Official Film Discussion and Last Movie You Watched

[Ryeland]

Maybe the above will help. I talk a decent amount about the characters in my explanation to Jason.

That is pretty good, I will watch it again with this in mind and formulate at new opinion. Thanks Line

 

[Duality]

Part of the difficulty with understanding this movie on a first viewing is how expansive it is in terms of scope, which can disorient the viewer a bit in terms of knowing what to focus on, both in terms of action and theme. First and foremost, the movie is decidedly about Plainview and is decidedly apolitical. Notions of capitalism vs. religion are juxtaposed to show how they and, more importantly, those most embodying them, can be exploitative forces. This isn't to say the movie is allegorical though, as Plainview and Eli are both people existing within this pre-war western world. Much has been delved into regarding how these characters reflect religion and capital (or ambition, but truth be told both characters had this in spades) but after a few viewings it's pretty clear that the nature of their relationship is a human one. The pair just happens to be incredibly passionate humans. In this, There Will Be Blood comes a bit of a character study, though this theory is rarely discussed. Plainview is present in every scene and, though not obnoxiously centered in the lens each time (something boring directors do), his presence is felt in every shot in one way or another. The movie is about him through and through. In this, it becomes important to recognize who he is as a character -- a borderline-sociopath alcoholic who's without any real family. Throughout the movie he seeks to understand and explain (mostly to himself) this disconnection from society and feels that he'd still feel at home with his own bloodline, regardless of past events. He's trying to define the family bond in hopes of eventually understanding himself, and becomes crushed when he realizes he's been duped (and that his brother is already dead, which closes that door forever).

I actually find the scene at the church to be one of the more touching moments in the entire film. Eli and Plainview were both people who put on airs and were both greatly invested in the image so this scene becomes a concession of power by Plainview to Eli. After what happened with his faux-kinsman, Daniel realizes how important HW is to him. That, although he didn't raise him, he felt closer to him than anyone else he'd encountered. The looks of anger and discontent he shoots Eli during his "confession" are appropriate, as he A) knows Eli is correct, and B) doesn't want to look weak in comparison to the "almighty preacher". Plainview knows he's a fraud and probably knew upon first meeting him. He's seen too much and has exploited too many people to not know what it looks like when people are following something without question. This ties back into an early scene, where Plainview and HW make a pitch but eventually refuse the contract when the meeting erupts in question and speculation. He realized there's no point in dealing with a town of free-thinkers; they're harder to exploit. This is why he settles into Little Boston -- the people are sheep and he finds himself a rival, which he needs. At this point of his life, he clearly doesn't feel a connection you'd label as "love" to his son and Eli's existence (and the resulting feud) gives him purpose. It's not until later that he realizes how close he was to HW, but this only comes after he's pushed him away. Hence his immense drop-off in sanity between the time the film leaves Little Boston and rejoins Plainview in his mansion. At this point he has nothing but a petty rivalry. He has money, sure, but no purpose.

Ha, the ending was hardly trying to be arty for the sake of it, but it is intended to be funny (the black humor is thick as molasses). I've touched on why Plainview lost his mind in the above responses but the most important thing to remember is that the movie is adamantly about him, his emotional longing, and how this translates to physical behavior. Killing Eli was like smashing a mirror to Plainview, as he ended up seeing himself more in Eli than anyone else on Earth, including the boy he raised who isn't really his and the brother he'll never get the chance to know again. Again, what he has is his rivalry with Eli, who is now actually his family by marriage, something that terrifies Plainview. While he'd always longed for someone to share - not his success - but himself with, he's now left with Eli...that's it. Everything he wanted in his life (success aside, which doesn't bring him joy anyway) is now gone and he traces this back to his involvement in Little Boston and the chasm that existed between he and Eli's sensibilities. Eli becomes a reminder of his failures, not as a business man but as a human being. Thus, he hopes that squashing him will end his own conscience connection to a life he has no reason to remember and he can go, as if reborn. Naturally, we don't really see what happens to him afterward, but the satisfied nature in which he delivers the final line is indicative of his contention. Above all, director PT Anderson realizes that Plainview is a product of cinema and thus gives him that final send off at a "high point" of his life, even if he comes to grossly regret it later. This also ties into the idea that class distinctions are also legal distinctions and that the rich can play by a different set of rules than the poor, especially in the face of an economic collapse (relevant, eh? )

Maybe the above will help. I talk a decent amount about the characters in my explanation to Jason.

wow. i won't address each section individually (not because of effort but lack of capability) but i did read the entire thing. you have a very different mind and frame of thought when it comes to cinema. how many times have you watched this film (i know you have a huge boner for it as it was once part of your signature )?

everything you wrote made complete sense. all of it. and upon reading it and recalling the movie i feel less compelled to describe it as weird. but, while you are right in your analysis, do you think the director would feel the same? movies are a business, and they're there to make money. this film can maybe be fully understood, at the level at which you're describing, by 5% of America. let alone in one viewing. idk it just seems like a shame that a director would put that much work and layers into his film for it to go unnoticed.

 

[jwill0214]

Has anyone seen "I want to look like that guy?"

http://www.rxmuscle.com/articles/stuff-i-like/439-stuff-i-like-6-23-09.html

It seems interesting but I don't want to spend the money to buy it.

 

[El Freako]

Collateral: 8/10 - A pretty damn good movie and a surprisingly good role by Tom Cruise.

 

[tim290280]

Collateral: 8/10 - A pretty damn good movie and a surprisingly good role by Tom Cruise.

I really didn't think much of that film. Jamie Fox acted Cruise off the screen, but I always find Fox to be annoying for some reason. Probably the demons of roles past (Any Given Sunday as an example), so I don't fully accept any of his individual roles

I think the main reason that Cruise appeared good in this was that it wasn't a standard role for him. Which is exactly what the media buzz at the time was all about.

 

[Chesticles]

^Your forgetting the best part of the movie though.

 

[tim290280]

^Your forgetting the best part of the movie though.

Meh. Not really that great. And not realistic.

And as for its role in the film it only merely added to the guy falling onto the car roof after being shot. The filmakers scene usage to make us believe that Cruise was dangerous was easy, the said same didn't really hold for Cruise's emotional/etc hold over Fox. Fox could have run several times and we are meant to believe he couldn't for fear for his life. This just didn't hold up as the Cruise character didn't seem to make the Fox character feel truely trapped.

 

[Line]

how many times have you watched this film (i know you have a huge boner for it as it was once part of your signature )?

Ha, I saw it in theaters around five times I believe but nothing tops taking a bus trip to NYC to see it one of the first few days it was out. Great atmosphere to see it for the first time.

everything you wrote made complete sense. all of it. and upon reading it and recalling the movie i feel less compelled to describe it as weird.

Awesome. I really took no offense to you calling it weird, I just thought that in itself was weird. Then again, I've had the opportunity to see it several times and to talk about it at length so that makes it a bit easier to collect my thoughts on it.

but, while you are right in your analysis, do you think the director would feel the same? movies are a business, and they're there to make money. this film can maybe be fully understood, at the level at which you're describing, by 5% of America. let alone in one viewing. idk it just seems like a shame that a director would put that much work and layers into his film for it to go unnoticed.

Sure, but that's not really too much an issue. Studios really only make money on a small percentage of the films they release in a year and the bigger releases (like Transformers 2 this year) serve to make up the deficit caused by the smaller ones. This usually occurs because movies cost so much to make but Paul Thomas Anderson (director of There Will Be Blood) was able to make a nearly three hour film for a relatively low budget because, well, he's PT Anderson -- arguably the best craftsman of American films working today. Digital effects were minimized (almost everything was done practically) so the picture had a low enough budget that it actually made money when it was released. As for the message being lost, I don't think it would concern him too much. Directors such as Anderson have an inherent need to express something through their films and as long as the right people get it, they're usually satisfied. It's a bit of a trade-off in that regard -- they eschew world-wide notoriety in order to stay true to their own vision. Some compromises may be made with the studio, sure, but contemporary American directors like PT Anderson, Quentin Tarantino, David Fincher, Darren Aronofsky, etc...usually can make the film they want to with little interference. Tarantino, of course, being a bit of an exception because he keeps making pictures for the Weinstein brothers but that's another story entirely.

 

[tim290280]

Novo - French film about a guy that has personal interaction issues due to memory loss.

Interesting film and I quite enjoyed it. I'm sure it would have been better if my French was beyond basic levels (I can buy a paper and ask for a pen....) as I feel that there was a lot lost in translation and cultural differences. But the exploration of the two lovers was fantastic and the way he had become a better person for his experience and was loved by all those around him yet was able to create a balance between his life before and his life now was key to the films success in my mind.

 

[Achilles]

Transformers 2: 8/10

Most poepel dont like the movie but I had a blast 2 hours long. Action, explosions and hot women what do you want more.

 

[tim290280]

Transformers 2: 8/10

Most poepel dont like the movie but I had a blast 2 hours long. Action, explosions and hot women what do you want more.

Plot, storyline, character development, witty dialogue...

 

[Line]

I'm surprised you didn't think more of Collateral, Tim. If nothing else, Michael Mann proves he can compose action scenes better than 99% of the people doing them. That alone makes it a success.

 

[Snow White]

I've just looked The fall: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0460791/

Great movie, real poetry. Just didn't like the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO0LYcCoeJY

 

[Braaq]

Saw Transformers on its opening night.. dragged on and was not nearly as good as the first but I enjoyed. I wouldn't give it a great rating though. 6/10 just because the cgi was sick and good action.. other than that.. beh
Oh and Megan Fox gave me a boner

 

[tim290280]

I'm surprised you didn't think more of Collateral, Tim. If nothing else, Michael Mann proves he can compose action scenes better than 99% of the people doing them. That alone makes it a success.

I agree he does do action sequences well, as they were also set within a context and didn't diverge into the surreal or preternatural (oh yeh shooting a big guy with a gun will blow him clear across the room ). But I also felt that the film lacked a realistic tension and ominous intimidation that it needed to connect with the characters.

But I didn't really like either of Mann's offerings with Jamie Fox; Collateral and Miami Vice. I'm not sure if it was Mann or Fox or both.

 

[warpig]

Bourne Supremacy..IMO its a great series

 

[FuManChu]

Return to Oz - 8/10


Lantana - 4.5/10 - the first australian film i hate.

Flash Gordon - 9/10

 

[Line]

Lantana - 4.5/10 - the first australian film i hate.

You hate like a coward. Slap a 1 or a 2 on there like a true hater.

 

[El Freako]

Just started watching Gran Torino. Go Clint!

 

[Daniel Andersson]

Transformers 2 - 6/10
(Not even close to as good as the first one)
Knowing - 3/10
(Garbage)