Not Coming to a Theater Near You
There are things you do hate, Lord. Perfume-smellin’ things, lacy things, things with curly hair.
There are things you do hate, Lord. Perfume-smellin’ things, lacy things, things with curly hair.
Paul Thomas Anderson’s much-lauded new film is a compendium of hallmarks in cinematography, score, and acting. And watching it I’m hyper-aware of each of these facets—the lulls and crashes of Jonny Greenwood’s score, the sudden tracking shot that accompanies a violent geyser of oil, or the mustachioed frown that seems to punctuate everything Daniel Day Lewis says. This is quantifiably a great film, even if I can’t claim to have connected with it emotionally. My thoughts are more eloquently worded by the inimitable Vern:
Paul Thomas “the ‘Thomas’ means I didn’t direct MORTAL KOMBAT” Anderson’s THERE WILL BE BLOOD has the feeling of greatness. It has the smell of greatness, the texture of it. It flirts with greatness. I’m pretty sure it even left the club with greatness last night but there is no way yet for us to know if it got lucky with greatness. We can only catch up with it later and ask it. If it turns out later that it was only faking it I’ll have to admit it had me fooled.
by Rumsey Taylor | Source: Paramount Vantage DVD screener
28 Jan 2008 1:11 PM | Comments (18)
Watching this on a DVD screener rather than the big screen may have lessened its emotional impact for you. If you get a moment, it’s really worth the $10.75 (or whatever they’re charging in Boston for movie tickets these days).
I’d second that (which is not to say I interpret you as being unaffected by the film). This movie, like its Oscar rival No Country, needs to be big and loud.
I caught this in a theater the weekend it opened here. And even so, the entire time I’m aware that I’m watching a movie—a big, loud, and again great movie. But it stays up there on the screen, for me, whereas No Country for Old Men does a much better job of getting in my head.
I find this to be a very unusual year for the Oscars, considering that No Country… and Blood are not the typical types of films that are deemed to be front-runners for Best Picture. Both films are far more thorny and demanding than the usual stuff that garners the attention of Oscar voters and both have subject matter that would usually be deemed as offensive and unpleasant by most of the Academy. In any other year, the front-runners would have been stuff like Atonement and Juno. I’m just waiting for one of these two (No Country… or Blood) to win Best Picture (I guess the current odds are in favour of No Country‚Ķ) so that everyone can start saying one was overrated and the other one was a misunderstood masterpiece that the Academy was too conservative and stupid to recognize. Ah…traditions.
Chiranjit, you don’t have to wait for one to win: it’s already happening.
I second (third?) Beth and Leo’s recommendation: watch There Will Be Blood in a theatre.
But No Country… IS overrated, and fairly drastically so in my opinion. Not that it’s a bad film or anything. It just isn’t a great one, not by any criteria I go by.
And when TWBB is finally released over here, I will be sure to catch it on the biggest screen I can find.
Drastically overrated, Tom? Come on. It’s no Juno — now there’s a movie I was surprised to see nominated, even after the nomination of Little Miss Sunshine last year, a similarly hyperbolized trifle. Regardless of how you think No Country rates generally, it displays a level of craftsmanship that is itself impressive, which makes it appealing to industry people of all stripes. (It’s been a while since I’ve felt so passionately about a Best Sound nominee.)
For this reason, if few others, I don’t think either No Country or There Will Be Blood are unusual Oscar choices. Sure, the early 2000s were dark years, but the Academy usually seems to get at least one nominee right. This year we just happen to have two Big Films by smarter-than-usual filmmakers. Remember that even The Thin Red Line was nominated for Best Picture, though it had no chance of winning.
No Country keeps bobbing up and down in my estimation. First viewing, ecstatic; second viewing, pleased. Then after the Anderson film, it sank quite a bit, but now it’s steadily rising. I think a lot of us were initially so wowed by Bardem’s intense (showy?) performance that we were rather lazy in trying to seek out anything behind it. But there’s plenty there — his final confrontation with Carla Jean is astonishing in every respect — and I won’t be disappointed if the film beats Anderson’s generally superior film for the trophy.
Just think: this is a year in which I’m excited about the Best Picture nominees and the Democratic presidential candidates. I must be getting old.
I’m more surprised by your enthusiasm for the Democratic presidential candidates. Perhaps I’m still too cynical, but Quimby’s endorsement didn’t do much for me.
I’m not sure that endorsement did anything for anyone, even young Barack. But let’s face it: the Democrats look a lot more interesting than the current Republican rogue’s gallery, which resembles nothing so much as an indistinct mass of warmed-up oatmeal.
And, yes, this has a lot to do with There Will Be Blood.
Nearly two weeks after viewing Blood (yes, on the big screen), I’m still not sure what to make of it. Yes, it’s stunning to look at, but as Rumsey said, it doesn’t pull you in. In fact, the only moments that resonated were the battles between Plainview and Sunday, mainly because of how morbidly hilarious they were. To my mind, Anderson was so concerned with creating a ponderous American epic that he failed to notice his film was, at heart, a scathing black comedy.
There’s a pretty illuminating interview with Anderson over at the Onion in which he talks about his expectations and hopes for the audience’s response to the film. His expletives tell me that he’s pretty certain when he says, “Fuck, I hope they laugh,” so I think he notices the darkly comic aspect of the film (especially the ending).
I sort of know what you mean, however, about the film not “pulling you in” emotionally. But I think that’s mostly because Plainview, as a character, is all about resistance to interpretation and identification. He’s often the only one onscreen, but Anderson is very good at keeping us distanced from him. This is notably achieved by handheld and Steadicam work, making us feel like another invisible character observing Plainview, and by those great shots of Plainview where our own view is, as it were, anything but plain: the shot of his manic expression on the beach as he discusses the Peach Tree Dance with Henry, and similarly the obscured over-the-shoulder shot of the rock Daniel digs up in the first scenes of the film. (Both of these devices are, incidentally, very much a staple of Roman Polanski’s early American films, something I’m not sure anyone has brought up.)
Anyway, it seems to me the key to the film and to Plainview’s character that he is constantly in search of some way to either forge or exploit his connection with people (especially those with whom he shares or claims to share blood). Jenny summarizes this aspect of Plainview’s character a lot more succinctly than I can elsewhere, by noting his “increasing realization that no one truly shares his blood, his sense of self and purpose.” So, I think this resistance to emotional identification is exactly what functions best about the film, forcing you to constantly question, for example, whether he ever loved H.W., and how and when his feelings changed (if they did).
And finally, this is the reason why DDL’s (and, to a lesser extent, Dano’s) performance is that good: Because at all times you are aware of how artifical he is, how he’s putting on a show for others, and yet you are always just barely aware of a real person underneath the mustache.
Then again, I’m not sure SAG or the Academy sees much more than the mustache.
I’m fully prepared to be excommunicated for this one, but I believe both Juno and Little Miss Sunshine to be more worthy Best Picture winners than No Country For Old Men. Or, for that matter, The Departed.
You’re prepared to be banished from a site called “Not Coming to a Theater Near You” for stating that you find the current Oscar front-runner and a previous Oscar winner to be inferior to two films that have already experienced a notable and fervent critical backlash?
I didn’t mean excommunicated from this site per se, more from the company of so-called right thinking people.
On behalf of so-called right-thinking people, you’re out.
But you’re right on that Departed was a most unworthy best picture.
I had no idea so-called right-thinking people actually assembled together from time to time. I thought they just embarrassed themselves and humiliated each other on internet forums.
Leo, are these so-called right-thinking people accepting new membership into their congregation? I’m confident that their doctrine would be intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your organization’s newsletter.
Hmm, I’ll bring it up at the next Rite of the Right séance-amphibian sacrifice-meet/greet-pizza party.
But I have to tell you: Your chances aren’t looking good.
Beth
29 January 2008
7:21 AM