I Love a Magician on February 03, 2008, 03:42:43 AM
both times i've seen the movie i've heard "god is a pipeline"

99.9% Sure he says "There's the pipeline."
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: SiliasRuby on February 03, 2008, 09:49:33 PM
Hope this helps clear it up....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RL5QuKqdv9U
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: MacGuffin on February 03, 2008, 09:56:43 PM
Hannah Montana made more in one weekend ($29 mil) than TWBB (10th place this week @ $4.7 mil - $21.1 mil total) has made in six weeks.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: FrunLg on February 03, 2008, 10:06:34 PM
"There's a pipeline"
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: SiliasRuby on February 03, 2008, 10:20:25 PM
Quote from: MacGuffin on February 03, 2008, 09:56:43 PM
Hannah Montana made more in one weekend ($29 mil) than TWBB (10th place this week @ $4.7 mil - $21.1 mil total) has made in six weeks.
Why do you gotta make me depressed like that Mac?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: idk on February 03, 2008, 10:45:48 PM
After reading most of the script I've become somewhat disappointed with how much the film departs from the script. I realize the film still runs pretty long but I'd say too many of the things that didn't make it were more than worthy. One dramatic example is the altered final sequence in which Daniel originally throws Eli's dead body down the bowling alley shoot thing, I mean how is that not the coolest shit ever?! Another personal favorite is the conversation between Daniel and Abel at the derrick where Daniel tells him his son is a lunatic while his men are "fishin" for a piece of a broken bit or something. And the whole sequence at the beginning of the 1927 section where H.W. goes back to Little Boston. There are so many more, is it possible they were pressed for time and money? If so that is a real shame.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on February 03, 2008, 10:50:40 PM
so there are no more scenes directly between Eli and Daniel after the salvation scene until the finale, correct?

if what he says that is not heard is a second death threat as others have mentioned, then it makes perfect sense that Eli would leave. if i recall correctly, isn't there a scene of Daniel starring intensely as Eli is leaving on the train? then when they meet again at the end, Daniel now fulfills his promise given at the church.

p.s. it's quite funny the way he says "yes, i do."
and
"give me the blood lord and let me get away."

+++++++++++++
as far as Montana - isn't that a limited one week engagement and i'm sure it's in an infinite amount of more theaters than Blood.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: picolas on February 03, 2008, 11:04:50 PM
Quote from: idk on February 03, 2008, 10:45:48 PM
After reading most of the script I've become somewhat disappointed with how much the film departs from the script. I realize the film still runs pretty long but I'd say too many of the things that didn't make it were more than worthy. One dramatic example is the altered final sequence in which Daniel originally throws Eli's dead body down the bowling alley shoot thing, I mean how is that not the coolest shit ever?! Another personal favorite is the conversation between Daniel and Abel at the derrick where Daniel tells him his son is a lunatic while his men are "fishin" for a piece of a broken bit or something. And the whole sequence at the beginning of the 1927 section where H.W. goes back to Little Boston. There are so many more, is it possible they were pressed for time and money? If so that is a real shame.
another great deleted thing from imdb:

Paul Thomas Anderson planned to have the restored bowling alley (used at the climax) located next to the Greystone Mansion to be entirely painted in white to give some Kubrick symmetry and menacing quality (also a nod to A Clockwork Orange (1971)). However, he changed it to its original state when it was later decided that the bowling alley was to be given away for ownership after filming.

i'd also really like to know why many of the things were changed/deleted. i have the same feeling.. they sound too good to be altered for purely artistic reasons. though there is that deleted campfire scene that was cut just because "we didn't need it."
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: edison on February 04, 2008, 11:57:42 AM
Quote from: bigideas on February 03, 2008, 10:50:40 PM

p.s. it's quite funny the way he says "yes, i do."
and
"give me the blood lord and let me get away."

I love those lines

I was also wondering what Daniel is saying when Eli is slapping him during the baptism; almost like he is egging him on
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 04, 2008, 12:21:29 PM
Notice he says "there's a pipeline" after these words are sung:

"There's power in the lord! There's power in the lord!"

...as a response?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: FrunLg on February 04, 2008, 12:29:44 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on February 04, 2008, 12:21:29 PM
Notice he says "there's a pipeline" after these words are sung:

"There's power in the lord! There's power in the lord!"

...as a response?

That's how i saw it as well. I think the lyrics are "There's power in the blood", the blood of the lamb, i think.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 04, 2008, 04:38:38 PM
Quote from: FrunLg on February 04, 2008, 12:29:44 PMI think the lyrics are "There's power in the blood", the blood of the lamb, i think.

Yeah... you're quite a bit closer than I was...

Would you be free from the burden of sin?
There's power in the blood, power in the blood!
Would you o'er evil a victory win?
There's wonderful power in the blood!

There is power, power, wonder-working power
in the blood... of the lamb!
There is power, power, wonder-working power
in the precious blood of the lamb!

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/t/h/therepow.htm


Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: FrunLg on February 04, 2008, 05:00:27 PM
haha, when i first heard that song on the youtube teaser trailer, i thought it was "power in the blood of the land", which would work as well.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on February 04, 2008, 05:39:42 PM
Quote from: Omero on February 02, 2008, 02:56:35 AM
Quote from: bigideas on February 02, 2008, 12:42:42 AM
he promised twice to kill the banker, but he did not.

or did he... :ponder:

thinking about this more i thought it might have been cool had in both scenes the guy had had a fancy pocket watch or something that would be very noticeable and stuck in your head subliminally and then in the final H.W. scene where Daniel is at the desk, he opens a drawer and you see that watch. you know, like some small detail you might not even notice having watched it five times.

i hope that on the DVD you can fast forward the color bars a few minutes to see repeated tests of throwing a blood eli dummy through the bowling pins.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: The Red Vine on February 04, 2008, 06:44:31 PM
Quote from: pozer on February 04, 2008, 05:54:35 PM
why dont you do it?  go in debth as to why you think it is far from a great film. 

Okay.

SPOILERS!

While I admire much of the film's craftsmanship (cinematography, musical score, etc....) I felt the script was lacking on a couple of major levels. As a character study, it contains many scenes of behavior and very few scenes of insight. We get some insight with the Henry Plainview subplot displaying Daniel's desire for family and kinship. It gives the character another dimension but the film doesn't take it further than that. Instead, we get so many scenes that repeat the same concept - Daniel's hatred for society and his determination to win. This includes a scene where he blatantly talks about his frustration with most people. And since this film is mostly a character study, I would've expected PTA to have explored his character further than he did.  "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia" had way more emotional depth to their characters in my opinion.

Then the film ends on a wildly eccentric note that almost kills the momentum of everything before it. It's not what happens in particular but the manner in which it's presented. There have been debates on whether it was intentionally comedic, but either way the tone struck me as inappropriate and overwrought.

Again, I love elements of the film and perhaps I'll love and hate more things about it over time. While it stands as a bit of a mess for me, it's a fascinating mess.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: The Red Vine on February 04, 2008, 07:08:16 PM
Quote from: modage on February 04, 2008, 06:51:52 PM
Quote from: The Red Vine on February 04, 2008, 05:47:03 PM
From my first viewing I knew it was far from being a great film. Even if I thought it was, I'm open to hearing all arguments for or against it.
you don't deserve your avatar.

Faith needs a doubt.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Jeremy Blackman on February 04, 2008, 09:13:15 PM
Quote from: FrunLg on February 04, 2008, 05:00:27 PM
haha, when i first heard that song on the youtube teaser trailer, i thought it was "power in the blood of the land", which would work as well.

I just searched iTunes for "power in the blood." Turns out to be a very popular (and often hilariously-recorded) song. Check out Andy Griffith's version. He sounds extremely drunk.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: md on February 04, 2008, 09:47:37 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on February 04, 2008, 09:13:15 PM
Quote from: FrunLg on February 04, 2008, 05:00:27 PM
haha, when i first heard that song on the youtube teaser trailer, i thought it was "power in the blood of the land", which would work as well.

I just searched iTunes for "power in the blood." Turns out to be a very popular (and often hilariously-recorded) song. Check out Andy Griffith's version. He sounds extremely drunk.
No he doesn't. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on February 04, 2008, 10:07:18 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on February 04, 2008, 09:13:15 PM
Quote from: FrunLg on February 04, 2008, 05:00:27 PM
haha, when i first heard that song on the youtube teaser trailer, i thought it was "power in the blood of the land", which would work as well.

I just searched iTunes for "power in the blood." Turns out to be a very popular (and often hilariously-recorded) song. Check out Andy Griffith's version. He sounds extremely drunk.

i've sung the song many a time in church. it's in the Heavenly Highway Hymnal (the same one shown in Walk the Line) and those are used all over the south - at least in Texas anyway. more a smaller church probably. bigger churches have brought more and more modern praise and worship songs into services.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: FrunLg on February 04, 2008, 10:45:51 PM
QuoteI just searched iTunes for "power in the blood." Turns out to be a very popular (and often hilariously-recorded) song. Check out Andy Griffith's version. He sounds extremely drunk

The 'Youth for Christ' version is frightening, now I'll have nightmares with this as the overture to the sequence we have been discussing....
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: jtm on February 05, 2008, 12:47:06 AM
Quote from: FrunLg on February 03, 2008, 11:53:23 AM
After he mumbles "this for a pipeline" or something to that effect, doesn't he get up and walk over to eli (with the blood of lamb music playing), shakes eli's hand and says something to him which the audience cannot hear? But as he walks into the crowd we see a very concerned look on eli's face. Did this happen, i cannot remember, but it's nagging me. What do you think he said? I can only imagine it was like something he said eariler..."I'm going to bury you..." Which is probably the next scene after "i'm finished", no?

one of the last things he says to Eli is "i told you i would eat you!" i don't remember him saying that anytime in the film so i figure that's what he whispered. and if those were indeed the last words he said to Eli before they meet again at the end, then it makes sense that the next thing he says is "how dare you come to my home".. Eli handed himself over on a platter.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gamblour. on February 14, 2008, 10:46:23 AM
Quote from: jtm on February 05, 2008, 12:47:06 AM
one of the last things he says to Eli is "i told you i would eat you!" i don't remember him saying that anytime in the film so i figure that's what he whispered. and if those were indeed the last words he said to Eli before they meet again at the end, then it makes sense that the next thing he says is "how dare you come to my home".. Eli handed himself over on a platter.

This is brilliant and I will forever believe this to be what he whispered.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on February 16, 2008, 05:19:15 AM
Quote from: ddiggler on February 14, 2008, 01:15:01 PM
Quote from: Tictacbeekay on February 14, 2008, 12:29:20 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri33bydAavI
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ri33bydAavI)

worth a minute of your time, I think.

it was

:lol: Genius.

As for the movie, I finally saw it yesterday, and it's very hard for me to talk about it. After it was over, I could only think I'd never seen anything quite like it. It was strange, and intense, and it blew my mind. I wasn't even sure I'd liked it, because I couldn't think straight about it. Cut to a few hours later, and I couldn't stop thinking about it for a second, its images still blowing my mind, and this is really starting to grow higher and higher in my consideration and will soon become one of my favorite movies. There isn't a single moment wasted in There Will Be Blood, and Paul really did some of his best work technically and storytelling wise.

One of the aspects of the film that really made it for me was the editing, which was fantastic. It's a 158 period minute movie about an oilman (I think we can agree that's what he is) and it never drags. The pace changes a lot in the movie but we don't really sense it, since it all feels natural. And then we get those long shot Paul is famous for, letting the actors do their thing and just placing the camera in the right point of view. Wonderful.

If I had to choose a favorite scene, it would be the bit when H.W. has is accident and Daniel eventually chooses the oil (his obsession) over his child. He's so under the influence of the oil that he makes a decision that's gonna change his life. Daniel is a bad man, yet we feel something very strange for him, like we're hypnotized by him the whole time. Daniel Day-Lewis is the best there is.

I'm not really writing anything new here, so I'm just gonna go and keep on thinking about it.

Oh yeah, and... DRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAINAGE!
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on February 16, 2008, 04:02:48 PM
Quote from: ElPandaRoyal on February 16, 2008, 05:19:15 AM
One of the aspects of the film that really made it for me was the editing.

There Will Be Dissolves

(i think that's the film term for when one image slowly fades over the next, no?)
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on February 16, 2008, 04:08:46 PM
david bordwell provides a pretty great analysis (http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/?p=1944) of what seems to be just another moment in twbb.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: FrunLg on February 19, 2008, 11:57:19 AM
Berlinale 08: Paul Thomas Anderson - Best Director (holy shit it has that mystery music from the first trailer at the end!!!! someone out there knows what it is!)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=SmWMPpdZQv4&feature=related (http://youtube.com/watch?v=SmWMPpdZQv4&feature=related)

paul + mya exiting a building with surprise ending
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bZqEaSyCGik&feature=related (http://youtube.com/watch?v=bZqEaSyCGik&feature=related)

admin-edited to include descriptions of wtf these are. i've been guilty in the past of posting youtube links without descriptions and i understand the appeal of it but coming from the other end it borders on assholism.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on February 20, 2008, 09:57:48 PM
saw this a 5th (and probably final) time FINALLY. 

times square sucks.  i wont let my friends talk me into seeing a movie there again.  the theatre is too bright, all i can see is the lights going down the stairs and people were filing into their seats for the first 20 minutes (uhh the whole no dialogue section!)  it sucked. 

i don't remember if i asked this before but here's another question:

is it daniel or henry that goes after HW after he sets the bed on fire.  its SO dark everytime i see the film i can't make out who it is.  by the breathing i'd almost think it was henry except i don't think even after almost being burned alive he would have the balls to try to school HW like that.  its the new vodka/water.  thoughts?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on February 20, 2008, 10:03:11 PM
DEFINITELY daniel.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on February 21, 2008, 04:53:08 AM
Quote from: JG on February 20, 2008, 10:03:11 PM
DEFINITELY daniel.

Yeap.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on February 21, 2008, 12:25:57 PM
it's dark indeed, but ive always CLEARLY seen that it was Daniel all four times ive seen it.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Alexandro on February 23, 2008, 10:38:14 AM
I inmersed myself into There will be blood yesterday and read pretty much all you guys have said about it so far here. It's hard to conclude something even after all that. All I know is that this is one strong, emotional punch in the fucking gut. I would say also, this is the most uncomfortable film I've ever seen in my life. I kept feeling awkward about everything. And I mean that as a compliment. It was just painful.

I wouldn't call it perfect by any means, but perfect films are not great films for the most part. This is a film for the ages.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: mogwai on February 24, 2008, 01:15:31 AM
i finally saw it yesterday and i loved it. i have been ignoring this part of the site since november/december. when i saw the finale the entire audience (it was packed) gasped at the same time. it gives me goosebumps now when i write this. cmbb is without a doubt pta's finest work to date. i can't wait to see what he has up his sleeves for the next project. i hope he grabs at least one of the nominations but it's a stiff competition. :yabbse-smiley: johnny's score was perfect btw.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 10:50:38 AM
So, I FINALLY saw this this weekend. It was everything I hoped it would be. It was pretty much perfect, and that's not just hyperbole or hype since the hype has already died down. Just a straight masterpiece.

I had paid attention to this thread/forum early on but when I realized it would be a few months before I could see it, I stayed away. It was worth it.

Daniel is in my opinion, one of the sleaziest villains in history. His greed knows no bounds. He has absolutely NO redeeming qualities. NONE. Eli, while manipulative seems to have good intentions. Eventually at the end, the greed finally gets to him too, but I don't think that was because of his doing.   

Quick question. The girl I watched it with felt that the relationship between Daniel and Eli's sister/HW's future wife had undertones of child molestation. Particularly the scene where Daniel grabs her right after the opening of the well and is very playful with her and says "Are you happier now that your father doesn't beat you?" She said it made her think that there was something else going on. I could see it, but I honestly don't think that was PTA's intention. Also, what did Daniel do to the father to get him to stop beating her?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on February 25, 2008, 01:30:27 PM
Quote from: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 10:50:38 AM
Also, what did Daniel do to the father to get him to stop beating her?
he intimidated him to protect mary.  and that was certainly a redeeming quality. :)
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 02:59:31 PM
Quote from: modage on February 25, 2008, 01:30:27 PM
Quote from: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 10:50:38 AM
Also, what did Daniel do to the father to get him to stop beating her?
he intimidated him to protect mary.  and that was certainly a redeeming quality. :)

It certainly is. But how do you know that is what he did? It isn't really implied that I saw. Sure, he looks over at the father after the little thing with mary, but it's never really applied. Did I miss something?

Also, has it been established yet that it's completely obvious that they're twins? I went into knowing there was controversy with the other actor that dropped out, but it's completely obvious they're twins.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on February 25, 2008, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 02:59:31 PM
Quote from: modage on February 25, 2008, 01:30:27 PM
Quote from: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 10:50:38 AM
Also, what did Daniel do to the father to get him to stop beating her?
he intimidated him to protect mary.  and that was certainly a redeeming quality. :)

It certainly is. But how do you know that is what he did? It isn't really implied that I saw. Sure, he looks over at the father after the little thing with mary, but it's never really applied. Did I miss something?

Also, has it been established yet that it's completely obvious that they're twins? I went into knowing there was controversy with the other actor that dropped out, but it's completely obvious they're twins.

yeah, that scene with daniel and the girl felt very odd to me, too.
paul mentions eli name. eli knows who paul is when daniel speaks to him.
i dont' understand why paul didn't just have daniel of h.w. whisper "twins?" when they're both looking at each other after eli has walked away when they first met. i was pretty certain they were twins just by eli's look, speech and demeanor, but it has confused a lot of people.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 03:15:24 PM
Quote from: bigideas on February 25, 2008, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 02:59:31 PM
Quote from: modage on February 25, 2008, 01:30:27 PM
Quote from: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 10:50:38 AM
Also, what did Daniel do to the father to get him to stop beating her?
he intimidated him to protect mary.  and that was certainly a redeeming quality. :)

It certainly is. But how do you know that is what he did? It isn't really implied that I saw. Sure, he looks over at the father after the little thing with mary, but it's never really applied. Did I miss something?

Also, has it been established yet that it's completely obvious that they're twins? I went into knowing there was controversy with the other actor that dropped out, but it's completely obvious they're twins.

yeah, that scene with daniel and the girl felt very odd to me, too.
paul mentions eli name. eli knows who paul is when daniel speaks to him.
i dont' understand why paul didn't just have daniel of h.w. whisper "twins?" when they're both looking at each other after eli has walked away when they first met. i was pretty certain they were twins just by eli's look, speech and demeanor, but it has confused a lot of people.

He probably wanted to get everyone to talk. It worked.

Daniel and HW are both perplexed when Eli introduces himself to them so that right there was the first indication they are twins, then in the Sunday house after Daniel goes upside Eli's head he (Eli) proceeds to go upside his fathers head and keeps saying "It was your own son who sold us out because you're too stupid!" which sealed the deal for me.

Heres hoping PTA adds an extra hour of footage to the DVD to keep us talking.

I just can't get over how beautiful this film looked. Elswit is a god. PTA has his own style of violence and I love that. In the beginning when HW's father gets his head knocked off it was filmed in a way that only PTA can pull off. Just stunning.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on February 25, 2008, 04:21:02 PM
Quote from: modage on February 25, 2008, 01:30:27 PM
Quote from: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 10:50:38 AM
Also, what did Daniel do to the father to get him to stop beating her?
he intimidated him to protect mary.  and that was certainly a redeeming quality. :)

and to continue to overpower him of course.  I got your land, your oil and your mafuckin daughter.  got em all right here
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.marketingpunk.com%2Fimages%2Fcrotch-grab.jpg&hash=2c3e5368fb3e51f9def8f3385d80884d773c4291)

Quote from: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 02:59:31 PM
Also, has it been established yet that it's completely obvious that they're twins? I went into knowing there was controversy with the other actor that dropped out, but it's completely obvious they're twins.

it was to me as well but many here as well as ppl i know hav disagreed.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 04:32:05 PM
Do you think Daniel could have been molesting Mary and that would explain his protectiveness over her? He never did a good thing the whole movie except for get Mary's father to stop beating her. It's not out of the question to assume there were other motives at work there.

You could argue he cared for H.W. but I don't think he ever did. I think he thought of H.W. as an accessory. Someone to help him seal the deal when he was trying to buy land. And it worked effectively. Maybe the Daniel/Mary relationship had something to do with H.W's distance from Daniel. Maybe he knew. Maybe Mary told him at a young age.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: diggler on February 25, 2008, 05:25:58 PM
what about the implications that daniel is impotent? i didn't get a sense that he was being sexual at all. that scene with mary seemed to strictly be a power play. if he had not been in plain view (heh) of the father during that scene, i could believe that there was a sexual nature to it. however, i don't think daniel even understands that what he was doing was sexual at all.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 05:32:27 PM
What power did Daniel need to hold over the Sundays at that point? He had the well and all the land.

I just find it hard to believe that someone as heartless as Daniel who doesn't even care about his own bastard son would care about a father beating his daughter enough to do something about it where he has nothing to gain unless it's to gain the daughters trust. I just think there might have been something there but maybe I'm looking for something that isn't.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: I Love a Magician on February 25, 2008, 06:20:37 PM
i think he cared about hw (until he lost his hearing) and hw was friends with mary so daniel was doing it for hw. remember when hw told daniel that mary's dad beats her if she doesn't pray.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on February 25, 2008, 06:21:33 PM
But, see, I think he cared about his son at that point, while he wasn't already totally corrupted by the oil. That only happened, in my opinion, in that great fire/H.W. accident scene, which - the way I see it at least - marks the most decisive step towards hell and the moment Daniel started losing the rest of his humanity. Maybe I say that because Paul mentions "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" a lot as inspiration, and that movie is also about that kind of corruption caused by greed. And greed becomes a illness, making you not care about anyone (not even yourself) except that fortune and it comes gradually until it consumes you to the bone.

That said, the scene was kind of unconfortable, at first I saw it as a fucked up sexual scene, but after thinking about it, I'd say Daniel is really not a sexual being at all. He cares about fortune and becoming powerful, and so he took another chance to show her father that he's really powerful, and he does whatever he tells him to do, and also please H.W., the only person he kind of know how to talk to. Then he couldn't talk to him anymore, he didn't know how to deal with him and their distance grew even more, and H.W. grew up, and became another one of those... people.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 06:29:06 PM
Quote from: ElPandaRoyal on February 25, 2008, 06:21:33 PM
But, see, I think he cared about his son at that point, while he wasn't already totally corrupted by the oil. That only happened, in my opinion, in that great fire/H.W. accident scene, which - the way I see it at least - marks the most decisive step towards hell and the moment Daniel started losing the rest of his humanity. Maybe I say that because Paul mentions "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre" a lot as inspiration, and that movie is also about that kind of corruption caused by greed. And greed becomes a illness, making you not care about anyone (not even yourself) except that fortune and it comes gradually until it consumes you to the bone.

That said, the scene was kind of unconfortable, at first I saw it as a fucked up sexual scene, but after thinking about it, I'd say Daniel is really not a sexual being at all. He cares about fortune and becoming powerful, and so he took another chance to show her father that he's really powerful, and he does whatever he tells him to do, and also please H.W., the only person he kind of know how to talk to. Then he couldn't talk to him anymore, he didn't know how to deal with him and their distance grew even more, and H.W. grew up, and became another one of those... people.

That's a great point about Daniel not knowing how to deal with H.W after he loses his hearing. H.W. I honestly don't think Daniel cared about H.W. until AFTER he lost his hearing. Before that he used H.W. to parade around as an accessory to gain sympathy like when he uses the story that his wife died during child birth. All BS to gain sympathy and an easier way to buy land and take advantage of good people.

When H.W. goes deaf it's then that Daniel begins caring, and he can't deal with it so he does the only thing he knows how to do which is send him away so he doesn't have to deal with it.

Daniel only cares about himself. The movie starts out with him prospecting all by himself. Nobody is around. When he breaks his leg he gets himself out of the mine. Nobody helps him. That sets him up perfectly. He's despicable. He only cares about himself.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: The Perineum Falcon on February 25, 2008, 07:20:11 PM
I thought it clear that Daniel cared for H.W.
Throughout it seemed like he was raising H.W. to take his spot when he goes. It couldn't simply have been to parade around as an accessory or a tool for creeping into the hearts and minds of those he was buying land from. Certainly, that played a part in it, but there was more there, I felt.
The baptism scene seemed the clearest argument for his affections. Though Daniel obviously had ulterior motives, when he was crying out that he'd "abandonned his child" it felt like the most honest, pure and raw moment in all the film. I think it was at that point that Daniel came to terms with what he'd done and realized that his actions were despicable. Of course, it didn't seem to affect him long, but perhaps it was a catharsis, a public confession of what he'd already known. It wasn't until after H.W. came back that he became simply a tool for selling, or a burden at the very least. In my opinion.
Similar to Eli's confession in the end. That was the only moment in the film that I felt Eli was being truly honest, and they were both motivated by the need to get what they wanted, whatever the costs.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: md on February 25, 2008, 08:06:46 PM
Saw it for the second time.  There is no doubt that Daniel cares for HW outside of his business, just look at the train scene preluding the flash forward...there is a warmth in his eyes and a tenderness in his heart that shows he will become his father.  We act as if parents, whether biological or surrogate, don't "use" their children...

What interested me is when Henry tells Daniel about his real brother.  He says he died of tuberculosis, and "wasn't hurt or killed"  -- blinks hard -- and then continues in cowardice to be asked to let go.  He is not a good man and deserves to die for killing the real Henry.  Did anyone else pick up on this subtlety? 

Also, the print at my local theatre looked atleast two stops darker than the print screened at the NY screening, making the cinematography much less detailed and darker than I remembered it.  Academy fucked up...how does a movie win best Actor and best Cinematography, and not take home best director...that's like not thanking the head coach of winning baseball team. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ©brad on February 25, 2008, 08:08:13 PM
i don't think there was ever a moment when daniel didn't love HW.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 08:25:19 PM
I gotta disagree wholeheartedly. Daniel doesn't care about H.W. except in a way to use him to get what he wants from other people. He even tells him at the end when he should have been at his most vulnerable.

Why would he say "I should have seen it but I couldn't because you don't have any of me in you. Your someone elses. You're an orphan from a basket. I took you in for no other reason except I needed a sweet face to buy land. LOOK AT ME! You're lower than a bastard. You have none of me in you. Just a bastard from a basket." to Which H.W. replies, and this really resonated with me "I thank GOD that I have none of you in me".......That's heartbreaking. The GOD line makes that whole scene.

Daniel used him. When H.W. went deaf, I don't think it was sorrow he felt, but guilt. That's the reason he wants nothing to do with him. He hates him but he has to take care of him because everyone keeps asking about his boy to which Daniel gets upset anytime anyone brings him up. He wants them to forget about him so he can too. In the diner scene towards the end, he openly mocks H.W. to everyone else when he puts his napkin over his face and makes fun of H.W. to everyone else but H.W can't hear nor read his lips. It's heartbreaking.

Daniel cares for nobody but himself. H.W. after losing his hearing becomes a burden.

Daniel is alone and that's the way he wants it. He starts the movie alone fending for himself and he ends the movie alone. He's pushed everyone who might have ever cared for him away because he's a despicable human being who wasted his life chasing money over human emotion.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ©brad on February 25, 2008, 08:57:23 PM
i honestly don't think it's even a matter of debate. the movie is chock-full of moments that prove daniel truly loves this boy. to name a few: after the oil explosion, when we see an oil-drenched daniel holding HW in his arms on the floor, the way daniel run-walks with such vigor when greeting HW as he returns from school, the scene when daniel threatens to cut the dude's throat after he suggests daniel quit the biz to take care of his son. even during their final scene together, the way daniel dismisses him so cruelly, this alone is proof. he's goddamn pissed that his son is leaving him, and he's drunk and stubborn and sinking and this is his way of dealing with it. if he didn't care about HW he wouldn't care about HW leaving. in fact, if he really didn't care about HW he would've gotten rid of him a long time ago. because honestly, he didn't really need HW after he started making bank. there was no reason from a business perspective to keep him around. what makes daniel such an interesting, multi-dimensional character is that yes he is consumed by greed and competition and disgust for people but at the same time has the capacity to grow to love and care deeply for someone else.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 09:01:51 PM
I don't know, maybe it's all in as you interpret it. H.W. is pleading with Daniel to not leave him but Daniel does. His oil is on fire and tending to that is more important than making sure H.W. is okay.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: md on February 25, 2008, 09:24:54 PM
What you fail to realize is that those words of hatred...the bastard in a basket line....is his last defense....total seperation.  Ken Kesey talks about a point in a boys life where he must beat his father at something, a rite of passage if you will.  Look at HW -- he's a handsome young man, while Daniel is nothing more than a crippled bitter misanthrope.  If he really didn't care, do you think he would have been able to uproot those feelings?  If he really didn't care he would have simply told him to leave, but instead he let's him have it, makes sure he gets into H.W's head, because the tide has turned and H.W. is not leaving him with a beautiful bride.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: picolas on February 26, 2008, 01:43:33 AM
i have to go to sleep right away so i just scanned the above posts/sorry if this has already been said.

i agree with cbrad that there is zero debate about whether daniel cared about hw. even ignoring many many things like the gesture on the train or the gesture near the seepage or the flashback at the end that has absolutely nothing to do with using hw as a prop because he already has the oil etc etc and on and on, the absolute proof that daniel truly cares about hw is in the protection of mary. he only does so after hw has brought mary's beatings to his attention. it bothers hw, so he takes care of it. the way he speaks to mary appears creepish at first, but the way it's cut/composed reveals that it was a threat to the sunday father. he spoke loudly and repetitively because he was indirectly speaking to him. that's what makes plainview an interesting, dynamic character. he loves an individual deeply despite his plain view of mankind. without that it's not nearly as great a movie.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Fernando on February 26, 2008, 10:35:44 AM
Agree with pic, cbrad and md.

To put it real simple, Daniel loved HW the Daniel Plainview way.

As md rightly pointed, the bastard from a basket is just a defense mechanism,  he feels betrayed by HW, so he says the worst thing anyone could hear from a parent. It's clear to me that he never wants to be seen as a vulnerable figure, so he acts the way he does to avoid any sign of weakness.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on February 26, 2008, 05:57:53 PM
did no one mention Daniel's reaction after he left HW on the train in favor of him loving HW in some capacity?

if he didn't care would he not give a careless smirk as he walked away with HW in his peripheral view?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: diggler on February 26, 2008, 09:09:01 PM
you really thought that was a careless smirk? i thought it was more himself trying to convince himself that he didn't care, the businessman in him was relieved.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: picolas on February 26, 2008, 09:11:46 PM
Quote from: ddiggler on February 26, 2008, 09:09:01 PM
you really thought that was a careless smirk?
reread the post.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: diggler on February 26, 2008, 10:36:05 PM
Quote from: picolas on February 26, 2008, 09:11:46 PM
Quote from: ddiggler on February 26, 2008, 09:09:01 PM
you really thought that was a careless smirk?
reread the post.

chalk it up to temporary dyslexia

or beer
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: SoNowThen on February 26, 2008, 11:04:48 PM
Quote from: md on February 25, 2008, 08:06:46 PM
Saw it for the second time.  There is no doubt that Daniel cares for HW outside of his business, just look at the train scene preluding the flash forward...there is a warmth in his eyes and a tenderness in his heart that shows he will become his father.  We act as if parents, whether biological or surrogate, don't "use" their children...

What interested me is when Henry tells Daniel about his real brother.  He says he died of tuberculosis, and "wasn't hurt or killed"  -- blinks hard -- and then continues in cowardice to be asked to let go.  He is not a good man and deserves to die for killing the real Henry.  Did anyone else pick up on this subtlety? 

Also, the print at my local theatre looked atleast two stops darker than the print screened at the NY screening, making the cinematography much less detailed and darker than I remembered it.  Academy fucked up...how does a movie win best Actor and best Cinematography, and not take home best director...that's like not thanking the head coach of winning baseball team. 

Sadly, that last thing you mentioned keeps coming up in conversations with people who don't like the movie. They say things like "yeah, it looked cool, and of course Daniel is great... but, there is no story, or it was weird, or it was slow, or blah blah". It's really, really odd. It's like folks are validating their intelligence by "admitting" that they "understand" what good acting and camerawork look like, but also revealing that they are much smarter when it comes to story structure and plot. This is usually followed by me asking them to explain their problems with the "story", then them saying that "well, so the movie is about looking for oil...". So then when I say, no, it is not, I usually get a very puzzled look and that's the end of that.

Although it is really fun when people ask why it is called There Will Be Blood, and I can just reply "cos there was".

On a side note, your observation is very similar to Scorsese when Taxi Driver got nominated for Best Actor and Best Writing (and I think even Best Picture) but no Best Director. He said something like "so... who did they think was responsible for all that??". But yeah, it's certainly a snub to Paul, indirectly saying "here are the reasons why your movie turned out good".

(lotsa quotation marks in this post...)
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: idk on February 26, 2008, 11:40:53 PM
Quote from: Fernando on February 26, 2008, 10:35:44 AM
It's clear to me that he never wants to be seen as a vulnerable figure, so he acts the way he does to avoid any sign of weakness.
This point is probly relevent in supporting the water argument in the other thread, considering the way he rejects Eli's drink offer.
Quote from: SoNowThen on February 26, 2008, 11:04:48 PM
it's certainly a snub to Paul, indirectly saying "here are the reasons why your movie turned out good".
i found the most troubling aspect to be the fact that he lost the adapted writing award to the coen's who from what ive gathered(i trust ill be corrected if im wrong) more or less just condensed the book, where the credit lies with Cormac. Now no doubt they still had to make efforts to write it for the screen but come on, all the good shit was already there. On the other hand we have Paul who developed and made the story his own which had only its foundations in the earlier Sinclair work. The fact that after creating the whole damn thing Paul Thomas Anderson did not walk on that stage and walks away with NOTHING, really gets my juices flowing. I can almost, let me stress almost, understand why he wouldn't win for director or picture because of all the hoopla over NOCFOM but for him to not win for writing really disgusts me.

btw did anyone notice that the second after the coen's name for best director was announced paul kind of cringed his mouth just the slightest as if to say "darn it", of course it might have just been nervous energy

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: foray on February 27, 2008, 12:32:09 AM
Quote from: Stefen on February 25, 2008, 04:32:05 PM
Do you think Daniel could have been molesting Mary and that would explain his protectiveness over her? He never did a good thing the whole movie except for get Mary's father to stop beating her. It's not out of the question to assume there were other motives at work there.

You could argue he cared for H.W. but I don't think he ever did. I think he thought of H.W. as an accessory. Someone to help him seal the deal when he was trying to buy land. And it worked effectively. Maybe the Daniel/Mary relationship had something to do with H.W's distance from Daniel. Maybe he knew. Maybe Mary told him at a young age.

I, too, suspected sexual overtones when Daniel grabs her and asks if she likes the dress that he bought her. But then we see Mary embracing him warmly after his baptism. It is a surprisingly tender moment after all that theatricality. If Daniel connects with anyone in this movie, it's that scene with Mary.

foray
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: I Love a Magician on February 27, 2008, 01:09:09 AM
what about when hw comes back and daniel's all like "this does me good"

pretty connected
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: jtm on February 27, 2008, 01:27:40 AM
regarding the whole "did Daniel ever really love HW" question.. i think it can be summed up in the quick flashback right after Daniel's "bastard in a basket" tirade. when HW stole Daniel's hat and Daniel playfully yet purposefully pushed HW to the ground.  that showed us Daniel's true side even before HW lost his hearing... sure, maybe he cared for HW in some respect, but never in the way a father should.

i think anything he did that maybe showed love for HW, was more him just doing what he thought was expected of him as a normal human. not what his heart told him to do.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on February 27, 2008, 07:39:36 AM
Quote from: idk on February 26, 2008, 11:40:53 PM
btw did anyone notice that the second after the coen's name for best director was announced paul kind of cringed his mouth just the slightest as if to say "darn it", of course it might have just been nervous energy

I had my eyes on him when the Best Director was announced, because I remembered people saying he reacted badly when American Beauty won Screenplay (I never saw that reaction myself), and he did cringe, and I laughed. Paul seems to really want one of those naked men, and if you ask me, he should have already won. I don't know about this year, though, because NCFOM will only open tomorrow here in Portugal, but it has to be VERY VERY GOOD to be better than CMBB.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on February 27, 2008, 11:12:10 AM
I'm glad Paul was visibly upset he didn't win. Shows he cares. Not so much for the Academy, but he cares about his art. Fuck being gracious. Hollywood is cut throat. He's worked very hard to get to where he's at and he did it HIS way. I'd be pissed too if I was him.

Granted, you can't really be upset if you lost to Joel and Ethan because they pretty much have been doing what PTA's doing since the early 80's and never really gotten recognized for it.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ©brad on February 27, 2008, 11:34:43 AM
Quote from: Stefen on February 27, 2008, 11:12:10 AM
I'm glad Paul was visibly upset he didn't win. Shows he cares. Not so much for the Academy, but he cares about his art. Fuck being gracious. Hollywood is cut throat. He's worked very hard to get to where he's at and he did it HIS way. I'd be pissed too if I was him.

if this is true, then fuck PTA, and fuck any other director who would honestly be that mad about it. but i honestly don't think he was. his "grimace" was a knee-jerk reaction of surprise, shock, probably even joy that two directors he no doubt respects and is friends with won the award. none of us know what it's like to be sitting there, awaiting in nail-biting anticipation that you might be called upon to give a speech to 200 million ppl around the world. you cannot automatically assume solely by his facial reaction that he was truly upset. i can't believe it. 

at the end of the day we know the academy awards are meaningless, that they don't make the films any better, and that the very act of works of art competing against one another is silly and counterproductive. what PTA should be (and no doubt is) proud of, and i apologize for resorting to a tired old cliche here, is that his film was nominated in the first place, that it's doing very well out there in the world (both critically and financially) and exposing him to a wider mainstream audience, and, thanks to its financial success, will allow other directors to produce more "riskier" projects with studio backing. as the coens said, if you look at the body of work this year, it's a testament to the health of the industry right now that these films are being made and are finding audiences. that's all that really matters.




Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on February 27, 2008, 12:04:13 PM
You put a portion of your life into a film you're making.

"I'm just happy to be nominated!" is for actors who spend a couple months on a film, wash their hands of it, then move onto something else.

A filmmaker like PTA is spending YEARS on a movie. The Academy Awards is the end of the cycle. It's a culmination of everything he's put into it. After the show, the cycle ends and it's time to start something new. I can't really blame him if he was upset he didn't win director, writer, or picture. I'm sure he takes solace in the fact he lost to the Coen's, but I doubt he didn't care that he didn't win. Everyone cares. Who doesn't want to win?

You can't really hate on someone for being disappointed they didn't win an award for something they spent a long time working on, ya know?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ©brad on February 27, 2008, 02:56:42 PM
Quote from: Stefen on February 27, 2008, 12:04:13 PMYou can't really hate on someone for being disappointed they didn't win an award for something they spent a long time working on, ya know?

sure i can. anyone who makes movies purely to win awards is a douchebag.

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on February 27, 2008, 03:16:07 PM
haha, well, obviously that isn't the ONLY reason he makes movies. I don't anyone said that.

It's just nice to be acknowledged for a job well done when you've spent 4 years making a piece of art. Otherwise, why even show up to the award show?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on February 27, 2008, 03:31:35 PM
Quote from: Stefen on February 27, 2008, 03:16:07 PM
Otherwise, why even show up to the award show?

$1,000's of free swag...
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: picolas on February 27, 2008, 05:32:47 PM
he was doing some heavy grinning and shrugged. it was an "oh well, good for them" moment. i don't think he expected to win. there was no look of disappointment when american beauty won either. he made a hilarious gasp face. like "no way! american beauty?? what an upset!"
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on February 27, 2008, 06:05:55 PM
Quote from: picolas on February 27, 2008, 05:32:47 PM
he was doing some heavy grinning and shrugged. it was an "oh well, good for them" moment. i don't think he expected to win. there was no look of disappointment when american beauty won either. he made a hilarious gasp face. like "no way! american beauty?? what an upset!"

:lol: I need to see that sometime
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: md on February 27, 2008, 06:09:15 PM
maybe he has a competition in him...maybe he wants no one else to succeed?  And that was an EEEKKK he gave, not a shrug. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: polkablues on February 28, 2008, 02:50:52 AM
I just wonder how the Carpetbagger would interpret his reaction.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: ElPandaRoyal on February 28, 2008, 01:12:10 PM
Quote from: polkablues on February 28, 2008, 02:50:52 AM
I just wonder how the Carpetbagger would interpret his reaction.

PT Anderson clearly wants the Coens to die and win every award ever made, unless they go to either Juno, Michael Clayton or Atonement.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pedro on March 01, 2008, 01:59:07 PM
I thought his reaction was more like, "really?  i thought i was going to win..."
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: fulty on March 02, 2008, 09:37:52 AM
Saw TWBB at the Arclight in Hollywood...Wow..!!

Sorry Paul didn't win an Oscar...this should have been the 2nd.

Thank you all for the father/son insights.

Question...I noticed early in the movie, when first drilling for oil, there's a closeup and some oil slops up right onto the camera lens...and it stays there for a second...I thought, why wouldn't they edit that out?
So again at the end...in the bowling alley...Daniel throws a ball and hits something that again splashes onto the camera lens.
Deliberate?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gold Trumpet on March 02, 2008, 11:49:27 AM
Quote from: fulty on March 02, 2008, 09:37:52 AM
Question...I noticed early in the movie, when first drilling for oil, there's a closeup and some oil slops up right onto the camera lens...and it stays there for a second...I thought, why wouldn't they edit that out?
So again at the end...in the bowling alley...Daniel throws a ball and hits something that again splashes onto the camera lens.
Deliberate?

I doubt deliberate. Probably looked like good mistakes to keep when they were in the editing room.

I'm surprised no one mentioned one scene that could be very meaningful. When the real father of H.W. is playing with him near an oil pocket he puts a smear of oil on his forehead, much the same way a priest smears ashes on someone's forehead on Ash Wednesday. The idea of belief in God could be tangled here with the belief in oil and power.

Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: md on March 02, 2008, 12:39:22 PM
Yeah dude, it reminded me of rafiki blessing simba in the Lion King. 
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on March 02, 2008, 12:52:59 PM
Quote from: The Gold Trumpet on March 02, 2008, 11:49:27 AM
I'm surprised no one mentioned one scene that could be very meaningful. When the real father of H.W. is playing with him near an oil pocket he puts a smear of oil on his forehead, much the same way a priest smears ashes on someone's forehead on Ash Wednesday. The idea of belief in God could be tangled here with the belief in oil and power.

it was mentioned somewhere.  baptized in OIL which is very meaningful indeed.  such an amazing touch.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on March 02, 2008, 02:26:30 PM
I'm guessing it's purely for symoblism sake, because I would think that would be potentially harmful for a baby to be breathing in oil fumes, much less to smear it directly on it's face.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: JG on March 02, 2008, 02:35:46 PM
that guy wouldn't be thinking like that though. i don't know know if the movie would work if pta did anything for 'symbolism sake.'
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on March 02, 2008, 06:21:24 PM
Quote from: JG on March 02, 2008, 02:35:46 PM
that guy wouldn't be thinking like that though. i don't know know if the movie would work if pta did anything for 'symbolism sake.'

i guess.
it just seems for a very odd thing for a parent to do.
i have no idea if it's in the book or not.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Redlum on April 26, 2008, 01:32:57 PM
A list formed with the deliberate intention to shake-up top100 list making standards, The Times placed There Will Be Blood at #2... right after Casablanca.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/related_features/top_100_films/

It's a pretty un-interesting (although pleasing to read) list but highly preposterous for the There Will Be Blood ranking.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on April 26, 2008, 05:21:55 PM
There Will Be Suck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VstPnSBDkfI)
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: bonanzataz on May 01, 2008, 11:26:12 PM
Quote from: pozer on April 26, 2008, 05:21:55 PM
There Will Be Suck (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VstPnSBDkfI)

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.filmsondisc.com%2Fimages%2Fwaynes_world.jpg&hash=8c80ce852fc8e709d641c3577072402e8eccfdcf)
well it certainly does suck!
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gamblour. on July 09, 2009, 12:42:34 PM
Susan Sontag and the ending of TWBB:

http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2009/07/earnest-goes-to-camp-daniel-plainview.html
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on July 09, 2009, 02:17:18 PM
Quote from: Gamblour. on July 09, 2009, 12:42:34 PM
Susan Sontag and the ending of TWBB:

http://www.thehousenextdooronline.com/2009/07/earnest-goes-to-camp-daniel-plainview.html

I can't help but think of Kubrick and noticed someone else already mentioned him in the comments.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: 72teeth on July 12, 2009, 04:56:02 AM
that whole last scene still reminds me of the tinman... "DRAINNNNAGE" look at him move, pta had to have had tinman in mind when that direction was given...
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: modage on August 17, 2009, 11:24:04 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rp5NjLRRyw

Tarantino reviews There Will Be Blood (10 min vid)

WARNING: calls him "Longview"
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on August 17, 2009, 02:12:39 PM
what did this air before - a movie channel showing?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: theyarelegion on August 17, 2009, 03:15:39 PM
Before TWBB on Sky Movies Indie in the UK.

http://movies.sky.com/tarantino-takes-over-sky-movies
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on August 17, 2009, 04:20:07 PM
Quote from: theyarelegion on August 17, 2009, 03:15:39 PM
Before TWBB on Sky Movies Indie in the UK.

http://movies.sky.com/tarantino-takes-over-sky-movies

will the rest be put up?

McCabe is one i've wanted to see for ages. for whatever reason it never comes on TCM, so i haven't seen it and i keep forgetting to buy the DVD.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: theyarelegion on August 17, 2009, 05:34:09 PM
You can find the rest of his intros here: http://www.youtube.com/user/WOODDDDDDDYAMOVIES2
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pas on August 18, 2009, 07:55:03 AM
Quote from: modage on August 17, 2009, 11:24:04 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rp5NjLRRyw

Tarantino reviews There Will Be Blood (10 min vid)

WARNING: calls him "Longview"

Robert Rodriguez must be sad to learn that Quentin likes PTA better than him.

I disagree with the whole Brando vs Clift comparison. It just doesn't relate at all. Even if it did, Tarantino is barely in the top 10 alive directors while PTA is in the top 3 to 5 on any sensible person's list. So...
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on August 18, 2009, 09:06:41 AM
I guarantee the only reason Quinton reviewed TWBB is to get the 5 or 6 of us that are here on this site off of his back. GUARANTEED.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: SiliasRuby on August 18, 2009, 01:23:14 PM
The question is, did it work?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pozer on August 18, 2009, 01:44:06 PM
that review just shows that he cant review better than critics.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: tpfkabi on August 18, 2009, 02:02:51 PM
Quote from: theyarelegion on August 17, 2009, 05:34:09 PM
You can find the rest of his intros here: http://www.youtube.com/user/WOODDDDDDDYAMOVIES2

i guess i hadn't heard the Scorsese/Taxi Driver legend.
i would think by now someone would have asked him about it in an interview - yes/no?
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Alexandro on August 18, 2009, 02:39:39 PM
I heard that Scorsese anecdote before, like, 15 years ago or something, but never since then.

Honestly, I kinda knew Tarantino would like There Will Be Blood but he definetely surprised me by saying that Paul Thomas Anderson is THE filmmaking artist working right now. That's a big compliment coming from anyone. Most critics have been shy to say something so clear about him, which also happens to be true.



Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on August 18, 2009, 03:01:44 PM
I wonder if Eli Roth is going to pick a fist fight with PTA the next time he see's him.

(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mtv.com%2Fshared%2Fpromoimages%2Fmovies%2Fr%2Froth_eli%2Frough_cut_06062007%2F281x211.jpg&hash=89338bb1c44f59b38e0bced9de367cca1cc894e5)"You think you're so fucking, cool don't you? With your steadicam shots and fucking multi-colored gels and tracking shots and shit. You ain't shit! I could do that, too! *pushes PTA* do something. I'll kick your ass, man! You ain't shit! I'll fucking do it, man! Don't push me! I don't start fights, I just finish them. omg, don't push me!"
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Stefen on August 27, 2009, 09:32:23 AM
Yeah, I think that was posted in the CMBB thread a week or so ago. It's always interesting to hear Quentin's thoughts about others work.

Also, this from the IG thread really piqued my interest.

Quote
Quote from: bluejaytwist on August 22, 2009, 11:41:12 AM
my household has recently become friendly with everyone's (least?) favorite eli roth and he mentioned that no one on this earth has quentin's ear like pta. did anyone else notice twbb influence in the first chapter and a few spots throughout?

apparently the card scene in chapter three was the one thing after cannes that everyone hassled qt about for being way too long and when they did qt went bill macy/magnolia diary on them "you fucking cocksucker, that is ptas favorite scene, he told me to leave it exactly as is and he's right and its perfect etc etc"

anyways, love your show
ill hang up and listen, thanks
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Pas on August 28, 2009, 07:36:59 AM
yep, it's posted somewhere. I agree with his review, especially about the weakest part of the film being the performance of the preacher
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gold Trumpet on August 28, 2009, 07:56:36 AM
It's such a stupid review. He basically talks about what he likes in the film, but instead of making much meaning about those things, the only context he can give is some vague references to older filmmakers and films. The praise is mainly a rundown of his basic impressions of the film. The one time he mentions an original idea is when he says the film is a metaphor for the beginning of capitalism. It's a curious statement and requires explanation, but there is none. A real reviewer would know an original idea like that about the driving force of the film would be the centerpiece to their review, but Tarantino mentions it on a whim and so I have to believe it's more a statement for Tarantino to repeat than a real thought.

Yea, I know it's a taped interview of him verbally reviewing the film and it would be different than a written piece, but he could have done a better job if he means what he says about his critical talents.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: Gamblour. on August 28, 2009, 08:06:39 AM
It's not the headiest review I've ever seen, just him talking like a normal person about the things he liked about the film. Don't think it's meant to be taken so seriously. I actually disagree about Paul Dano, because if he was as comparable of a powerhouse as DDL, I don't think you would feel how weak he is in the final scene. Dano is sort of wispy and stringy and pathetic the whole film, and when he lashes out it always feels desperate.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: matt35mm on August 28, 2009, 09:24:08 AM
The idea of the film being a bit about the beginning of capitalism isn't an original idea.  It was discussed in many reviews and was, as Tarantino says, obvious.  He mentioned it only to say that he didn't want to talk about the obvious stuff such as the film as a metaphor (but not really a metaphor) for the beginning of capitalism.  That's what I remember him saying anyway.
Title: Re: there has been blood (and now QT's review of CMBB)
Post by: socketlevel on September 05, 2009, 06:26:47 PM
Quote from: Pozer on August 18, 2009, 01:44:06 PM
that review just shows that he cant review better than critics.

all it takes is honesty to be a good critic, not posturing.  i feel he was honest about his observations, which were insightful considering the venue he had to relate with. he's giving intros not seminars, take with a grain of salt guys. part of the showcase is that he gets to play projectionist for everyone, which is kinda fun imo.