| Author |
 Topic  |
|
turrell 
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
 Posted - 01/17/2008 : 00:20:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
Okay, sports fans!! I've just seen this and need a bit of time to process it, but firstly may I just say
WOW!
I have to agree - what a heartbreakingly beautiful movie. What a horrible industry this was (and is). The HW storyline is so devastating - I have two small sons and I can't imagine the kind of person you'd have to be to act like DDL did to his adopted son.
Daniel Day Lewis was fanatstic as was much of the cast. I'd say at its heart it was a story of Plainviews personal demons.
Some have criticized the film as being anti-religious and anti capitalist, but I'd say it only rails against the worst of those forms.
I was confused by the Paul Eli thing I thought Paul was just an alias for Eli, but Eli makes mention of his stupid brother and doesn't flinch when Plainview tells him he gave Paul 10K. The family makes no direct mention of Paul amongst themselves - Eli tells his father that it was his son who sold them out, but I wonder if he was referring in the third person to himself.
SPOILERS - but not too bad.
I loved the contrast of the baptism scene with the final scene basically Daniel vs Eli trying to force the other to admit their sins. It will be hard to shake "I abandoned my son" put of my head for awhile - and even though Plainviews baptism is a farce you can tell he did sacrifice part of his soul to get the pipeline. |
 |
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 00:48:41
|
I saw it this weekend. I liked it (if that's the word for a movie like this), but not as much as Randall and BaftaBabe. The real reason to see this movie is for Daniel Day-Lewis's incredible performance which reminded me of his performance in Gangs of New York crossed with Jack Nicholson's in The Shining.
My biggest criticism of the movie is that it didn't follow through on the whole theme of the price of modernity. The price of modernity is even more of an issue today than it was in 1911, and on both an international and local scale. An outsider comes to town and suggests you compromise your way of life, and in return, society in general will prosper, but nowhere near as much as the stranger will prosper. And whose to say whether or not society really prospers?
All of this is fascinating, philosophically dense stuff. So it was a let down for me that the movie abandoned this theme and went for the mad psychopath plot crossed with the sad billionaire plot that we've seen before in countless other movies. I definitely recommend the movie, Daniel Day-Lewis's performance is certainly worth the price of admission, but from a thematic point of view, the movie is much more thin than it ought to have been. |
|
|
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 22:22:47
|
That was a very thoughtful post, cool. I had an advantage over you because I saw it at a FSLC screening before it opened, and all I knew was that it was a P.T. Anderson period piece. No pre-screening buzz. I had no idea what I was going to see when the lights went down, and it just hit me like a punch out of the blue. [This is the main advantage of film festival-type screenings: no critics have yet tried to tell you how to think. OTOH, you can get caught watching some incredible turkeys! ]
The Sinclair source, with its populist moralism, is only the springboard -- this is not an adaptation of Oil!, unlike NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN, which is pretty much spot-on from the Cormac McCarthy novel. [Which now reads like a novelization -- HAW HAW HAW!]
Anderson has created his own statement on how money can eat away on one's insides, or even create a monster out of a perfectly hard-working individual. To me, it elevates him as a filmmaker in that he's focusing on one magnetic character [Adam Sandler doesn't fricking count] rather than an ensemble, and in the process he takes this individual apart. Plus, as I mentioned above, great lensing and Jack Fisk on design, and then there is Day-Lewis's powerful performance. I listened to some of it again after people had suggested he was imitating John Huston. It's not an impression. [Though he may have watched CHINATOWN, mind.] This is an oily character all its own. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/22/2008 : 05:23:30
|
I don't see this movie as any kind of criticism or even comment on "the price of modernity" as GHCool puts it, or capitalism, or anything like that. It's very clear that this movie is not about greed, as greed is only a minor symptom of Daniel Plainview's raging hatred of everything and everyone.
This is the best damn movie of the year. By far.
Daniel Day-Lewis gloats that he drank your milkshake. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/08/2008 : 23:25:27
|
| Why did it have to be soooo loooong? |
|
|
|
MM0rkeleb 
"Better than HBO."
|
Posted - 02/09/2008 : 01:13:34
|
| No one I've been able to find saw the film the same way I did. For me, what makes the film a demented near-masterpiece (and the best film I've seen from 2007) is the way the subject, writing, and direction work at cross-purposes to each other. The film sets itself up as being about big SUBJECTS like GREED and HYPOCRISY, and steels itself for a CONFRONTATION between the OILMAN and the PREACHER. Instead (in the writing) we get only greed and hypocrisy, etc. Everything is so petty and underwhelming. The direction then brings us back to the level of the epic, grandiose, and caps-locked. It's a film that seems to understand that true evil is more banal than terrifying. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 02/09/2008 : 17:42:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Why did it have to be soooo loooong?
It was long but I thought it moved much faster and needed every minute. One of your faves Brokeback was nearly as long and I thought the last third really dragged and didn't need to be near as long.
The opening sequence is long - no words, but man it made me understand what he sacrificed initially and what a hard industry this was. |
Edited by - turrell on 02/09/2008 18:04:54 |
|
|
|
randall
"I like to watch."
|
Posted - 02/09/2008 : 21:53:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Why did it have to be soooo loooong?
It was long but I thought it moved much faster and needed every minute. One of your faves Brokeback was nearly as long and I thought the last third really dragged and didn't need to be near as long.
Me too. I thought BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN took forever to conclude, second only to RETURN OF THE KING. OTOH, the magnificent THERE WILL BE BLOOD concluded a tad too abruptly for some. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 00:27:12
|
I was desperate for it to end for the last hour, other than the great finale, and this was even though I was not in the pain that I have had during many films of the last few months. The only possible reasons I could think of for the length were to indicate the passing of years or to batter the audience into the sense of Plainview and others' lives being a slog even with the occasional moment of high tension. However, numerous films successfully indicate the passage of time without being tedious, and everyone already knows that life is a slog so unlike some things in life (e.g. war) there is no validity in making the audience experience this.
There's a major spoiler about H.W. in turrell's post, so a warning should be added there or to the thread.
B.B. is right about Eli's failure to age. I don't feel that it is on purpose and so it is very poor. However, I don't think there is anything other than a fanciful basis for Paul and Eli being the same person. (Not spoilers but it would be a shame to know any of the few details of the film in advance: Eli's family would find it very bizarre for him to attack his father because he was angry with himself, even if they did not find his use of the third person odd. And even if we don't see him mentioned, Plainview would certainly have realised Paul's non-existence over the years.)
Again, not spoilers: It is completely ridiculous that H.W. suddenly becomes mute once he is deaf, especially as deaf education of the time would have promoted oralism. He would also probably be able to lipread (unlike people born deaf) and so while Plainview's moustache would be a problem, it would have made a lot more sense to show him lipreading others, such as Mary. Also, Plainview for business purposes would have ensured that he could read and write, so it is absolutely inexplicable why they didn't communicate that way. The context of the father-son division was thus extremely hammed up. I don't understand why H.W. and Mary get married so late either (when they are around 26 and 29).
I also found the multiple mining accidents, two of which are almost identical, pretty unenlightening. Yeah, we get it - mining was a dangerous occupation. No shit. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/10/2008 00:33:23 |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 20:50:54
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I was desperate for it to end for the last hour, other than the great finale, and this was even though I was not in the pain that I have had during many films of the last few months. The only possible reasons I could think of for the length were to indicate the passing of years or to batter the audience into the sense of Plainview and others' lives being a slog even with the occasional moment of high tension. However, numerous films successfully indicate the passage of time without being tedious, and everyone already knows that life is a slog so unlike some things in life (e.g. war) there is no validity in making the audience experience this.
I wish I knew how to respond to this, I have no idea exactly what you found a slog about it. I'm honestly just baffled.
quote:
B.B. is right about Eli's failure to age. I don't feel that it is on purpose and so it is very poor.
That's a nitpick, a passing annoyance at best.
quote:
Again, not spoilers: [beige]It is completely ridiculous that H.W. suddenly becomes mute once he is deaf, especially as deaf education of the time would have promoted oralism.
I don't think he became mute. He didn't talk much after the accident, but he didn't talk before the accident either.
quote:
I also found the multiple mining accidents, two of which are almost identical, pretty unenlightening. Yeah, we get it - mining was a dangerous occupation. No shit.
I... what? What are you... I just don't understand what you're trying to say here. That's like saying that Day-Lewis's mustache was unenlightening because you already knew that could be humongous. What are you talking about?
quote:
but from a thematic point of view, the movie is much more thin than it ought to have been.
Now this, GH, is something I heartily disagree with. The key contrast in this movie is the struggle between religion and capitalism; they're presented as antithetical to each other. So which is better, the path of God or the path of the dollar? Accepting God seems to be a way to not ever move forward to life, to complacently accept your own misery. But if religion in this movie is a way to not move, capitalism in this movie is a long road to nowhere, unless your ultimate goal in life is having a house with its own bowling alley. This is a movie about spiritual unfulfillment more than anything.
We don't exactly like Plainview, but when Day-Lewis steals Dano's milkshake, we gloat and we cackle just as he does. Why is that? Just because it's Plainview's story and not Eli's? They seem to be parallel figures in a way; what if it had been Eli's story? Could we sympathize with him? Or is Day-Lewis just more charismatic an actor, or Eli's religious fervor just too alien? Is Eli just too much of a dick? Is his dishonest moralism that much more repellent than Plainview's honest misanthropy? |
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 02/11/2008 : 07:44:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I was desperate for it to end for the last hour, other than the great finale, and this was even though I was not in the pain that I have had during many films of the last few months. The only possible reasons I could think of for the length were to indicate the passing of years or to batter the audience into the sense of Plainview and others' lives being a slog even with the occasional moment of high tension. However, numerous films successfully indicate the passage of time without being tedious, and everyone already knows that life is a slog so unlike some things in life (e.g. war) there is no validity in making the audience experience this.
I wish I knew how to respond to this, I have no idea exactly what you found a slog about it. I'm honestly just baffled.
quote:
B.B. is right about Eli's failure to age. I don't feel that it is on purpose and so it is very poor.
That's a nitpick, a passing annoyance at best.
quote:
Again, not spoilers: [beige]It is completely ridiculous that H.W. suddenly becomes mute once he is deaf, especially as deaf education of the time would have promoted oralism.
I don't think he became mute. He didn't talk much after the accident, but he didn't talk before the accident either.
quote:
I also found the multiple mining accidents, two of which are almost identical, pretty unenlightening. Yeah, we get it - mining was a dangerous occupation. No shit.
I... what? What are you... I just don't understand what you're trying to say here. That's like saying that Day-Lewis's mustache was unenlightening because you already knew that could be humongous. What are you talking about?
quote:
but from a thematic point of view, the movie is much more thin than it ought to have been.
Now this, GH, is something I heartily disagree with. The key contrast in this movie is the struggle between religion and capitalism; they're presented as antithetical to each other. So which is better, the path of God or the path of the dollar? Accepting God seems to be a way to not ever move forward to life, to complacently accept your own misery. But if religion in this movie is a way to not move, capitalism in this movie is a long road to nowhere, unless your ultimate goal in life is having a house with its own bowling alley. This is a movie about spiritual unfulfillment more than anything.
We don't exactly like Plainview, but when Day-Lewis steals Dano's milkshake, we gloat and we cackle just as he does. Why is that? Just because it's Plainview's story and not Eli's? They seem to be parallel figures in a way; what if it had been Eli's story? Could we sympathize with him? Or is Day-Lewis just more charismatic an actor, or Eli's religious fervor just too alien? Is Eli just too much of a dick? Is his dishonest moralism that much more repellent than Plainview's honest misanthropy?
I think both Eli and Plainview are both disgusting human beings. To identify with either character is like saying that you identify with either of the two spies in the "Spy vs. Spy" cartoon in Mad Magazine. The only reason why Eli is better than Plainview is that Eli never committed murder.
My problem with the movie is that it brings up the "religion vs. capitalism" issue, but it abandoned it midway through for the crazy psycho plot mixed with the remorseful billionaire plot. As a kind of "Citizen Kane meets The Shining," it worked. I just hoped that it would have risen above that and dealt with the issues it raised in the beginning more maturely. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/11/2008 : 14:04:03
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I was desperate for it to end for the last hour, other than the great finale, and this was even though I was not in the pain that I have had during many films of the last few months. The only possible reasons I could think of for the length were to indicate the passing of years or to batter the audience into the sense of Plainview and others' lives being a slog even with the occasional moment of high tension. However, numerous films successfully indicate the passage of time without being tedious, and everyone already knows that life is a slog so unlike some things in life (e.g. war) there is no validity in making the audience experience this.
I wish I knew how to respond to this, I have no idea exactly what you found a slog about it. I'm honestly just baffled.
The empty hours were obviously just a lot more fulfilling for you than for me. While Day-Lewis's performance is very good, I don't know what there is to gain from this film.
quote:
quote:
B.B. is right about Eli's failure to age. I don't feel that it is on purpose and so it is very poor.
That's a nitpick, a passing annoyance at best.
No, I think it was extremely lazy. The whole point is that this vendetta has been dragging on for years. Why undermine that by half making it seem like no time has passed? (There would be some point if it were meant to indicate that it's as if they haven't progressed at all through life. While that would fit, it really doesn't come across as though they intended that.)
quote:
quote:
Again, not spoilers: [beige]It is completely ridiculous that H.W. suddenly becomes mute once he is deaf, especially as deaf education of the time would have promoted oralism.
I don't think he became mute. He didn't talk much after the accident, but he didn't talk before the accident either.
I really do think he is supposed to have gone mute. That's why Plainview has to bully him into talking. The loss of communication between father and son is thus set up without a proper foundation, just so that there can be the denouement. It's really false.
quote:
quote:
I also found the multiple mining accidents, two of which are almost identical, pretty unenlightening. Yeah, we get it - mining was a dangerous occupation. No shit.
I... what? What are you... I just don't understand what you're trying to say here. That's like saying that Day-Lewis's mustache was unenlightening because you already knew that could be humongous. What are you talking about?
No, it's not similar to that at all. Plainview's moustache does not waste any space, and serves the functions of setting him up as a certain type of character and making H.W. unable to lipread him (although the film fails to explore that). In contrast, the mineworking details, especially the accidents, are supposed to conjure up some kind of emotional or other framework, but the screen time is out of all proportion to the degree to which this is achieved. They do not create much of a sense of hard work or desperation or danger or fear, and certainly do not build a first person imagining of these, thus adding nothing that one cannot bring from one's general knowledge of that industry at that time. |
Edited by - Demisemicenturian on 02/11/2008 14:07:03 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
There Will Be Blood
