The MoFo Movie Club Discussion - There Will Be Blood

If you'll indulge me, I'm going to take a slightly different tack with the latest Movie Club...

I first saw There Will Be Blood around a month ago and will start off by posting my thoughts from the time. Hopefully it'll start the ball rolling and I'll watch it again (I've been itching to but haven't had the time until this weekend) - just to see if anyone is able to convince me of ... well ... things I'm not entirely convinced of.

Anyway:

As you can see, I liked There Will Be Blood. Liked it more than any other PT Anderson film actually, got quite a lot out of it but definitely didn't love it.

Where would the director's fans place the film in his canon?

Daniel Day Lewis - Deserved Academy Award or the lucky recipient of a termendously meaty role? Would Steve Guttenberg have done the same with the material?

Questions, questions...

My main question is this: Can anyone convince me that There Will Be Blood is the Great American Movie that some say it is? Alternatively, can anyone persuade me that the film is, indeed, a directionless and overblown exercise in shouting?

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

Lol, I wasn't crazy about this film either, to be hones mate.

It's very good and worth about a good 3 stars, but it rests heavily on Daniel Day-Lewis' performance and he chews up the scenary like a hungry dog.

I got the themes of greed, obsession and all that. The film does read like a love letter to Citizen Kane, but where that excellent piece of art differs is that Awesome Welles masterpiece managed to change the way in which we look at film as well as pioneer some camera and editing techniques.

So, yeah, guess i'm not the one to change your mind, mate

I can't really convince you of either arguments because I don't really agree with them. However, I did enjoy There Will Be Blood. Daniel Day Lewis was great and I think Paul Dano did a good job too. (Though when I first saw him I couldn't help having Little Miss Sunshine flashbacks.)

One of the things about the movie that I really liked was the music. I was basically anxious the whole time, which kept me engrossed.

So I wouldn't say it's The Great American Movie, but it's not a directionless exercise in shouting either. Maybe it's something in the middle.

__________________

I was very impressed by this multilayered film. Daniel Day Lewis was of course fantastic but I particularly liked how it touched on several subjects but not always in an explicit way. Daniel Plainview is the perfect capitalist but his relationship to god, love and family is problematic, to say the least. He's an eloquent man and when his son becomes deaf they can't communicate because Plainview seems to be unable to express himself without words. He never bothers to learn sign language and sends his son away both physically and emotionally.

The most extraordinary parts of the film is the ones that deal with Plainview's relationship with the church and Eli Sunday. It's a battle between the cynical capitalist and the hypocritical preacher where the combatants take turns to humiliate the other. In the end the battle is won by Plainview but it's a Phyrric victory.

The acting, as I said, is extraordinary but I also think that Paul Thomas Anderson really has gotten his things together. I have always liked his films a lot, but this one is more mature and straight in a way.

And the final scene is monumental.

It's a modern classic to me.

__________________
The novelist does not long to see the lion eat grass. He realizes that one and the same God created the wolf and the lamb, then smiled, "seeing that his work was good".

--------

They had temporarily escaped the factories, the warehouses, the slaughterhouses, the car washes - they'd be back in captivity the next day but now they were out - they were wild with freedom. They weren't thinking about the slavery of poverty. Or the slavery of welfare and food stamps. The rest of us would be all right until the poor learned how to make atom bombs in their basements.

I, too, was very impressed with There Will Be Blood. The film opens with wide shots of the desert terrain, which is accompanied by Johnny Greenwood's fantastic, underrated score. At first glance of Daniel's character, PTA has established his character quite well. And with such simplicity, it is accomplished with ease. The characters never feel stilted, or like cardboard cut-outs. They have many layers, many different perspectives. Plainview is never viewed as "all evil", neither is Eli. But they are equally bound by similar obsessions. One can say that the themes are simple in There Will Be Blood, but that would be selling it short. The ending is stirring, which was previously mentioned. It left me wondering, but incredibly satisfied. A perfect ending to a wonderful achievement in filmmaking.

The cinematography is bliss; one of my favorite shots was the pull out on the church scene when Eli is doing his "sermon". The soundtrack by Greenwood is wonderful; a broad, sweeping score that brings the barrenness to life. The performances are all very good, not a weak performance to be found in this masterpiece. Paul Dano stood out a lot, despite the greatness of Daniel Day-Lewis. Their relationship in the film is very complex and can not be reduced to absolute. Every scene, I felt, in There Will Be Blood to be very important. It is a very profound character study. Daniel and his son hold a very special relationship within the film, one that is equally complex, like Eli and Daniel. There are plenty of moments of tenderness between Daniel and his son, in particular the moments on the train.

I think PTA is really developing his own style; this and Punch-Drunk Love are definitely my favorites, with Boogie Nights not far behind. PTA is a great young director, easily one of the best North America has to offer.

This is such a great flick, perhaps the reason its not knocking your socks off is because: #1 You don't hail from America. #2 You aren't quite as jaded and cynical about religion and money as I am. #3 And last but not least you may not want to have Daniel Day Lewis's child. I on the other hand do, I think he's one of the finest actors I've ever seen.

All three are certainly forgivable and if I may I will try and expand some on the first two and probably in turn draw the wrath of many a god fearin' soul. So be it.

Let's start at the beginning, we first meet Mr. Plainview at the bottom of a hole trying to scratch out a living digging for gold. I was immediately sucked in by the absence of dialog and the total quietness of his world which is obviously the way he wanted it. Because as we learn later on he basically hates everyone and hopes that everyone fails so that he can succeed.

Not long after his goldmine strike we see him again and this time he is actually among a group of people that are digging another hole and even then we get the feeling that while he is there and is obviously a leader of some kind he is also very isolated and even somewhat scorned by some of the other men there, as is evidenced by the look he receives (behind his back of course) from the man who has his son with him. Later, when that man dies and Daniel is faced with the task of taking care of a Bastard son we begin to see Daniel's true colors coming to the surface. The look of utter disdain he gives the child and his subsequent use of alcohol to put the child to sleep just showed me that there is a very good chance this man is quite possibly evil and doesn't care about anything but his own interests. Interestingly this entire sequence of events is also totally done without dialog and yet we now have a very clear idea of what this man is all about.


Flash forward now and we now hear Daniel speak for the very first time. Most would find him a charming and soft spoken individual that oozes confidence from his pores and tries to will people to listen to him, meanwhile a boy stands slightly behind him and to the side and most would think that this is obviously the man's son and perhaps this Mr. Plainview really is a "family man" and maybe he really can do all of the things he says. At one point he even introduces the boy as his son and partner. When the deal goes sideways he immediately goes elsewhere to try to get permission to drill for Oil and this is where we learn the lengths he will go in order to succeed. He lies to the wife about his "son" and gets his lease.

I won't go through the entire movie bit by bit because I'm sure no one would read it, but I wanted to delve into the man's character so I could easily define some of the reasons why I think this is not only a great film but an important film for Americans to watch and possibly even learn from. Or at the very least be shocked by it. This movie encapsulates what America is all about. Get what you can, let no one stand in your way, lie, cheat and steal if you have to. But get it and as he says: "Give me the blood Lord and let me get away."


It is also a very good explanation as to why a rather large portion of the rest of the world sees America and is disgusted. In my humble opinion rightly so. But is Daniel Plainview the Devil? Or is there even such a thing as the Devil? I don't think he believed there was such an entity. Which I found rather interesting because in this country a good number of the folks who are successful by any means necessary almost always pay lip service to the great big head in the sky whether they believe in it or not. Which he certainly qualified for when he went and had himself baptized just so he could go and have his pipeline built.

He certainly didn't believe in the other main character of the film a one Eli Sunday's belief in the almighty and even smacked him around at one point and later ends up killing him. So if he did believe in the Lord he must of figured he could just use the same type of loophole that most of the religious use. I'm talking of course about repenting your sins. You know, do whatever you want during your life but as long as you say you're sorry right before you die it's all good and now you get on the bus to Heaven. There are going to be some that will try and say it isn't that simple but in fact it is and frankly it tries my patience to the nth degree that this custom is so heavily relied on in todays day and age, but now I'm going on a tangent and I'll try to cut it short.

This does however bring me to Eli Sunday and the other reason that this is a film at the very least should shock you or disgust you depending on where you hail from. There will be those that will say Eli Sunday isn't what religion and the Lord is all about and I'm not going to waste my time trying to persuade you. I'll just say that its of interest to me how many folks that appear to me to be just like Eli Sunday are on the television everyday. Always asking for your money so you can be saved by Jesus. "And if you act now you will receive a free prayer package and truly be on the road to prosperity, just be sure to have your credit card ready because operators are standing by!"

Some will say that those people are the minority and maybe even go so far as to disparage their characters or even say they are false prophets or not actually real people. But they simply exist and Eli Sunday encapsulated all of their hypocrisy extremely well.

Bottom line for me is... this is a great American dream and nightmare portrait wrapped into one. It also is what it is and it is so ingrained into our culture here that the majority of people just accept it and just try to live their lives hoping that maybe one day they too get rich enough so they too can sit around a big house shooting at light fixtures and art work. Or just doing whatever the hell they want in general.

In closing let me just say this; I realize I'm leveling a lot of shots at a good portion of the populations core beliefs and values but in the end this is just one viewers opinion and probably doesn't really mean anything at all. Life will go on and so will people like Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Okay, I've been reading and waiting a bit to get my thoughts together, but after reading Powered Water's AMAZING post (can I give more than 1 rep point?), I'm feeling the need to respond.

First, I gather I should start off telling you all I loathe this film. Hate it. Found it annoying, over the top, and as Tacitus asked, "an overblown exercise in shouting." But before you tar and feather me, let me try to explain.

PTA is an amazing talent. He is daring and original, something we don't often find. And I respect anyone who has their own vision and goes for it. Have you ever noticed how he lingers a bit in scenes longer than other directors? His dialogue is interesting, to say the least. My favorite film is Boogie Nights because I believe its the only honest film he's made. He didn't get too carried away as he did with Magnolia. I respect him, yes, but, he often goes down the rabbit hole. I just don't want to go along. Flying frogs? Shoot me.

Here, he decides that in order to tell a story about America's fascination with greed, success, and the ever present evangelical (or puritan) thread that runs through this country, we have to get hit over the head. Hard. There is overpowering music that is designed to make us uneasy. Thanks, PTA, I get it. The music was torture.

Secondly, while I know I'm in a realllllly small minority, Daniel Day-Lewis is the king of shouting over-the-top bigger than life performances, and in my eyes, that is not a good thing. I wanted to put the man out of his misery. Now, if you argue, as Tacitus did, that the grandstanding works here because Plainview is a grandstander, I see the point. But after a while, I realize that Plainview is simply not human. There is no honesty in this performance, it is a performance. I never once believe this character. I never get in his head. I never feel what he feels. I'm on the outside looking in. So why is that considered such a great performance?

That final scene, while disturbing as hell, feels incredibly cartoonish to me. "I drink your milkshake!" Well, some call that scene brilliant; I just wish I could. I don't even understand it. And before anyone wants to explain it to me, I don't think a line of dialogue like that should be explained. I should understand.

Don't get me wrong. Any film that can generate the raw emotions that it seeks to explore is worthy of praise. The film is a very long character study and that is a good thing. It is multilayered, full of symbolic relationships and thought-provoking themes. I wish more films did that. The cinematography is amazing, and the film expertly directed on a technical level. But, in the end, I was beaten and bruised when I left the theatre, and while some would say that is the intent, and therefore PTA succeeded, I say the beating was an unnecessary one. Much like ending a movie with frogs.

It's interesting that twice now I've seen mention of a lot of shouting. I just didn't get that from it at all. Sure there is some shouting, but what's the ratio? It's a two and a half hour movie. So maybe there is shouting for what? Twenty minutes total? Overall I found the movie a rather quiet experience and haunting.

So it's almost 10% pure shouting? Sounds like a sermon to me!

Fantastic posts guys but I'm not gonna try and engage with any of them until I've seen the movie again - I tried yesterday but found myself caught up in The Limpics.

Hopefully tonight. After In Bruges.

Edit - On a side note, I don't think DDL is even the best Irish actor in the film (but he does give the best performance) but, then again, I'm a Ciarán Hinds fan.

Damn. I can't help myself.

You're probably right. But it felt like it was shouting. The heavy handed performance and the heavy handed music were shouting at me the whole time. And instead of a quiet haunting, it felt like a loud clubbing that wouldn't stop.

Powdered Water, you might appreciate this little story:

I went with a co-worker to see this. We were intent on seeing Michael Clayton, but he mixed up the theatres. So I suggested this (we were on a mission to see all five Oscar nominated films). He asked me about it, and I told him, "as I understand, a pretty intense film with no redeeming characters."

Halfway through the film, he elbows me with, "yea, you're right, not a redeeming character in the whole film." He laughs.

So at the end, I'm rather stunned by the whole thing, emotions whirling, and he was frowning. I assumed he didn't like it. So I ask him.

"You know, I have no idea why, but I REALLY LIKED IT!"

I do appreciate that story. Good stuff tramp.

There Will Be Blood is one of the most important films since 2000. Despite having a somewhat thrown-together ending, the rest of the film is perfect. The film is a masterpiece, and on a technical level it is perfect.

The first time I saw it however, I really did not know what to think. I was overwhelmed after seeing this almost 3 hour epic film about one man's complex life and 1900s America. After a couple more watches though, I was sold.

This is a very important film and something film critics and buffs all over have been waiting for for a long long time...

__________________
"All the confusion of my life... has been a reflection of myself! Myself as I am, not as I'd like to be." - Guido, 8 1/2

First off, one of the best posts i've ever read on this forum, Powered. And that's saying a hell of a lot. Your post even made me reconsider the film to a certain extent.I won't even try to compete with it. But I will reveal that I knew the film wasn't shallow, but I am starting to think that maybe there was more going on thematically that I missed the first time round. Something other than the consumeration of capitalism.


As for Daniel Day-Lewis' performance. Well, i'd have to agree with the majority and say that it is indeed a typically outstanding tour de force. I've tried so hard before to not like Daniel Day-Lewis simply because everybody bums him. But I can't lie; The man is terrifically gifted and I felt he played Daniel Plainville the way he ought to have. Given the character's occupation and goals, it makes sense that DDL play him as over confident, charming and maybe somewhat theatrical. Plainville is more or less a showman and DDL plays him so. He knows when its necessary to play it subtle as evidenced by The Ballad Of Jack and Rose.

As for PTA. Well he is quite brilliant himself. I still think that Boogie Nights is his most engaging film though.

I'd say there is about 2% shouting. Plainview is a salesman, and if you haven't been exposed to a certain type of salesman, then you should count yourself lucky and use this film as an innocent way to experience them without literally getting locked in a room with one or more. Some people believe that the final scene is over-the-top; the whole milkshake/bowling alley diptych, but it actually is a mirror of the earlier scene where Daniel spent his most-open, honest exchanges in the film. Those were with his "brother" Henry. They talked about what they shared in the past and what's "inside" Daniel as he becomes more and more successful and why he acts the way he does; at least his rationalization of why he does what he does. And to tell you the truth, you don't have to be an American capitalist to relate to his thoughts. He wants to win at all costs and doesn't enjoy seeing others do well. Sure, it could be a capitalist who thinks such things, but it could also be a socialist dictator or an imperialist from our ancient past. The fact that when Daniel finds that there is a bit of his exposed soul out there with Henry, who turns out to not be his brother, means that Daniel has to kill him and get rid of any evidence of his true feelings from anyone who isn't of his own blood. This can also be seen as a parallel theme to why Daniel isn't as open and honest with his "son" because he, too, is not "of his blood".

The same thing happens at the end of the film. Daniel apparently likes to hang out in his "War Room", his bowling alley, at night. He drinks and he passes out, right in the middle of the bowling lane where he undoubtedly tries to violently mow down all the little enemy pins with his violent bowling ball(s). Poor, overmatched Eli believes that he still has the trump card on Daniel, so he enters his boudoir of violent success with absolutely an innocent's concept of the kind of battle he will find himself in. Daniel seems to be in hog heaven when he has a chance to pay back somebody else who has seen him expose his weakness, even if in that case, Daniel was still in salesman mode and was never sincere for a second, but Eli could still lord it over him in front of his parishioners. The fact that Daniel could drink Eli's milkshake before destroying him physically is Daniel's psychological payback to Eli for having the audacity to believe that he was his equal in any regard, including salesmanship. The drinking of people's "milkshake"s isn't really over-the-top either, since Daniel knows that Eli is not long for this world. Why not give him a personal show even more spectacular than the ones that Eli presented in his "church"? I just find it very interesting that the desire for oil as a way to defeat an enemy and to become and strengthen oneself as a "superpower" does have its satiric value, even if I still don't see the movie as a "true" critique of the current U.S. administration.

Last night, I had a light bulb over my head where I was going to discuss the true meaning of the milkshake scene, but my friends are here and Alzheimer's is calling, so I have to call it on this post. Hopefully, some of you will comment on it and maybe I'll remember what I said to crazy self, even if it isn't any more interesting than this here post.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Mark, (or whoever), then explain the use of the word "milkshake?"

I love this movie. I think DDL's performance was perfect. Not over the top, and not too quiet.
Plainview was not evil. Not at all. I don't know why it's a big deal for Plainview to claim H.W. as his son. He is raising him, right? Would you think it better for the boy to always be introduced as his 'ward' or some such? He loved his son as best he could. He tried to develop a relationship with the man he thought was his brother. He made sure Mary wasn't beaten by her father anymore. These actions speak to the decency in Plainview, however stunted and cynical he might be.

Powdered, I don't think he was scorned by his men. What we saw was distaste for the work that had to be done by the hired help. They may not have respected him as a man, but he certainly knew his business and they could respect him as the boss.

I won't address the alcohol issue except to say that both times there was a reason for it in Plainview's mind. I understood why he did it. I don't think it's an important piece in the picture we develop of Plainview.

Eli Sunday was a blight to Plainview. He was willing to tolerate Eli, and placate him if it meant he could get what he wanted easier, but when Eli tried to assert himself as a leader, Plainview wouldn't stand for it.
Eli's motivations were more arrogant than Plainview's, and in my mind, he was the more unlikeable character in this film.

Anderson's film is great. It follows the life of an obsessed, driven man as he digs and drills his way to his goal. It's a study in cut-throat greed.

__________________
If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise.

Johann von Goethe

Perhaps I'm mistaken or maybe this has already been said, but it was taken from Sen. Albert Fall, who was convicted of accepting bribes for oil-drilling rights to public lands. And he used that "milkshake" line of describing what he was doing. PTA liked it and used it.

I could be wrong, but thats how I read it.

Well, he did in fact commit two cold blooded murders and whether he was right or wrong in doing so I would think that most people would say it takes an evil man to do so. Wouldn't you?

And that's a good point, and I don't really think it is a big deal. I just thought it was interesting how detached their relationship always appeared to be.
Another point could be made that would ask why did he even bother in the first place? And why didn't one of the other men step up and take care of the boy? He really didn't appear to be overly attached to the child but I guess maybe that was all he was capable of giving? I don't know. It's interesting to think about though.

Good point also, I didn't take it that way but that also makes sense.

Like all of Paul Thomas Anderson's movies it forces you to get into the character's head and try to understand why he does what he does. The great musical score , acting , dialogue , and story twists are completely engaging for me - sorry you didn't enjoy it.

__________________

Hello everone.
I have seen the movie twice now, and I'm glad I did, because like eating a jalapeno, onion, and anchovy pizza, it's much better the second time around.

Mr. Plainview, was difficult to figure out, and sort of scary to watch. But as I say that, in the real world, we need people like him. They are driven visionaries, who get things done.

How could he kill two people with a clear conscience? OJ? How?

I could smell the nasty oil all over the place.

To work out in the middle of nowhere like he did, swinging a pick alone is very brave. I'll bet people have done that.

The guy that got whacked with the bowling pin? Why didn't he fight back? Pee Wee would have put up a better fight.


Was there a message?
I haven't thought of one.

Would I watch it a third time?
Yes.

Rating?

__________________
"If you can't be funny be interesting."
Harold Ross