While watching There Will Be Blood, I knew I was watching an Oscar worthy performance from Daniel Day-Lewis. But something was gnawing at the back of my brain that just bugged me to no end. It didn’t take long to figure out what it is. Have a listen:
So even though I think Day-Lewis’ performance is brilliant, the uncanny similarity to Hugo Weaving’s Agent Smith had me thinking about The Matrix through much of the film. Maybe this led to my less than stellar review of the film (3.5/5 stars). Am I the only one who hears the similarity? Am I totally whack?
No, I don’t think you’re whack…the resemblance is definitely there but for whatever reason, it didn’t bother me one bit. I was a bit too engrossed in the film.
See, I was never overly engrossed in the film. I was huge into the style and look and feel of everything. The story itself, I kept anticipating something, but nothing ever really got me motivated to care about much of the story.
its me and Andrew against the mass delusion that is the lovefest for There Will Be Blood. You’ve been had! Everything is veneer in this film, the suggestion of greatness. The value should not be the sum of its parts… great score, great performance… there needs to be something at the center holding it all together, particularly for the calibre of director at the helm, something worthwhile to be said. Its observations on characterization, on Chruch vs State are so insignificant and obvious that I think if it was an unknown director and a less showy central performance people would recognize it for the non-event that it is.
I’m only seen the previews for There Will Be Blood (and don’t intent to see the film, it’s not my bag), but when I heard you say this on the cinecast I went ape! Spot on!! Every… sylable, every moment… is the same. These, humans…
Excellent eye on that one. Or ear, rather.
Their inflections are completely different. Agent Smith tends to overemphasize every syllable and often times carries over pronunciation from one word to the next. He’s a machine trying to inflect how a human does, but he is incapable of doing that, resulting in a speach pattern that is almost alin to normal people.
Daniel stops frequently as he is speaking, but that is because he’s a man that is constantly keeping his cards abreast, and he is very careful at how much he reveals as he speaks. You can feel the wheels turning as he is speaking, knowing that he will only give you the most limited amount of information that he deems nescessary. He doesn’t overemphazie syllables near as much, and his delivery is far more curt than elongated.
/pwn
“there needs to be something at the center holding it all together, particularly for the calibre of director at the helm, something worthwhile to be said. Its observations on characterization, on Chruch vs State are so insignificant and obvious that I think if it was an unknown director and a less showy central performance people would recognize it for the non-event that it is.”
Seriously? Your kidding right rot? I think there’s MORE than enough going on for both the length, caliber of director and the performance. The whole struggle to be successful – isn’t it the American dream? – and I don’t just mean America as in the USA.
What I love most about TWBB is that it sets up an epic story only to deliver a story of a man who travels through life but never really goes anywhere. In that sense, it’s almost a picaresque – except that it lacks the comedy aspects. Sure, he makes loads of money but his life starts and ends alone – not exactly a sign of a fulfilled life. True, it’s slow moving and a lot may not happen on screen but I think the lack of growth in the character is the most fascinating thing TWBB has going for it. And just when you think Daniel has changed and “grown” as a person, you realize he’s right back to being an ass. There was more than enough material to keep the movie going though I will admit that Dano’s performance was chewed up by Lewis and as a result, the church vs. state aspect didn’t work as well for me.
While I didn’t loathe the film like rot, I do have to side with him. The church and state thing seemed to almost be in there just for our character to have something to do.
The film seemed to me, to be a jumbled series of Plainview’s experiences. Unfortunately none of these experiences meant anything or were for any purpose. All of the other characters as well. They were there for no reason other than to get Plainview through another five mintues of something happening.
We get it, it’s about a dispicable guy who says mean things. And?
Oh, and Gamble: Doesn’t matter WHY they talk like they do, the point is they do sound similar. If it were two guys who happen to sound the same, big deal. But these were very… auteur (for lack of a better word) characters.
Also the point was not to downgrade either performance, just a mere observation that irked me a bit.
so the substantial message of the film is ‘money doesn’t buy you happiness’, a critique of the American Dream? We are lucky there are nice visuals and fine acting to overcompensate for the vaccuum that is this ‘story’.
In your comment Marina some words stick out for me: ‘never really goes anywhere’, ‘lack of growth’, ‘his life starts and ends alone’… you treat these as positive aspects, which fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, and lord knows I like my share of meandering art films, but TWBB is different for me in one important way: it has nothing to say or convey about the character it observes, it is not a film that stalls plot to assert profound truths about human nature or evoke inner struggle through quiet observation. It occassionaly poses as if it wants to, but this tends to end up being admiration for performance rather than development of character. the baptism scene and the scene where Daniel is confronted with the prospect of becoming a millionaire are two exceptions where significant struggle occurs and characterization is fleshed out beyond stereotype. The rest is an ambituous greedy man going about his business.
The stasis of plot continues forth into the stasis of character development… the only benefit of having nothing happen on either level is to get to some meditative possibly spiritual plain, and this film certainly does not strive to do that.
for the record I do not hate There Will Be Blood, I am just disappointed that it does not amount to a whole lot, the beautiful score adds to a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
Yup. Ditto.
Technically outstanding film. It’s like a nice piece of architecture with no one dwelling within.
I’m still trying to understand why you think the film needs to have some huge point to make. My biggest annoyance with PTA is he tends to hammer home his thesis in every damn film, making it absolutely unbearable to watch. His level of restraint and allowing the acting and the story to proceede at their own pace without his interference is a pretty big bit of artistic growth for him as a filmmaker. It takes far greater skill to allow your audience to think then to tell them how to.
Andrew, it seems coupled with your “Shitty taste in movies- Henrik” that you have an tin ear that is incapable of recognizing the subtle, yet distinct differences in both inflection and delivery between Agent Smith and Daniel Plainview. Perhaps you should stick to simpler fair like analyzing the latest episode of The View.
@Matt
“His level of restraint and allowing the acting and the story to proceede at their own pace without his interference is a pretty big bit of artistic growth for him as a filmmaker.”
My point: proceed to what? if the point is not to have a narrative point, if the desire is to meander and let character flourish, then we move down to that level of analysis, and again I ask proceed to what character development? if again, there is to be no point, say the only point is to be entertained, that this is a ‘movie’ rather than a ‘film’, and we can admire performance, the story of Anderson restraining himself, all the external appreciations of the product, then I would like people to admit this superficiality of appreciation. The other option, that the point is not to play with narrative, or character, but to stall all to get to some meditative state, even at that level of analysis I see nothing to glean from the film.
what is the audience meant to think about? The film was not accidental, it was designed for a certain effect, but I cannot seem to figure out what it is people get from the film, aside from the pleasure of, like I said before, historical curiosity, showy performance, and the spectacle of PTA Anderson being subdued. most reviews I have read about the film focus on these things like that alone qualifies it for greatness. pretty low standards if you ask me.
rot…point well taken. Except that I was more than happy to simply enjoy the character going no where – so much so that I’d be more than willing to sit through it time and time again but yes, you certainly have a point.
@ Matt
“I’m still trying to understand why you think the film needs to have some huge point to make.”
I don’t think it needs a point necessarily – although the movie does have a point. Doens’t need a point though, it needs a halfway compelling story. Slow doesn’t bother me one bit (see 5 star films Assassination of Jesse James, The New World, etc.); but I do need to have something happening. Just watching a guy go about his business isn’t interesting to me.
Actually, I take that back – it could be interesting. With TWBB however, little things tease me into thinking something is coming (fire at the well, the guy who won’t sell, the church service, etc.), then they’re abandoned. I think these things will be the catalyst or a jumping off point for a story, but then they’re discarded – just like all the other characters in the film. They mean nothing except for someone for Day-Lewis to play off of and show his chops.
But like Marina said, if that’s your thing: just watching an acting brilliance and seeing him do his thing, more power to ya. It’s personal taste that I want something more from my movie… a story.
and I want a character worthy of the baptism scene
The point of the film is for the viewer to decide individually, not for PTA to explain for you in rote detail, as is his biggest flaw as a filmmaker. A film is not required to have a message, nor is it a lesser film simply because it doesn’t. Great films can exist that simply recreate an organic flow with no real consequences or plot. Picnic at Hanging Rock is a excellent example of that style of filmmaking.
There Will Be Blood is an open ended story that allows the viewer to decide their level of involvement with the film. It doesn’t preach to you, it doesn’t guide you, it leaves it up to you to choose how much you want to invest with it. It is a daring and difficult style of filmmaking, and one that is incredibly hard to succeed with. That it is a style in direct contrast with PTA’s typical avenue of filmmaking makes the achievement all the more impressive.
It basically comes down to you, in this particular instance, needing the film to progress to some arbitrary point that it never attempted to reach in the first place. You are essentially trying to shove a square peg in a round hole. It’s not that type of film, nor does it aspire to be, so to guage it on only those criteria is kind of missing the point of the experiment.
Which is a shame, because it is a great film.
really, it doesn’t preach or guide you, huh, so the overt musical score continually evoking itself to suggest pending threat (i.e. the opening shot of the film), the confrontational title: there will be blood, a continual suggestion of narrative build-up and payoff is implied in the film, whether or not the film remembers to deliver. I also found the conclusion to the Church storyline very redundant and condescending… to me that is an entire portion of the film that is utterly without impact.
As for Picnic on Hanging Rock… a film I love as well.. let me be clear, ladies and gentlemen: there is no comparison between these two films. Hanging Rock has engaging fully dimensional characters who react and engage in struggles which leave some needing to cope and confront tragedy. It works as a substantial story, both in its originality and in its suspenseful play with the missing scene that is retold in flashbacks, and even better, in eye witness accounts. It has everything that there Will Be Blood is lacking.
The difference I again refer to is that there is no substantial struggle for Daniel Plainview… he could just as much exist in a jar, to be pulled out to give his showy speeches, and be put back again. giving the environment he is in some organic license to exist does not in itself justify anything… unless of course this was cinema verite where that kind of spontaneity could be fresh and exciting… no this is something created, and as a creation designed for a particular purpose, that purpose can and should be scrutinized. Why does Plainview remain static, and like Andrew said, why do plot points come and leave without much advanced, why is there a bombastic score suggesting something is going to happen and yet there is this reverting to ‘organic’ indifference.
again like I said, it could be Daniel in a jar for two hours if he alone was complex enough, interesting enough, had inner struggles that were conveyed, but in the end, despite the great showy performance of DDL, he is not particularly interesting. and again, I’m not concerned with obvious character ticks, I am a person in love with tacit minutae, and am refering to that mostly, the unspoken subtleties of character, and there was not enough of that either. DDL did his best at making the character come alive but PTA gave him nothing to do, nothing to become.
Dang. I’m sorry I missed this great conversation.
My brief take, as many of the points have been nicely gone over, is that unfettered capitalism is ultimately soulless, and this is beautifully dramatized and visualized (in broad strokes and as you say, tacit minutiae). The movie may even carry a message/moral/thought similar to Into The Wild, in that success and joy and struggle are always the most rewarding when shared. Pure individualism in experience and excluding emotional contact robs us of our humanity.
To that end, the movie is flat-out-brilliant.