FOT Forum
FOT Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: electricdunnahoo on January 20, 2008, 02:02:41 PM
-
Just caught it yesterday. Amazing film. In my opinion, probably the best American film in the past three years. Is it just me, or do you think this film could've been stretched out into an HBO series? It would need more characters to keep it going of course, but I definitely felt that it could work as such.
-
The only good part is when the preacher kid beats Daniel Day Lewis to death with the rolling pin.
*SPOILER*
The film's directed by Wes Anderson.
*END SPOILDER*
-
I loved it. Maybe not flawless, but an incredibly eerie and unusual film. I think Hollywood really worked its magic by creating the oil tower and all that oil. And I refuse to believe that Paul and Eli are not the same person.
-
Apparently the original actor who portrayed Eli was fired, and Anderson stated that casting Dano in the role explained that Paul and Eli were twins.
-
I thought it was a great movie until Anderson botched it completely with that last, ham-handed scene. That last scene didn't even feel like it belonged to the same movie. The tone was completely different and the jokey violence was like something out of a Tarantino movie. And to build all that up just to slam religion (literally)? Man, what a let down. Not as bad as the raining frogs in Magnolia, but close. I think Anderson would be better off if he quit trying to inject "big ideas" into his movies. Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, and Punch-Drunk Love were much more effective because they weren't bogged down with some profound statement Anderson was trying to make (the other problem being that Anderson's profound statements aren't all that profound).
-
I thought it was a great movie until Anderson botched it completely with that last, ham-handed scene. That last scene didn't even feel like it belonged to the same movie. The tone was completely different and the jokey violence was like something out of a Tarantino movie. And to build all that up just to slam religion (literally)? Man, what a let down. Not as bad as the raining frogs in Magnolia, but close. I think Anderson would be better off if he quit trying to inject "big ideas" into his movies. Hard Eight, Boogie Nights, and Punch-Drunk Love were much more effective because they weren't bogged down with some profound statement Anderson was trying to make (the other problem being that Anderson's profound statements aren't all that profound).
I liked the ending. I agree that it was a little out of place in terms of tone, but it only made Eli's character more interesting. Being a combination of a sort of mystic and a greedy con-man is an awesome dichotomy. I didn't think that Eli's statements were meant to bash religion, but to deride his character. There Will Be Blood is about the lengths greed will drive you to, and what you will do to stay on top once you arrive. What do you mean by trying to make a profound statement?
-
Apparently the original actor who portrayed Eli was fired, and Anderson stated that casting Dano in the role explained that Paul and Eli were twins.
Yeah, I read that, but the movie still kind of makes plenty of sense if Paul and Eli are the same person.
-
When I was watching the film, I assumed Eli and Paul were the same person. So Paul sold his family out?
That changes a lot. It's like Fahrenheit 451 all over again.
-
I thought it was a great movie until Anderson botched it completely with that last, ham-handed scene. That last scene didn't even feel like it belonged to the same movie. The tone was completely different and the jokey violence was like something out of a Tarantino movie. And to build all that up just to slam religion (literally)?
On one hand, I kind of like that the whole film was a sort of set up for a typographical punchline... Like, remember the totally ridiculous and pretentious trailer for the film?
Very elaborate and expensive joke.
I did leave the theatre disgusted that PT Anderson had just wasted my time with a three hour slam on a nonsense religion (since when do Pentacostals make the sign of the cross at their wedding?) but once I got past the basically shrill and moronic "religion" of the film (which is either a function of PT's own ignorance and some steaming turd left by Le Douche Sinclair) I liked that the whole thing went so topsy-turvy at the end.
It was like a flip on the NC4OM ending. Instead of meandering off into the desert to die, the catharsis in this film was ramrodded right up my ass by a clown car full of burning muppets.
Peace be with you, Paul Thomas Anderson
-
you would really consider the whole film simply a slam on the pentecostal faith? i hardly think that's the focus. Eli's role doesn't act as a criticism of pentecostals so much as it's a testament to how greed can erode even the strongest convictions.
with that said, i thought the ending lines were pretty heavy handed. i think a lot more could have been done with the end... the "i'm finished" line was ridiculous.
-
Im having a hard time with the anti-religion message as well. To me, it didnt seem to be slamming it at all. Eli's character just happened to be a poor preacher. Plus, if you take Magnolia into account, with all of the references to the Bible and what have you, it would be a drastic ideological switch from Anderson.
As for the ending, it made me laugh and was more conclusive than No Country for Old Mens ending.
-
Im having a hard time with the anti-religion message as well. To me, it didnt seem to be slamming it at all. Eli's character just happened to be a poor preacher. Plus, if you take Magnolia into account, with all of the references to the Bible and what have you, it would be a drastic ideological switch from Anderson.
As for the ending, it made me laugh and was more conclusive than No Country for Old Mens ending.
Exactly.
-
This is a good discussion so far.
I don't think there's any doubt that the doubling of Paul and Eli is unnecessarily confusing. If it had to be done, the word "twin" somewhere in the dialogue would have helped. As it is, Eli and Plainfield look positively conspiratorial when they meet.
I don't think there was a statement against religion in the film. In fact I rather wish the film did make more of a statement of some kind. On the other hand, I did see it three times already, so I guess overall I liked it.
I'd like to see an Alien-vs-Predator-style matchup between Daniel Day-Lewis in the final scenes armed with pistol and bowling pin against that other great PT Anderson dissolute, coked-out Alfred Molina from Boogie Nights, carrying his shot-gun.
By the way, I discuss a couple of personal encounters with Daniel Day-Lewis in my online diary: http://diary.typepad.com/alan_horns_diary/2008/01/january-7-2008.html (http://diary.typepad.com/alan_horns_diary/2008/01/january-7-2008.html).
-
I did not realize at all that it had been two and a half hours when the credits rolled.
Also, the PFT cameo wasn't too blurry, he even got a line!
Thought it dragged a bit in the final act - the scene with adult H.W. seemed to go on and on.
But overall, well, they promised blood, and by Jiminy, they delivered it.
-
I'm going to see it tonight.
I'm very excited.
-
I didn't see PFT at all. Where the hell was he?
-
I didn't see PFT at all. Where the hell was he?
Okay. You can't actually see him. You're best left listening for the voice. Oh, and it's about 15 minutes in.
-
You can see him fall into the ocean during the Coney Island scene at the end.
-
I just got back.
First off, I had no problem whatsoever spotting PFT. For those who missed him, he's sitting to Plainview's right during his first speech. ("If I say I'm an oil man, you will agree...") PFT acquitted himself very well, as did Will Oldham in the role of Henry.
I liked the movie a lot, but agree with those who found the ending out-of-tune with the rest of the movie. It inspired thought and debate, though, so that's a good thing. As I was watching the movie, I was thinking, "Wow, this really is one of the best movies I've EVER seen," and then, when Plainview put the napkin over his face in the restaurant, things started to go slightly downhill. That said, I always had a great time as I was watching it, and was never bored. I even liked the last couple of scenes, but I liked them more as individual scenes rather than how they fit within the flow of the movie, if that makes sense. It was interesting and I'll be seeing it again soon.
A thought: (SPOILERS)
Someone wrote somewhere that Plainview could be impotent, but I think it goes further than that - the man had to be a eunuch. I'm aware that this is ridiculous, but bear with me. I think Plainview had probably suffered terrible abuse at the hands of (most likely) his father, abuse which may have involved some kind of genital mutilation. So - and here I leap shamelessly - Daniel's competetive nature would have to be his form of compensating. I also think that it was not only Daniel who was abused, but his siblings as well. So, at the beach, when Henry mentions getting some girls, Daniel is immediately convinced that his "brother...from another mother" is not who he claims. I don't believe Daniel was fostering suspicions before that scene. Daniel's reaction to Henry's plan, his return to the ocean and his attitude in the brothel (?) plot Daniel's transition from coaxing confirmation of his suspicions to disbelief to his resolving to kill Henry. (Ah, murder...is there anything it doesn't solve?) I honestly can't remember anything else from the film that would've tipped Daniel off to Henry's true identity. It is referenced in the film that Daniel has sympathy for abused children (More than most people, even!); he indirectly confronts the Sunday father by pulling his daughter aside at the refreshment table and reassuring her ("No more hitting") as her father looks on.
There's also the theory that some people have about the last scene - that it's a figment of Daniel's imagination. The evidence is there, but I'm tired of typing. Maybe later.
-
PFT on his There Will Be Blood and Magnolia experiences:
Part 1:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=VTE-jLleg5I[/youtube]
Part 2:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=Y_-AzSFV5ak[/youtube]
Part 3:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=YlqWBtvB7zY[/youtube]
-
Someone wrote somewhere that Plainview could be impotent, but I think it goes further than that - the man had to be a eunuch. I'm aware that this is ridiculous, but bear with me. I think Plainview had probably suffered terrible abuse at the hands of (most likely) his father, abuse which may have involved some kind of genital mutilation. So - and here I leap shamelessly - Daniel's competetive nature would have to be his form of compensating. I also think that it was not only Daniel who was abused, but his siblings as well. So, at the beach, when Henry mentions getting some girls, Daniel is immediately convinced that his "brother...from another mother" is not who he claims. I don't believe Daniel was fostering suspicions before that scene. Daniel's reaction to Henry's plan, his return to the ocean and his attitude in the brothel (?) plot Daniel's transition from coaxing confirmation of his suspicions to disbelief to his resolving to kill Henry. (Ah, murder...is there anything it doesn't solve?) I honestly can't remember anything else from the film that would've tipped Daniel off to Henry's true identity. It is referenced in the film that Daniel has sympathy for abused children (More than most people, even!); he indirectly confronts the Sunday father by pulling his daughter aside at the refreshment table and reassuring her ("No more hitting") as her father looks on.
There's also the theory that some people have about the last scene - that it's a figment of Daniel's imagination. The evidence is there, but I'm tired of typing. Maybe later.
It's pretty clear Daniel was abused, but I don't think it's necessary to say he was physically castrated. Metaphorically castrated? Sure.
Also, this was posted on another board that I read and I thought it was pretty great:
structurally, on a most basic level, i think it is surprisingly similar to giant, i suppose it's impossible to make a movie about oil today w/o referencing giant. ddl's character echoing jett rink.. poverty (spiritual and financial loners) to wealth, complete madness, self-destruction and alcoholism via oil. the son who doesn't live up to his father's expectations a la dennis hopper and rock hudson's relationship, the large jumps in time. also the film's beginning in an archetypical western setting and ending in "hollywood". then how the dates in the film correlate to film history is interesting starting in like 1898, the beginning of filmmaking and then the end like 1933-ish being the end of the silent era and the beginning of hollywood and sound film. the shift from the "great outdoors" to the mansion of artificial comforts, the shift in desires throughout the film.. from oil tycoons to film actors (the preacher's friend needing money to go to hollywood to pursue a career at the end). hollywood is the new oil well.
-
SPOILERS
So, at the beach, when Henry mentions getting some girls, Daniel is immediately convinced that his "brother...from another mother" is not who he claims. I don't believe Daniel was fostering suspicions before that scene. Daniel's reaction to Henry's plan, his return to the ocean and his attitude in the brothel (?) plot Daniel's transition from coaxing confirmation of his suspicions to disbelief to his resolving to kill Henry. (Ah, murder...is there anything it doesn't solve?) I honestly can't remember anything else from the film that would've tipped Daniel off to Henry's true identity.
This is a bit confused.
When Henry suggests getting some women, Daniel replies that they could "get them liquored up and take them to the Peachtree dance"--evidently a reference to a well-known event in his hometown which Henry fails to pick up on. He repeats it to no effect, and we can see him look at Henry with suspicion as the realization dawns that something is wrong.
Daniel's attitude in the brothel is explained by his feelings about what he suspects, which he cannot allow himself to express as he decides whether it's true and if so what to do about it.
This is not just a personal interpretation; it's spelled out in the script, which can be found here: http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/FinalScript_TWBB.pdf (http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/FinalScript_TWBB.pdf)
-
SPOILERS
So, at the beach, when Henry mentions getting some girls, Daniel is immediately convinced that his "brother...from another mother" is not who he claims. I don't believe Daniel was fostering suspicions before that scene. Daniel's reaction to Henry's plan, his return to the ocean and his attitude in the brothel (?) plot Daniel's transition from coaxing confirmation of his suspicions to disbelief to his resolving to kill Henry. (Ah, murder...is there anything it doesn't solve?) I honestly can't remember anything else from the film that would've tipped Daniel off to Henry's true identity.
This is a bit confused.
When Henry suggests getting some women, Daniel replies that they could "get them liquored up and take them to the Peachtree dance"--evidently a reference to a well-known event in his hometown which Henry fails to pick up on. He repeats it to no effect, and we can see him look at Henry with suspicion as the realization dawns that something is wrong.
Daniel's attitude in the brothel is explained by his feelings about what he suspects, which he cannot allow himself to express as he decides whether it's true and if so what to do about it.
This is not just a personal interpretation; it's spelled out in the script, which can be found here: http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/FinalScript_TWBB.pdf (http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/FinalScript_TWBB.pdf)
Eh, I like my "cockless Plainviews" theory better.
But seriously, thanks for the link to the script; I didn't know it was available. There Will Be Perusing!
-
I am glad I haven't seen it yet, else your detailed descriptions of the ending would not have been nearly such a delightful surprise!!!
-
That's pretty astute, Matt..great observation!
One question that still haunts me: why do you think H.W. started that fire? Do you think he read in Henry's journal that he was adopted?
BASTARD IN A BASKET!
-
One question that still haunts me: why do you think H.W. started that fire? Do you think he read in Henry's journal that he was adopted?
I just thought it was because he was jealous of Henry. Daniel was already having difficulties with H.W. because of his hearing loss, and along comes Henry to serve as a kind of surrogate partner for Daniel, in H.W.'s mind, anyways.
And, having some time to think about it, I've decided that it wasn't so much what happened in the final scene that bothered me, but rather the cheerful classical music that played over the credits.
-
When Henry suggests getting some women, Daniel replies that they could "get them liquored up and take them to the Peachtree dance"--evidently a reference to a well-known event in his hometown which Henry fails to pick up on. He repeats it to no effect, and we can see him look at Henry with suspicion as the realization dawns that something is wrong.
You, my friend, just blew my mind. I was totally confused about that scene. I was just watching it thinking "Why the fuck is this guy so into this Peachtree Dance?"
And it does say in the script that Daniel is impotent. He tells Henry at one point: "My cock doesn't even work, how'm I gonna make a kid?" Good find, that script - sooo many questions answered.
(I'm glad that cock line got cut out, though. Spelling it out like that would have been way too heavy-handed, in my opinion.)
Regarding H.W. and the fire, I noticed when he was perusing the diary that there was some sort of picture of a gun or weaponry in it, and I was half-thinking for a bit that H.W. inferred from that that Henry was up to some nefarious scene against Daniel and set the fire in order to save Daniel from Henry, since he couldn't communicate it any other way. But that theory gets shredded in the successive scenes, and it's not mentioned in the script at all. It makes much more sense that H.W. was just jealous of Henry.
-
And it does say in the script that Daniel is impotent. He tells Henry at one point: "My cock doesn't even work, how'm I gonna make a kid?" Good find, that script - sooo many questions answered.
Interesting trivia: That same line was deleted from Transformers*
For me, anything in the script but not the movie is no help as it doesn't exist (just like deleted scenes).
*the animated one
-
PFT acquitted himself very well, as did Will Oldham in the role of Henry.
That's a slam dunk.
-
PFT acquitted himself very well, as did Will Oldham in the role of Henry.
That's a slam dunk.
Thank you, Dorvid. It's no secret I strive for goofballs, funnybones and get-a-laffs.
I saw the movie again tonight. Liked it a lot more. Now tied with No Country For Old Men as Best of 2007. (SURPRISE!)
-
I didn't want to post this in the "Movie --> Videogame Continued (http://www.friendsoftom.com/forum/index.php/topic,1909.0.html)" thread because it's a lil spoiler-y, but...
Brain Age: There Will Be Blood Edition
(http://www.arcuradio.com/etc/brainagetwbb.jpg)
Learn along with Daniel and HW! Educational minigames include:
- pipeline to the coast maze
- 'brother from another mother' connect-the-dots
- Eli Sunday slapfighting
- lipreading
- milkshake drinking contests
- quail hunting
- bastard in a basket
- spot Paul F. Tompkins
-
I'm just happy to see this picture pop in various message board threads:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v387/lizzieboredom/08_ddl_lgl.jpg)
This picture should be posted in any thread experiencing massive drainage.
-
The first ad in the new campaign should start airing soon, so it's probably OK for me to post this excerpt from the script I got a hold of from someone close to Day-Lewis.
Plainview: Are you an angry man, O’Grimacey (http://www.tiktok.org/shamrock/pics/uncleo.jpg)?
Uncle O’Grimacey: About what?
Plainview: Are you envious? Do you get envious?
Uncle O’Grimacey: I don't think so. No.
Plainview: I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people.
Uncle O’Grimacey: That part of me is gone...working and not succeeding - all my failures have left me... I just don't... care.
Plainview: Well, if it's in me, it's in you. There are times when I look at people and I see nothing worth liking. I want to collect enough peel-off Monopoly tokens that I can get away from everyone in McDonaldland.
Uncle O’Grimacey: What will you do about my nephew (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1DlNbXviQQ)?
Plainview: I don't know. Maybe it will change. Do your extra arms grow back? I don't know. Maybe no one knows that. The Professor (http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0840/3.gif) might not know that.
Uncle O’Grimacey: Where is his mother?
Plainview: I don't want to talk about those things. I see the worst in people. I don't need to look past seeing them to get all I need. I want to rule and never, ever explain myself. I've built my hatreds up over the years, little by little, O’Grimacey... to have you here gives me a second breath. I can't keep doing this on my own with these... Fry Guys.
It's a little arty for a first ad, but they're saving the big line for the final ad in the campaign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamrock_Shake), obviously, set to air in mid-March.
-
TWBB + TBSOWFMU =
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Can anyone add anything to what Matt had posted previously about the last scene being a figment of Daniel's imagination? It did seem odd that a passed out and completely wasted old man (he must have been in his 60's at least by that point?) would be able to run around and wreak havoc like that. Then again I guess Van Morrison did something similar for real, but still.
I saw the film opening night at one of robert redfords sundance theatres, which despite its claims to be indie and artsy inexplicably also was playing the Bucket List. For someone reason I was shocked when There Will Be Blood wasn't completely sold out, it was at best half full, on the firday night premiere!
-
Here's a discussion about it (http://idrinkyourmilkshake.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=87&page=1#Item_0).
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCCdZmHk5Fk&eurl=http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/01/milkshake_watch_i_drink_your_m.html[/youtube]
Drink it up.
-
Can anyone add anything to what Matt had posted previously about the last scene being a figment of Daniel's imagination? It did seem odd that a passed out and completely wasted old man (he must have been in his 60's at least by that point?) would be able to run around and wreak havoc like that.
SPOILERS
While Plainview was chomping on that steak, I was reminded of Barfly - Plainview was getting his fuel. That's why he was stalling for most of that scene, not just to wallow in Eli's humiliation, but to give time for his fuel to kick in. Then he was ready to bowl.
I was wondering why no attempt was made to age Paul Dano in that last scene. How many years had passed? He looked exactly the same. In a film with such attention to detail, the decison to leave Eli fresh-faced had to have been deliberate. Was it becuase he never got paid? And yes, the butler doesn't visibly react to the corpse, so I could see how the "hallucination theorists" might be on to something.
That said, I don't think it matters. The repercussions of Eli's death were never shown. Whether Plainview killed Eli or just had a lucid fantasy about killing Eli, that's just splitting hairs. All that matters, within the world of the film, is that Plainview is finished.
After seeing this movie for a third time, I can say for certain that it's in my all-time top 5, maybe even in my top 1. (look out, Amadeus!)
Not that I care too too much about Oscar nominations, but Johnny Greenwood got rogered something fierce.
-
That last scene didn't even feel like it belonged to the same movie. The tone was completely different and the jokey violence was like something out of a Tarantino movie.
It was far more Kubrick than Tarantino.
-
It was far more Kubrick than Tarantino.
That makes a lot of sense. The next time I see it I'll try to keep Kubrick in mind, I feel like there's probably more than a few parallels there.
In a film with such attention to detail, the decison to leave Eli fresh-faced had to have been deliberate.
I noticed that too, that he's not aged at all. I just figured it was another oversight, though, along with the whole Paul/Eli confusion. I agree that the dream/reality question doesn't seem to really matter in the end.
Has anyone suggested "I Drink Your Milkshake" as a 2008 slogan yet?
-
I did feel a slight homage to "The Shining", especially that first shot of the bowling alley. It reminded me of the twin girls. Oh the absolute madness of it all!
-
I didn't want to post this in the "Movie --> Videogame Continued (http://www.friendsoftom.com/forum/index.php/topic,1909.0.html)" thread because it's a lil spoiler-y, but...
Brain Age: There Will Be Blood Edition
(http://www.arcuradio.com/etc/brainagetwbb.jpg)
Learn along with Daniel and HW! Educational minigames include:
- pipeline to the coast maze
- 'brother from another mother' connect-the-dots
- Eli Sunday slapfighting
- lipreading
- milkshake drinking contests
- quail hunting
- bastard in a basket
- spot Paul F. Tompkins
this is hilarious. i love it.
the movie, not as much - sorry to be a voice of dissent, but i found it a little long and i didn't really find the characters all that interesting. i was actually kind of bored by Daniel's character and how he used people to his advantage, though i did find Eli's general frustration a little more interesting - and amusing.
i really enjoyed the soundtrack/score, and the acting, and the oil, but i was surprised there wasn't more blood.
the end of the film stuck out for me too, but i kind of enjoyed it because the different format sort of made me perk up.
i went into the theater looking forward to a western, but now that i think about it - i wonder why this movie was made now. i mean, i get the whole greed, oil, capitalism, etc., and that it's an epic American tale, but i wonder (and i haven't read any articles/reviews on the film) if people have been interpreting it as a sort of anti-war film. like, did you ever hear that Deliverance was an anti-Vietnam film? I saw Deliverance in a lit. class in college & that's what I remember my teacher saying. I thought that was kind of a stretch, but I wasn't around for that war, so i can't really say.
i know today there are films about the Iraq war, & that it doesn't seem to be taboo to make a film about an ongoing war, but is anyone here reading There Will Be Blood as allegory for the Iraq war? or is that a stretch?
like if you think it all boils down to oil and deceit and i guess, greed. in that case, too bad Eli gets the ax (or pin). but i guess he's no better than Daniel, ultimately. too bad Daniel didn't die. it would have been cool if the butler killed him. or if he slipped in Eli's blood and conked his head on the lane divider.
anyway.. if the intention was for it to be interpreted as allegory, or if it just fits because there are similar themes, it would be an interesting way to sort of bring the war home, or to have people reflect on issues of greed and capitalism as they have effected America(ns) - to better grasp the concept. maybe you'd need more of a link to the present (in the film somehow) to really make a compelling argument.
i don't know, i haven't totally thought it through. it's just an idea.
anyway, i hope some of this makes sense.
good thread otherwise!
-
I doubt that an Iraq link was *explicitly* intended, just judging from my own take on the movie itself and the fact that the germ of the story was that Upton Sinclair book.
However, I think it's a valid enough take on it. I wouldn't look at it too specifically, but like emily said, just in the broad strokes about greed, deceit, etc, it's certainly food for thought regarding current events. Pretty much any movie involving hubris, greed, capitalism, etc, you could draw some interesting parallels to politics now, and no movie did Greed, Capitalism, and Hubris better in the last year than TWWB.
Now, if you want a misplaced and wrongheaded reading of politics into a movie, try and find Jonathan Rosenbaum's review of NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN in the Chicago Reader. I can't get the link to work now, but basically, after completely trashing the movie for all the wrong reasons, he talks about one of the only redeeming things in it is how brave the Coens were to throw in an Anti-Bush/Abu Graib reference, giving the scene where Tommy Lee Jones makes a reference to someone getting murdered while wearing a dog collar as being evidence of that. Uhhhh....no?
-
thanks Pat K :-)
it was sort of a random thought.
i forgot about Oil!
-
Forget about Tony Montana, or even the Queen.
Daniel Plainview is the new hip-hop icon.
-
I was wondering why no attempt was made to age Paul Dano in that last scene. How many years had passed? He looked exactly the same. In a film with such attention to detail, the decison to leave Eli fresh-faced had to have been deliberate.
I was wondering why no attempt was made to make Paul Dano a better actor in that last scene. Sorry people, but I'm with B. Buster. This movie was amazing until H.W. got grown up and then there was some major DRAINAGE in the quality of this film. That last scene was awkward, the tone was way off, and Dano was majorly outclassed by Daniel Day Lewis. I think he just wasn't able to pull it off.
I think it's smart they didn't include the impotence thing, because I was actually pretty convinced that this guy was just so wounded and alienated that he just wasn't interested in sex or love. And yeah, I got that the thing with Henry and the PeachTree dance was him making a reference to something from the old days that Henry didn't pick up on, and then he was so pissed that he couldn't cavort, because when you're thinking about killing someone you don't really wanna get drunk with them and share hookers. I know from experience. The diary stuff backs up the idea that he eventually realized this guy was a fraud, and that's what the Peachtree thing was about. I also think H.W. realized he was a fraud earlier (remember he looked through his stuff) and that's why he tried to burn him. But that would hold up better if I thought H.W. was literate.
That hallucination stuff is just loopy.
-
I think it's smart they didn't include the impotence thing, because I was actually pretty convinced that this guy was just so wounded and alienated that he just wasn't interested in sex or love.
I agree wholeheartedly. I do not feel that any explanation as to the absense of women from his life was necessary at all. Seemed fairly obvious to a degree that to include a woman somewhere, even in the brothel, would have seemed out of character. This is probably because Daniel Day-Lewis simply sold me on that character so well that I never even thought to question it during the course of my viewing.
-
I still say this movie was really about the Iraq war.*
*(i'm just kidding)
-
Isn't it obvious? Plainview was gay as a window!
-
His behavior toward the little girl was quite creepy.
-
I just watched this today! I loved it! That's about it.
-
I just watched this today! I loved it! That's about it.
Agreed. Best movie of this century so far. It's been almost a month and I'm still thinking about it.
-
I think it's smart they didn't include the impotence thing, because I was actually pretty convinced that this guy was just so wounded and alienated that he just wasn't interested in sex or love.
I agree wholeheartedly. I do not feel that any explanation as to the absense of women from his life was necessary at all. Seemed fairly obvious to a degree that to include a woman somewhere, even in the brothel, would have seemed out of character. This is probably because Daniel Day-Lewis simply sold me on that character so well that I never even thought to question it during the course of my viewing.
During the baptism scene, Eli mentions Daniel lusting after women. Also, you wonder if he had feelings for the Sunday daughter. Perhaps that was why he treated his son so terribly towards the end of the film??
-
I think it's smart they didn't include the impotence thing, because I was actually pretty convinced that this guy was just so wounded and alienated that he just wasn't interested in sex or love.
I agree wholeheartedly. I do not feel that any explanation as to the absense of women from his life was necessary at all. Seemed fairly obvious to a degree that to include a woman somewhere, even in the brothel, would have seemed out of character. This is probably because Daniel Day-Lewis simply sold me on that character so well that I never even thought to question it during the course of my viewing.
During the baptism scene, Eli mentions Daniel lusting after women. Also, you wonder if he had feelings for the Sunday daughter. Perhaps that was why he treated his son so terribly towards the end of the film??
When I first saw the film, I thought terrorizing the girl's father and essentially adopting her was Plainview's idea of being a good parent. That, and maybe he identified with her as a victim of abuse.
Now I think Daniel did what he did because his son expressed an interest in the Sunday girl, and Daniel wants no other man to succeed. He was driven to possess the girl, not for sexual reasons, but as a means of maintaining total authority over his son. Even if HW gets to marry her, Daniel is still her daddy.
That man sure has a competition in him!
-
I think it's smart they didn't include the impotence thing, because I was actually pretty convinced that this guy was just so wounded and alienated that he just wasn't interested in sex or love.
I agree wholeheartedly. I do not feel that any explanation as to the absense of women from his life was necessary at all. Seemed fairly obvious to a degree that to include a woman somewhere, even in the brothel, would have seemed out of character. This is probably because Daniel Day-Lewis simply sold me on that character so well that I never even thought to question it during the course of my viewing.
During the baptism scene, Eli mentions Daniel lusting after women. Also, you wonder if he had feelings for the Sunday daughter. Perhaps that was why he treated his son so terribly towards the end of the film??
When I first saw the film, I thought terrorizing the girl's father and essentially adopting her was Plainview's idea of being a good parent. That, and maybe he identified with her as a victim of abuse.
Now I think Daniel did what he did because his son expressed an interest in the Sunday girl, and Daniel wants no other man to succeed. I think his pathology is such that he was driven to possess the girl, not for sexual reasons, but as a means of maintaining total authority over his son. Even if HW gets to marry her, Daniel is still her daddy.
That man sure has a competition in him!
Yeah, that route does make more sense to me. Still, there are references to his sexuality in the movie (the Peachtree dance, the baptism, etc.), but I think it was wise of PTA to not include any overt scene related to Plainview's sexuality. It definitely enhances your perception of his character.
-
You don't see moves like this at the Peachtree Dance.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/FQAoFlgZy1Q[/youtube]
-
I like how a "production company" was required for that video.
-
You don't see moves like this at the Peachtree Dance.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/v/FQAoFlgZy1Q[/youtube]
I laughed a little in the beginning. I'll admit it.
EDIT: This scene reminds me, I really hate the way Eli says "DON'T BULLY ME, DANIEL!"
-
I really hate the way Eli says everything.
I tried that "DON'T BULLY ME" line on some bullies once. Didn't work.
-
It was only a matter of time Id have to watch some Youtube clip featuring that song set to that scene.
-
I just watched this today! I loved it! That's about it.
Agreed. Best movie of this century so far. It's been almost a month and I'm still thinking about it.
Me too me too! I saw this last night and loved it.
It also reenforced my belief that Jonny Greenwood is currently one of the world's greatest composers. I love everything that guy does.
-
[youtube]Ri33bydAavI[/youtube]
FINAL SCENE ROUGH CUT!
-
That's the best one yet.
-
I really hate the way Eli says everything.
I tried that "DON'T BULLY ME" line on some bullies once. Didn't work.
"don't tase me bro"
-
(http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/9136/therewillbeblooddvdwa5.jpg)
April 8!