There Will Be Blood (SPOILERS!)

New movies! Old movies! B-movies! Discuss discuss discuss!!!

The black blood of the earth?!?

10
22
39%
9
14
25%
8
7
13%
7
6
11%
6
0
No votes
5
3
5%
if you rate it lower than 5, you suck!
4
7%
 
Total votes : 56

Postby Zarles on Tue Apr 22, 2008 8:51 pm

SIXMONTHOLDJOKE...ilash?
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Nachokoolaid on Tue May 13, 2008 1:11 am

User avatar
Nachokoolaid
THE DORK KNIGHT
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Gotham City

Postby Lady Sheridan on Wed May 28, 2008 2:48 am

My Netflix *finally* coughed a copy up after months of waiting.

I find myself agreeing with Pacino and KC's initial review -- and maybe I too would change my opinion if I saw it again.

I'm glad everyone is rather dismissive of Dano's performance. I thought it was just too much. He strikes me as one of these indie, quirky looking actors Hollywood keeps around to convince themselves it isn't all about looks.

Frankly, I thought Day Lewis' performance was too much. There's no doubt that he's a brilliant actor, creating unique individuals out of sheer grit and inner will, but there are times when he simply creates people who are too remote. Plainview was one of them. To watch this man for several hours and not get any closer to knowing him was simply unrelenting. I needed SOMETHING. Perhaps that makes me weak or dumb, but damn.

I was perplexed by H.W.'s injury -- PTSD because of losing his hearing, and his father's crucial abandonment after his injury? I didn't understand why he could no longer talk, and why he turned feral. There was something psychological going on, obviously, but it threw me and kind of ate up my sympathy for the kid.

I think the story desperately needed some humanity, even if only to crush under its boot. There wasn't anyone to sympathize with. I couldn't hate Plainview because I didn't know him enough -- I did hate Eli, but then fanatics always get under my skin. I sympathized with H.W. at the end, but by then I was just kind of worn out.

Technically, though, the film was beautiful. The music alone could give me nightmares. But in the end, I feel like it was telling me something I knew a already about greed and hypocrisy, and that a little less bombast might have helped it go down better. Which is an odd thing to say about such a quiet film, but there it is.

I'm glad No Country beat it out for an Oscar -- ultimately, I think they both had the same message, but only one sunk it home satisfyingly for me.
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby Spandau Belly on Wed May 28, 2008 8:13 am

I guess I'm really going to disagree with Ms. Sheridan. I think this was by far the best movie of last year. I'd give Zodiac and Assassination of Jesse James second and third, and in my opinion No Country was a mess I didn't like it.

I disagree with Sheridan's opinion that there's no humanity in this movie. I'd actually say one of the most sympathetic characters is Henry, the imposter brother. I actually believed everything the guy said when Plainview pointed the gun at him. I think he really was just a loser loner who wanted to be part of something. I really don't think he was plotting to rip Daniel off or anything, I think he sincerely wanted a brother. So I guess there's a clear case of humanity that exists in the film only to be crushed.

I also sympathized with Daniel, but that's a more complex sympathy. I think he did legitmately love H.W.. I think their ultimate breakup was the result of Daniel's inability to accept that H.W. as just his son and not also part of his legacy. And Daniel did deliver everything he promised to the town, except for the money he promised Eli, but that was part of their personal rivalry.

Daniel was ultimately destroyed by his own competitive nature, and I felt sorry for him at the end when we see him drunk and staggering down the staircase thinking back to a time when he was just a regular man who enjoyed working outside with his hands and not a legend.

I'm not going to get into talking about the acting, since that's one of those really subjective things and the debate just goes like this:

"I thought he was good in that role."
"I didn't he overacted."
"No, he was good."
"No he totally wasn't."

As for No Country being about the same themes as this movie, you'll really have to explain that one to me. I guess maybe you mean greed. But to me No Country felt like an hour and a half of a second rate ripoff of The Getaway with 20 minutes of About Schmidt tacked on the end with Tommy Lee Jones. And I don't know how you can say you spent two hours with Plainview and didn't feel like you knew him, but not say the same thing about Josh Brolin's character or Bardem's character in No Country.
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Postby Nordling on Wed May 28, 2008 9:09 am

It is possible that both NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THERE WILL BE BLOOD to both be amazing cinematic achievements without one having to take something away from the other.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby Spandau Belly on Wed May 28, 2008 9:50 am

Nordling wrote:It is possible that both NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN and THERE WILL BE BLOOD to both be amazing cinematic achievements without one having to take something away from the other.


I agree with you in that there doesn't have to be a choice between the existence of one film or another since both clearly exist and there's room enough in the world for both.

I actually think No Country is a pretty weak movie on its own. I just didn't like it. Not just compared to There Will Be Blood.
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Postby tapehead on Wed May 28, 2008 10:03 am

Lady Sheridan wrote:I was perplexed by H.W.'s injury -- PTSD because of losing his hearing, and his father's crucial abandonment after his injury? I didn't understand why he could no longer talk, and why he turned feral. There was something psychological going on, obviously, but it threw me and kind of ate up my sympathy for the kid.



I think perhaps a fairly subtle plot point might have eluded you - HW realises that the man who claims to be Plainview's half-brother, Henry, is a fraud. We see, in a slightly vague scene Hw go through Henry's things and read his Diary, finding him out. That's why he tries to set Henry's bed on fire whilst they are sleeping, not because he had 'gone feral'.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Spandau Belly on Wed May 28, 2008 10:22 am

tapehead wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:I was perplexed by H.W.'s injury -- PTSD because of losing his hearing, and his father's crucial abandonment after his injury? I didn't understand why he could no longer talk, and why he turned feral. There was something psychological going on, obviously, but it threw me and kind of ate up my sympathy for the kid.



I think perhaps a fairly subtle plot point might have eluded you - HW realises that the man who claims to be Plainview's half-brother, Henry, is a fraud. We see, in a slightly vague scene Hw go through Henry's things and read his Diary, finding him out. That's why he tries to set Henry's bed on fire whilst they are sleeping, not because he had 'gone feral'.


I actually disagree. When H.W. is flipping through the man's diary he's holding it upside down which I think was meant to show that H.W. couldn't read, which wouldn't have been uncommon in those times.

I think H.W. set the bed on fire out of jealousy. Before H.W. went deaf he was always at his father's side being groomed as his successor, but then after the accident Daniel didn't see somebody so disabled (and in those times deafness would've been a much bigger disability than today) as standing a chance of leading his company and maintaining his legacy, so Daniel starts grooming Henry as the new successor.

You can see it also in Fletcher's tone when he asks Daniel whether he plans on taking Henry with him to meet Union Oil. Fletcher probably thought he'd be next in line after H.W. and was understandably cross.

But Daniel wanted that blood link and sense of family in his legacy. And he felt so betrayed when Henry turned out to be an imposter, which is ironic since Daniel decieved H.W. the same way.
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Postby tapehead on Wed May 28, 2008 10:37 am

Spandau Belly wrote:
tapehead wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:I was perplexed by H.W.'s injury -- PTSD because of losing his hearing, and his father's crucial abandonment after his injury? I didn't understand why he could no longer talk, and why he turned feral. There was something psychological going on, obviously, but it threw me and kind of ate up my sympathy for the kid.



I think perhaps a fairly subtle plot point might have eluded you - HW realises that the man who claims to be Plainview's half-brother, Henry, is a fraud. We see, in a slightly vague scene Hw go through Henry's things and read his Diary, finding him out. That's why he tries to set Henry's bed on fire whilst they are sleeping, not because he had 'gone feral'.


I actually disagree. When H.W. is flipping through the man's diary he's holding it upside down which I think was meant to show that H.W. couldn't read, which wouldn't have been uncommon in those times.


Fair enough. I thought it was a pretty key plot point that was under-emphasised (PT is getting increasingly subtle with each film, IMO), so it would be interesting to hear other people's take on it, as it has a lot of bearing on what follows - my interpretation of the rest of the movie is pretty different from yours.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Nachokoolaid on Wed May 28, 2008 11:42 am

Spandau Belly wrote:
tapehead wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:I was perplexed by H.W.'s injury -- PTSD because of losing his hearing, and his father's crucial abandonment after his injury? I didn't understand why he could no longer talk, and why he turned feral. There was something psychological going on, obviously, but it threw me and kind of ate up my sympathy for the kid.



I think perhaps a fairly subtle plot point might have eluded you - HW realises that the man who claims to be Plainview's half-brother, Henry, is a fraud. We see, in a slightly vague scene Hw go through Henry's things and read his Diary, finding him out. That's why he tries to set Henry's bed on fire whilst they are sleeping, not because he had 'gone feral'.


I actually disagree. When H.W. is flipping through the man's diary he's holding it upside down which I think was meant to show that H.W. couldn't read, which wouldn't have been uncommon in those times.

I think H.W. set the bed on fire out of jealousy. Before H.W. went deaf he was always at his father's side being groomed as his successor, but then after the accident Daniel didn't see somebody so disabled (and in those times deafness would've been a much bigger disability than today) as standing a chance of leading his company and maintaining his legacy, so Daniel starts grooming Henry as the new successor.

You can see it also in Fletcher's tone when he asks Daniel whether he plans on taking Henry with him to meet Union Oil. Fletcher probably thought he'd be next in line after H.W. and was understandably cross.

But Daniel wanted that blood link and sense of family in his legacy. And he felt so betrayed when Henry turned out to be an imposter, which is ironic since Daniel decieved H.W. the same way.


I actually agree with everything you said here. This is how I saw it. However, I disagree with your assessment that TWBB is better than NCFOM.

In my opinion, No Country drinks TWBB's milkshake. It drinks it up.
User avatar
Nachokoolaid
THE DORK KNIGHT
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Gotham City

Postby Spandau Belly on Wed May 28, 2008 12:53 pm

It's kinda funny, I keep meeting more and more people who dislike There Will Be Blood. I actually haven't met another person in real life who likes it other than my grandfather. It's only here on the internet that I seem to find fellow enthuasiats for this great film. But most of friends, family, and coworkers all rented it and hated it with a passion, whereas they all liked No Country.

I like the debate we have going here, and to me the openess to interpretation is part of what makes the film so great. We folks on the internet who loved it all love it for different reasons, whereas the people I meet in life all hated it for the same reasons (it was long and about a complex character).

I'm willing to accept that there might be something deeper I'm missing from No Country although nobody's offered to explain it, they mostly just tell me the Coens are great and talk about their crafting of suspense in this feature, which I had noticed.

I definately couldn't relate Tommy Lee Jones's plotline to the Brolin versus Bardem plotline. And I also didn't get the significance of the scene at the end where Bardem gets into a car wreck. And Lady Sheridan still hasn't chimed back in to elaborate on how she/he thought that no Country and Blood tackled the same subject.

There were a number of things that bugged me in the movie, but I think I would've thought it was okay if they'd cut out that stuff with Tommy Lee at the end and just ended the movie with the scene between Bardem and Brolin's wife.
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Postby Pacino86845 on Wed May 28, 2008 12:56 pm

I was hoping that reading Oil! would add some level of insight to the film... but it isn't. Don't get me wrong though, the book is brilliant in its way, and I think the film is a masterpiece, but I have to rewatch it at some point... soon.

I don't know if you're missing a "greater" message in No Country, but just search for what LeFlambeur wrote about the two films... he had a nice way of describing the "key" difference.
User avatar
Pacino86845
EGYPTIAN LOVER
 
Posts: 14064
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:20 am

Postby Nachokoolaid on Wed May 28, 2008 2:20 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:It's kinda funny, I keep meeting more and more people who dislike There Will Be Blood. I actually haven't met another person in real life who likes it other than my grandfather. It's only here on the internet that I seem to find fellow enthuasiats for this great film. But most of friends, family, and coworkers all rented it and hated it with a passion, whereas they all liked No Country.

I like the debate we have going here, and to me the openess to interpretation is part of what makes the film so great. We folks on the internet who loved it all love it for different reasons, whereas the people I meet in life all hated it for the same reasons (it was long and about a complex character).

I'm willing to accept that there might be something deeper I'm missing from No Country although nobody's offered to explain it, they mostly just tell me the Coens are great and talk about their crafting of suspense in this feature, which I had noticed.

I definately couldn't relate Tommy Lee Jones's plotline to the Brolin versus Bardem plotline. And I also didn't get the significance of the scene at the end where Bardem gets into a car wreck. And Lady Sheridan still hasn't chimed back in to elaborate on how she/he thought that no Country and Blood tackled the same subject.

There were a number of things that bugged me in the movie, but I think I would've thought it was okay if they'd cut out that stuff with Tommy Lee at the end and just ended the movie with the scene between Bardem and Brolin's wife.


Maybe this will help clear up some things about the film. My initial review:

[quote="Nachokoolaid"]Innocence vs. experience. Anyone who has read William Blake, Harper Lee, or Flannery O’Connor knows this theme well. I couldn’t help but think of this after seeing the Coen’s latest film.

What the Coens have done with No Country for Old Men is amazing. It's complex and tense and everything I've missed from many recent films.

Brolin, Bardem, Jones, and the Coens should all be commended. I've tried to find a weak spot in this film, and I'm having trouble.

“What’s comingâ€
User avatar
Nachokoolaid
THE DORK KNIGHT
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Gotham City

Postby Spandau Belly on Wed May 28, 2008 3:23 pm

Thanks Nachokoolaid, your review does a good job of finding a connection between Tomy Lee Jones's plotline and the Brolin versus Bardem plotline in the theme of inevitabilty.

I still feel like I was watching scenes from another movie that got edited into this one. The stuff with Jones just had such a different tone and pace and look to it. And I still feel the stuff with Brolin was all done better in The Getaway, especially the shootout in the hotel which to me seemed like a direct homage.

You offer a number of theories about Bardem's character, and maybe in this case, how open to interpretation the character was worked against the film for me. I normally like Bardem as an actor but got nothing off this character. A lot of the time he just seemed like a wierdo but he didn't intimidate me. I really liked the scene at the end between Carla-Jean and he because it's how I felt the whole movie, I didn't get why people just played his game and didn't stand up to him and cowered in fear while he rambled out the code he lived by.

But I just couldn't figure out what the Coens were doing with this guy. They put in several scenes to show his mortality by having him get his kneecap shot out and the car wreck at the end, but never developed him enough as a human to be a human. And on the other side of the coin they never really built him up into a monster enough for me.

As for the themes of choice and risk and chance, I guess one could say those are themes in every movie since every movie features characters making choices and taking risks and being either the victims or beneficiaries of chance. I think Woody Allen has made several movies dealing with these themes, and in my opinion he developes them much better as recently as Match Point.

Maybe what would've made the difference would've been if you actually saw Bardem let somebody live because they correctly called the coin toss. If he had cornered Brolin, presented him with the coin toss ultimatum, Brolin calls it correctly, and Bardem had to let him go even though he wants to kill him but his code won't let him, I'd probably be here raving about this movie with the rest of you.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But I thank you for presenting a well-thoughtout arguement for this film's merit and for a good conversation. And I've talked to some people who've read the novel and it sounds like it avoids a lot of my problems and I'd probably like the book.
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Postby Nachokoolaid on Wed May 28, 2008 3:26 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:
Maybe what would've made the difference would've been if you actually saw Bardem let somebody live because they correctly called the coin toss. If he had cornered Brolin, presented him with the coin toss ultimatum, Brolin calls it correctly, and Bardem had to let him go even though he wants to kill him but his code won't let him, I'd probably be here raving about this movie with the rest of you.


But that's exactly what the Coen's do. The gas station attendant correctly call the toss and Chigurh lets him live.

:?
User avatar
Nachokoolaid
THE DORK KNIGHT
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Gotham City

Postby Chris a.k.a StuntMike on Wed May 28, 2008 3:35 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:I still feel like I was watching scenes from another movie that got edited into this one. The stuff with Jones just had such a different tone and pace and look to it. And I still feel the stuff with Brolin was all done better in The Getaway, especially the shootout in the hotel which to me seemed like a direct homage.


Which was also used in The Glimmer Man
Image
User avatar
Chris a.k.a StuntMike
Not without incident
 
Posts: 4946
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 2:40 pm
Location: Winnipeg

Postby Spandau Belly on Wed May 28, 2008 5:21 pm

Nachokoolaid wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:
Maybe what would've made the difference would've been if you actually saw Bardem let somebody live because they correctly called the coin toss. If he had cornered Brolin, presented him with the coin toss ultimatum, Brolin calls it correctly, and Bardem had to let him go even though he wants to kill him but his code won't let him, I'd probably be here raving about this movie with the rest of you.


But that's exactly what the Coen's do. The gas station attendant correctly call the toss and Chigurh lets him live.

:?


I guess I thought it was implied that he killed him. Sorry.

Okay, I just watched that scene again. I can see how I assumed he killed him since Bardem acts like a total asshole the whole scene and stares at him all angry as he's walking away and it cuts away before he leaves and they say several times that nobody's ever seen him and lived to tell about it and I figured that since Tommy Lee was following this guy's trail he would've come to that gas station.

But watching that scene made me remember why I really disliked this movie. I see the points you've made about the deeper themes of this film and I realize that I just wasn't enjoying what was on the surface at all and so that kept me from really digging in. That dialogue was brutal. Bardem answering every question with a quesiton in an asshole tone and turning everything that guy said back at him. I'd've lost my cool.
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Postby Lady Sheridan on Thu May 29, 2008 12:44 am

Spandau Belly wrote:
I definately couldn't relate Tommy Lee Jones's plotline to the Brolin versus Bardem plotline. And I also didn't get the significance of the scene at the end where Bardem gets into a car wreck. And Lady Sheridan still hasn't chimed back in to elaborate on how she/he thought that no Country and Blood tackled the same subject.


Christ...I actually *do* have a life outside of the Zone you know. My LS sense doesn't tingle when someone wants my explanation of a review. Next time, I will make sure and carry my laptop with me when I leave the house because someone might be waiting for me to elaborate on a subject. :roll:

I didn't say the same subject. I said the same theme. I took both movies as stories of man's inhumanity to man. How greed destroys. How easily evil can triumph, especially in the most banal of circumstances. I see Plainview and Eli as similar creatures to Chigurh. Arrogant, cold, willing to destroy anything. They operate with a similar chilling single-mindedness, and disregard.

But that's because I didn't get all warm and fuzzy by any action of Plainview.
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby Lady Sheridan on Thu May 29, 2008 12:50 am

tapehead wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:I was perplexed by H.W.'s injury -- PTSD because of losing his hearing, and his father's crucial abandonment after his injury? I didn't understand why he could no longer talk, and why he turned feral. There was something psychological going on, obviously, but it threw me and kind of ate up my sympathy for the kid.



I think perhaps a fairly subtle plot point might have eluded you - HW realises that the man who claims to be Plainview's half-brother, Henry, is a fraud. We see, in a slightly vague scene Hw go through Henry's things and read his Diary, finding him out. That's why he tries to set Henry's bed on fire whilst they are sleeping, not because he had 'gone feral'.


Now I remember why I don't post on the Zone any longer. My mind is too simple, and I am too slow to respond.

H.W. wouldn't even allow Plainview to touch him. I wasn't referring to the fire scene at all, but constant aggressive behavior. The accident had left him extremely troubled, his mental state continued to decline, and his father's attitude only exacerbated it.

Maybe it is because I have worked around young kids, but there was nothing "normal" about H.W.'s behavior after the accident. I understood his violence after Plainview abandoned him on the train, but not before.

Everyone I was watching the film with was similarly puzzled, but we are all too unsubtle of mind, I suppose.
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby tapehead on Thu May 29, 2008 12:57 am

Look, it wasn't a personal attack, I was honestly just articulating what I thought happened, it's one of the things I think was played out a little ambiguously in the film - HW obviously suffered a great deal of trauma from the accident as well. As it happens I've had some dealings with traumatised children in schools as well, and they often either act as though they have autism and become very introverted, or alternately act out, often quite violently - so on that level I could buy it.

Regards, the fire-starting, I was sure of HW's motives on first viewing, and although I'm not entirely convinced by Spandeau's alternate reading, it's food for thought, and hey, I might be totally wrong. Certainly has me ready to watch the movie again.

Not trying to change your appraisal of the film, just trying to share my own reflections.
Last edited by tapehead on Thu May 29, 2008 1:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Bob Samonkey on Thu May 29, 2008 12:58 am

Lady Sheridan wrote:Now I remember why I don't post on the Zone any longer. My mind is too simple, and I am too slow to respond.


Its been a while but someone has missed you and wants to say hi!!

Image

Wuv you dog heals all wounds...
User avatar
Bob Samonkey
Große Fäuste
 
Posts: 8982
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Samonkey Island

Postby Spandau Belly on Thu May 29, 2008 8:04 am

Lady Sheridan wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:
I definately couldn't relate Tommy Lee Jones's plotline to the Brolin versus Bardem plotline. And I also didn't get the significance of the scene at the end where Bardem gets into a car wreck. And Lady Sheridan still hasn't chimed back in to elaborate on how she/he thought that no Country and Blood tackled the same subject.


Christ...I actually *do* have a life outside of the Zone you know. My LS sense doesn't tingle when someone wants my explanation of a review. Next time, I will make sure and carry my laptop with me when I leave the house because someone might be waiting for me to elaborate on a subject. :roll:

I didn't say the same subject. I said the same theme. I took both movies as stories of man's inhumanity to man. How greed destroys. How easily evil can triumph, especially in the most banal of circumstances. I see Plainview and Eli as similar creatures to Chigurh. Arrogant, cold, willing to destroy anything. They operate with a similar chilling single-mindedness, and disregard.

But that's because I didn't get all warm and fuzzy by any action of Plainview.


Sorry, I didn't mean to say "Sheridan still hasn't chimed in" like I was tapping my toe and checking my watch. I wasn't trying to insult you or imply that you were rude or anything. We all have lives outside of the zone, I was just saying that I still couldn't really see any overlap between Old Country and Blood in terms of anything other than greed.
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Postby Spandau Belly on Thu May 29, 2008 8:11 am

tapehead wrote:HW obviously suffered a great deal of trauma from the accident as well. As it happens I've had some dealings with traumatised children in schools as well, and they often either act as though they have autism and become very introverted, or alternately act out, often quite violently - so on that level I could buy it.

Regards, the fire-starting, I was sure of HW's motives on first viewing, and although I'm not entirely convinced by Spandeau's alternate reading, it's food for thought, and hey, I might be totally wrong. Certainly has me ready to watch the movie again.


If H.W. couldn't read or write, then being deafened left him with no way to communicate, which would be and incredibly isolating an frustrating experience even for an adult. So a little kid acting out violently and anti-social behaviour in such circumstances would be the least I'd expect. Especially when you consider that Daniel didn't know how to deal with him and was replacing him with Henry.

But unlike you guys, I actually spend no time around children at all. So maybe I'm wrong.
Last edited by Spandau Belly on Thu May 29, 2008 1:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Postby tapehead on Thu May 29, 2008 12:44 pm

I'm not contesting your interpretation Spandau, beyond perhaps the fact that HW's illiteracy is complete supposition - it's been a long time since my one viewing of the film but I thought he was sent off for schooling - that might be just poor recollection on my part and I'm keen to sit down with the dvd and see if my theory on things holds up for a second viewing.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Spandau Belly on Thu May 29, 2008 1:21 pm

Yes, they send HW off to school after he sets the fire.

I'll also add that the movie grew on me hugely in the second viewing and how things hit me differently.

The same goes for when I rewatched that scene at the gas station in No Country. I remember feeling it was implied that Bardem killed the attendant, and upon rewatching the scene I can see why I remembered it that way especially considering how much they keep saying that nobody has ever seen him has lived to tell about it. But memory is a strange thing. Maybe in my next life I'll be an elephant. Apparently they never forget.
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Postby Maui on Thu May 29, 2008 1:25 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:Yes, they send HW off to school after he sets the fire.


Isn't there an odd timing - HW is looking at Henry's book then he sets the fire. I can't remember, it's been so long since I last saw the movie.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby Maui on Thu May 29, 2008 1:29 pm

tapehead wrote:I think perhaps a fairly subtle plot point might have eluded you - HW realises that the man who claims to be Plainview's half-brother, Henry, is a fraud. We see, in a slightly vague scene Hw go through Henry's things and read his Diary, finding him out. That's why he tries to set Henry's bed on fire whilst they are sleeping, not because he had 'gone feral'.


This was my take too.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby Spandau Belly on Thu May 29, 2008 1:51 pm

Yes Maui, HW does look through Henry's things and then sets the fire and is then sent off to school. But when he looks through Henry's jounral he's holding it upside down, which to me is meant to show he can't read. I would also think if he could read and write Daniel could communicate with him that way but he doesn't.

My interpretation for why he set the fire was jealousy at how Henry was quickly taking HW's place at Daniel's side coupled with violent acting out due to the isolation caused by his deafness.

But that's what we're debating here.
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Postby Maui on Thu May 29, 2008 2:15 pm

I still think there is something to the diary. What about the photo that he saw in the diary? I believe whatever he saw, confirmed his suspicions that Henry was a fraud which then led him to set the fire.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby Spandau Belly on Thu May 29, 2008 2:55 pm

Yeah, I thought about the photo he looks at in the diary too. But if HW couldn't communicate with anybody or hear, then how would he know who Henry was even claiming to be? HW's rifling through Henry's things is definately him trying to figure out the identity of this new man who all of a sudden sleeps in their shack with them and accompanies Daniel everywhere.

I'm assuming the photo was of a relation of Daniel's and the real Henry's, but Daniel seemed to have abandoned his roots and not spoken to anybody in his family in probably decades. I would think it doubtful that Daniel would've shown photos of his family to HW since he liked to didn't like "explaining himself".

But you could be right. They do make a point of showing HW really looking at the photo. So maybe I'm just reading it my own way.

It'll be interesting to see what Tapehead thinks after his second viewing.
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Postby Maui on Thu May 29, 2008 3:04 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:Yeah, I thought about the photo he looks at in the diary too. But if HW couldn't communicate with anybody or hear, then how would he know who Henry was even claiming to be? HW's rifling through Henry's things is definately him trying to figure out the identity of this new man who all of a sudden sleeps in their shack with them and accompanies Daniel everywhere.

I'm assuming the photo was of a relation of Daniel's and the real Henry's, but Daniel seemed to have abandoned his roots and not spoken to anybody in his family in probably decades. I would think it doubtful that Daniel would've shown photos of his family to HW since he liked to didn't like "explaining himself".

But you could be right. They do make a point of showing HW really looking at the photo. So maybe I'm just reading it my own way.

It'll be interesting to see what Tapehead thinks after his second viewing.


I think I'll be having another viewing of this tonight. I'm certainly curious now. Why would Anderson even bother showing this - the diary, the photo. He's definitely left it very lucy goosey for different interpretation, that's for sure.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby havocSchultz on Thu May 29, 2008 3:23 pm

Spandau Belly wrote:Yes Maui, HW does look through Henry's things and then sets the fire and is then sent off to school. But when he looks through Henry's jounral he's holding it upside down, which to me is meant to show he can't read.


Maybe he can only read upside down...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Maui on Thu May 29, 2008 6:21 pm

havocSchultz wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:Yes Maui, HW does look through Henry's things and then sets the fire and is then sent off to school. But when he looks through Henry's jounral he's holding it upside down, which to me is meant to show he can't read.


Maybe he can only read upside down...


I'm assuming you are serious here because some people with learning/reading disorders do in fact read upside down.
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby havocSchultz on Fri May 30, 2008 7:14 am

Maui wrote:
havocSchultz wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:Yes Maui, HW does look through Henry's things and then sets the fire and is then sent off to school. But when he looks through Henry's jounral he's holding it upside down, which to me is meant to show he can't read.


Maybe he can only read upside down...


I'm assuming you are serious here because some people with learning/reading disorders do in fact read upside down.


Can they only read upside down...?
I actually never knew that...

I'd apologize if I somehow offended any upside down readers...
But I don't know how to write any other way...
So hopefully somebody can eventually translate...
User avatar
havocSchultz
is full of stars...
 
Posts: 15695
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:46 am
Location: living amongst a hazy nothing...

Postby Nordling on Fri May 30, 2008 7:19 am

It doesn't matter what HW thinks. Either he was jealous of Daniel's "brother" or he discovered the truth about him. Either way, he sets the events in motion by setting the fire. It's one of many things that PTA left open to interpretation and that's what makes the film so great.
Image
User avatar
Nordling
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 8:39 am
Location: Missouri City, TX

Postby doglips on Fri May 30, 2008 7:40 am

Spandau Belly wrote:Yes Maui, HW does look through Henry's things and then sets the fire and is then sent off to school. But when he looks through Henry's jounral he's holding it upside down, which to me is meant to show he can't read. I would also think if he could read and write Daniel could communicate with him that way but he doesn't.

My interpretation for why he set the fire was jealousy at how Henry was quickly taking HW's place at Daniel's side coupled with violent acting out due to the isolation caused by his deafness.

But that's what we're debating here.


This was my take too - Daniel's lack of attention, whilst fueling HW via alcohol caused him to set the fire.
User avatar
doglips
MOD FAIRY
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 6:08 am

Postby Maui on Fri May 30, 2008 11:03 am

havocSchultz wrote:
I'd apologize if I somehow offended any upside down readers...



Image
User avatar
Maui
WoWie
 
Posts: 7631
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 10:19 pm

Postby tapehead on Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:22 am

Nordling wrote:It doesn't matter what HW thinks. Either he was jealous of Daniel's "brother" or he discovered the truth about him.


Any element of a film matters if the viewer deems it worthy of attention and speculation, and knowing one way or the other in the character's motives in this instance does have some bearing on the rest of the film.

I haven't gotten around to watching this again, but it's interesting to hear some others' opinion on it - I think it is a significant plot point relating to character - I mean, if HW does it simply out of jealousy, he's something of a mini psychopath there for a while, which is not a development I'd accept so readily...
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Ribbons on Sun Jun 01, 2008 3:48 am

When I watched the movie my immediate impression was the same as Spandau's, but the more I think about it I guess it is pretty weird timing considering it happens right after he inspects Henry's journal. I'm not sure what we were supposed to infer about the fact he was holding the book upside-down at one point, but he definitely got a good long look at the picture, whatever it was.
User avatar
Ribbons
SQUARE PEG
 
Posts: 14157
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:00 am

Postby WinslowLeach on Sun Jun 01, 2008 7:35 am

Just watched it last night. I think TWBB was a bit overrated esp when I heard people compare it to Citizen Kane and Treasure of The Sierra Madre. I do think it deals with similar themes as those films but is it on the same level? Not really. I mean, yes its a really well made film (I loved the cinematography, music and direction) and DDL was amazing as usual, but is it a film that I'll want to rewatch again and again? Not at all. It just doesnt have that quality to it for me. I'm finished.
User avatar
WinslowLeach
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 4079
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 2:39 pm
Location: The Deuce

Re:

Postby buster00 on Sun Jun 15, 2008 11:31 pm

Maui wrote:
Spandau Belly wrote:Yeah, I thought about the photo he looks at in the diary too. But if HW couldn't communicate with anybody or hear, then how would he know who Henry was even claiming to be? HW's rifling through Henry's things is definately him trying to figure out the identity of this new man who all of a sudden sleeps in their shack with them and accompanies Daniel everywhere.

I'm assuming the photo was of a relation of Daniel's and the real Henry's, but Daniel seemed to have abandoned his roots and not spoken to anybody in his family in probably decades. I would think it doubtful that Daniel would've shown photos of his family to HW since he liked to didn't like "explaining himself".

But you could be right. They do make a point of showing HW really looking at the photo. So maybe I'm just reading it my own way.

It'll be interesting to see what Tapehead thinks after his second viewing.


I think I'll be having another viewing of this tonight. I'm certainly curious now. Why would Anderson even bother showing this - the diary, the photo. He's definitely left it very lucy goosey for different interpretation, that's for sure.


Look, even if H.W. could read the diary (which I presumed he couldn't, since it was upside down), it was still the "real" Henry's diary. How would H.W. have any way of knowing whether the Henry he met was the real one or not?
User avatar
buster00
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6402
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:12 pm

Re: There Will Be Blood (SPOILERS!)

Postby Worst Part's Almost Over on Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:56 pm

First of all - an excellent film. I really enjoyed it and can't wait to add it to my DVD collection.

Secondly - does anyone else think Day Lewis sounded a little like Sean Connery in this or is it just me?
Image
User avatar
Worst Part's Almost Over
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:35 am

Re: There Will Be Blood (SPOILERS!)

Postby Nachokoolaid on Fri Jun 27, 2008 7:58 pm

I see what your're saying. There's a little Connery in there, but it's not the full one Scottish "everything has an SCH in it" voice that we all know and love.
User avatar
Nachokoolaid
THE DORK KNIGHT
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Gotham City

Re: There Will Be Blood (SPOILERS!)

Postby Worst Part's Almost Over on Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:25 pm

Nachokoolaid wrote:I see what your're saying. There's a little Connery in there, but it's not the full one Scottish "everything has an SCH in it" voice that we all know and love.


Shame our beloved Sean won't grace the screen again himself :(
Image
User avatar
Worst Part's Almost Over
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:35 am

Re: There Will Be Blood (SPOILERS!)

Postby Nachokoolaid on Fri Jun 27, 2008 8:33 pm

Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:
Nachokoolaid wrote:I see what your're saying. There's a little Connery in there, but it's not the full one Scottish "everything has an SCH in it" voice that we all know and love.


Shame our beloved Sean won't grace the screen again himself :(


Part of me hopes he reconsiders. I remember reading several interviews where he said he regretted not taking the role of Gandalf because he just didn't understand the material. He saw the acclaim that the films got, the award nomination for McKellan, and the actors talking about how special it was to be a partt of something bigger than themselves. So... part of me hopes they approach him about playing Thorin in the Hobbit. Think about how perfect he is for that role. Also Thorin's death scene would make this role the perfect swan song for Connery, since he's retired. This is my dream.
User avatar
Nachokoolaid
THE DORK KNIGHT
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:00 am
Location: Gotham City

Re: There Will Be Blood (SPOILERS!)

Postby Worst Part's Almost Over on Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:05 pm

Nachokoolaid wrote:
Worst Part's Almost Over wrote:
Nachokoolaid wrote:I see what your're saying. There's a little Connery in there, but it's not the full one Scottish "everything has an SCH in it" voice that we all know and love.


Shame our beloved Sean won't grace the screen again himself :(


Part of me hopes he reconsiders. I remember reading several interviews where he said he regretted not taking the role of Gandalf because he just didn't understand the material. He saw the acclaim that the films got, the award nomination for McKellan, and the actors talking about how special it was to be a partt of something bigger than themselves. So... part of me hopes they approach him about playing Thorin in the Hobbit. Think about how perfect he is for that role. Also Thorin's death scene would make this role the perfect swan song for Connery, since he's retired. This is my dream.


I can see where you're going on this one. I think Connery has the Punky Power for the role, certainly. Have you brought this up in the The Hobbit thread?
Image
User avatar
Worst Part's Almost Over
AIRWOLF
 
Posts: 1585
Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:35 am

Postby Raziel on Sat Aug 09, 2008 6:29 pm

I finally got around to seeing this last night, and thought it was excellent. Beautifully shot by PT Anderson, engrossing, thrilling, tense, dramatic, creepy and funny. Daniel Day-Lewis is excellent, terrifying but somewhat pathetic as Plainview. The music score was extremely effective, particularly Jonny Greewood's stuff. I loved the last line! It's great to see that somebody can still manage to persuade Hollywood to finance a good, solid, no-nonsense classic piece of film-making.
User avatar
Raziel
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 150
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:44 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland.

Re: There Will Be Blood (SPOILERS!)

Postby Spandau Belly on Sun Aug 10, 2008 3:59 pm

As far as I know P.T. Anderson has nothing on the horizon right now. I've had mixed feelings about his past works but always respected him, then this bad motherfucker just hit me and cracked my top ten movies of all time, so anything next will be a step down, but I'll be really happy to see it anyway.

I'm really happy to come on the internet and see other people enjoying this great film. In my real life I don't know anybody other than my grandpappy who liked it, in fact most people I meet call it one of the worst films they've seen in recent history. This could also be because I live in Quebec and most people here saw the French dub, and I think taking away Lewis's delivery would take this movie down a couple notches right there.

Anyway, keep up the love for the milkshake.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

Re: There Will Be Blood (SPOILERS!)

Postby buster00 on Sun Aug 10, 2008 5:59 pm

Bumped for Milkshakes!!
Image

I don't care how old this meme is.

Get these muthafuckin' snakes off my muthafuckin' plane!
User avatar
buster00
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 6402
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:12 pm

Re: There Will Be Blood (SPOILERS!)

Postby Spandau Belly on Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:32 am

I just spent a nice Friday night smoking a cigar getting loaded and watching There Will Be Blood for the fifth time in its entirety. What a fucking masterpiece, it's just at that level that I don't even have any expectations for what PT Anderson will do next because I've totally written off him topping this ever or any other film topping this within the next decade.

Holy shit.
Image
User avatar
Spandau Belly
self-fellating peacock
 
Posts: 7396
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:15 am
Location: ????

PreviousNext

Return to Movie Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron