Demographic of PTA fans

[jenkins]

that's just the same conversation as yesterday. rather than develop a perspective of the potential limitations of the film pta fans seek to preserve their inexhaustible admiration. that the writer failed to provoke expansive conversation is not the fault of the writer in my opinion

[Drenk]

If you fail to develop one solid thought as a writer, I'd say that not being followed up by an expansive conversation is on you. But this isn't criticism: it's personal story time aimed at social media. The writer didn't fail, in that sense.

The next article will be about the first fifteen pages of Infinite Jest.

[jenkins]

again, that is not a developmental contribution to a conversation about the article

the topics rest within the article: what are the mechanics of the human condition at play in the movie narrative, what do they reveal about ourselves and others, how might one grow as a person from these mechanics, and what is the overall achievement of the movie

[Drenk]

These questions are weak entry points to discuss about movies, outside of the first one which can be applied to what's being seen from a character. Art isn't personal development. Movies are not supposed to make us grow and don't have a distinct achievement.

"What do you see?" is a basic and yet essential question. Being deliberately blind because of resentment doesn't help.

I rest my case: there's nothing to add to the article because its content is superficial.

[jenkins]

i salute you for imitating a writing style you are criticizing, challenging me as a reader who claims to be able to perform my own extrapolations

as for what the purpose of art is, and its possibilities upon our perspective, movies that don't affect our sense of self are, usually, considered escapism. investigating interior human faculties is an integral part of the type of movie i like. i believe you're saying the launching point comes from the movie itself, this is true and why it was my first question. what i am saying is that the more the movie reveals about its characters, the more we can learn about ourselves from the movie

the guardian writer's own resentment is, again, being echoed by the resentment of pta fans.  she began the conversation and all pta fans have to do is suffocate it. it's actually supporting her initial statements but that's another story. let us stay on topic: the guardian writer shared her personal reaction to the movie, and from her reaction one is able to examine how There Will Be Blood affects a viewer. when you look at Daniel Plainview as one who "grapples with, and ultimately, to extreme emotional impact, rejects" "faith and family," you can see that a sense of failure is a part of the movie. his business success is not mirrored by success as a human. that is a cold feeling. it reminds one of the fight we all participate in, but unlike other PTA movies this main character rejects family, which would be an emblem of love as i mentioned. he does not fight to be with people, he works on separating himself from them, and finding business success. this again is why i think it's an accurate depiction of capitalism. one can understand how a person might not like capitalism, and therefore one should be able to understand how a person might not like a movie about capitalism. this movie lacks other human possibilities that might appeal to different types of viewers

what i think can come from that, and what i work on myself, is not holding it against the movie, but rather accepting the movie that is not my thing for what it is. i don't think the guardian writer accepted it for what it is, and in that way her piece is a narrow perspective, but it is unfortunate for the writer that pta fans would rather pinpoint her problems than further discuss the movie