There Will Be Blood

[leo8877]

Hey all, I tried to find an old thread for this, but I couldn't find one.  I just finished watching the movie and I enjoyed it.  I read in Roger Ebert's review that it was like watching a natural disaster that you couldn't turn away from and I felt the same way watching it.  I especially liked how they did the music for the movie...it created a really ominous tone.

I have a question though...what did they use oil for at the turn of the century?

[kathode]

I liked the movie a lot, mainly for the incredible performances and awesome Jonny Greenwood soundtrack.  Felt it was a bit long though, and I don't know, it left me kind of wanting for a more central conflict and cleaner resolution.  It was more about watching Plainview descend down into madness, and there seemed to be little fighting against that, so the ending wasn't the most satisfying conclusion for me.  But I still enjoyed it overall.

Anyway, to answer your question, it seems to be mostly used for construction projects like asphalt, as well as kerosene for oil lamps.  Wikipedia has a pretty interesting history section in the main petroleum article.

[Lee]

Thought it was a great movie myself, thoroughly enjoyed it. You could see where the movie was going with the downward spiral of Plainview, but it was still fun watching it as ugly as it maybe. I did not expect that ending, until afterwards where I realized what the title meant. You know in the beginning it's going to end badly, but I had forgotten "there will be blood."

[Arnir]

Oil was also used as a lubricating oil to replace animal fats as lubricants.

[dedewhale]

I watched it and thought it was OK.....I am not sure I understand where the guys anger came from, thought that was poorly laid out.....

Spoiler for Hiden:

Why did he have to kill the preist at the end???? Thought it was a slight over reaction.....maybe I mist something major

[Lee]

I watched it and thought it was OK.....I am not sure I understand where the guys anger came from, thought that was poorly laid out.....

Spoiler for Hiden:

Why did he have to kill the preist at the end???? Thought it was a slight over reaction.....maybe I mist something major

Remember when Plainview had to be saved if he wanted to lay his pipe across that guys land? The minister slapped him around and humiliated him in the process. Not to mention the minister was a constant thorn in his side since day one. They showed Plainviews disdain for him earlier on when he slapped him around in the mud/oil and asked why didn't you cure my son? Then you take a guy who slowly went crazy, and it kind of makes sense.

[dedewhale]

still kind of an over reaction to me. There story did not do a good job of building to the sort of intensity IMHO.

[CSL]

Ship are also starting to use oil for fuel at the start of the last century as well.

[Ragnarok]

I watched it and thought it was OK.....I am not sure I understand where the guys anger came from, thought that was poorly laid out.....

Spoiler for Hiden:

Why did he have to kill the preist at the end???? Thought it was a slight over reaction.....maybe I mist something major

Remember when Plainview had to be saved if he wanted to lay his pipe across that guys land? The minister slapped him around and humiliated him in the process. Not to mention the minister was a constant thorn in his side since day one. They showed Plainviews disdain for him earlier on when he slapped him around in the mud/oil and asked why didn't you cure my son? Then you take a guy who slowly went crazy, and it kind of makes sense.

Oohh ok. So its about his descent into madness.  I think I missed the point on my first watch.  It really wasn't what I expected I guess. I though DDL was great as usual and definately agree with the kudos on the J. Greenwood soundtrack(Radiohead rules) but I think i'll have to give this one another watch. 

[YellowKing]

I thought it was one of the most brilliant movies I've seen in years. Unfortunately I watched it with a group of neanderthals...err, excuse me - friends....who were expecting typical Hollywood formula with lots of killing, snappy dialogue, and quick edits. So at the end I'm gushing about the movie, and they all look at me like I'm nuts. Then they proceed to talk about how crappy it was and what a waste of time it was all the way home.

Oohh ok. So its about his descent into madness.

Yes - every event in this guy's life is one small step towards that insanity. I think it's also easy to overlook this point because Plainview - despite his deep, deep flaws - is a very charming individual. I was so enthralled with Daniel Day Lewis' portrayal that I found myself glossing over what a rotten bastard his character was.

[LordMortis]

I coincidentally rented this yesterday.  I'm not sure why it had all the academy award buzz.  It was a good character profile but not a very good movie IMO.

I watched it and thought it was OK.....I am not sure I understand where the guys anger came from, thought that was poorly laid out.....

Spoiler for Hiden:

Why did he have to kill the preist at the end???? Thought it was a slight over reaction.....maybe I mist something major

Spoiler for Hiden:

I'm pretty certain Plainview was always pretty nuts.  He just displayed it more prominently as he became more powerful.  Assuming he never lied, you just need to look at his relationship with his "son" and the fact that he dragged himself and his gun with a broken leg up and a across a plateau for $1.62 (3 oz of gold).


The relationship with the priest and the town started way back at the beginning when the priest wanted $5,000 for his church from his father's land without knowing anything and the religious Sunday family knew that the father beat Mary for not praying hard enough.  Then Eli demanded to bless the well.  Then Eli informed Daniel the town that the well was having problems because it did not get Eli's blessings.  Daniel on the other hand believed his workers were not working properly because they were spending time in Eli's church.  So Daniel humiliated Eli with the slapping and dragging him by the hair and baptizing him in the blood of muddy oil.  So then Eli used the pipeline family to get Daniel to come to church an volunteer himself to be humiliated, slapped around, pulled by the hair and then baptized in the cleansing holy water blood of Christ which props Eli up in the town and forces Daniel to bring his son back to town to save face.

It's the relationship to the son I find fascinating and how Daniel deals with betrayal.  Did he ever really love his son?  We still can't tell at the end.  The closest thing you get to knowing would be to examine his relationship with his fake brother.

[CeeKay]

Oddly enough I also watched it yesterday (and no, LordMortis is not an alt of mine) and really didn't get the Oscar buzz either.  during the first 15 minutes I was about ready to yell at the screen 'SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING!'-  I found the lack of talking annoying for some reason, so my mood wasn't all that great at the start of the movie, and the priest really annoyed me, so the whole end was about the only bright spot of the movie.

[LordMortis]

Not only did CeeKay not bring popcorn and a bottle of wine.  He didn't even come over.   

I thought the silence was going to really annoy me at the beginning of the flick but then not only did I fall in to sync with the silence, I thought it was appropriate for the character examinations.  It made for an interesting mind numbing isolation.  This helped put you in the head of both Plainview and his son.

[Lee]

during the first 15 minutes I was about ready to yell at the screen 'SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING!'

I thought that was incredibly cool myself. And the part where they show the hills and play that weird music, made it kind of eerie.

[leo8877]

during the first 15 minutes I was about ready to yell at the screen 'SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING!'

I thought that was incredibly cool myself. And the part where they show the hills and play that weird music, made it kind of eerie.

I actually brought up the timer when the first words were spoken to see how long had passed.  I liked it as well.

[Lee]

It's the relationship to the son I find fascinating and how Daniel deals with betrayal.  Did he ever really love his son?  We still can't tell at the end.  The closest thing you get to knowing would be to examine his relationship with his fake brother.

I disagree here. I think he very much loved his son, but had trouble dealing with it. He was very worried about his son after the explosion, but you saw the conflict within him. Does he stay with his son or go take care of the business. It showed that it was part of his problems, business came before everything, as much as it hurt him and anyone he may care about.

[LordMortis]

It's the relationship to the son I find fascinating and how Daniel deals with betrayal.  Did he ever really love his son?  We still can't tell at the end.  The closest thing you get to knowing would be to examine his relationship with his fake brother.

I disagree here. I think he very much loved his son, but had trouble dealing with it. He was very worried about his son after the explosion, but you saw the conflict within him. Does he stay with his son or go take care of the business. It showed that it was part of his problems, business came before everything, as much as it hurt him and anyone he may care about.

Spoiler for Hiden:

That's the thing.  I thought Daniel loved his son as well.  Right up until the he called him a competitor.  Then we have to figure out if a facade came down or Daniel decided it was time to start playing with him.  Plainview's own admission was that his love for his son built on a deep lie implied to keep him ahead of the competition.  Was his admission a lie simply meant to be hurtful or was it real?  I don't think there is anything in the movie that disagrees with this.  The only thing this is potentially at odds with is "his mother dieing during childbirth" which may or may not coincide with an opportunity being found in a basket.

But this interpretation could go multiple ways.  Blood, also refers relatives.  Perhaps Plainview was trying to capture his son being a relative without having Plainview's blood through his veins and only came to failure when his son announced he was going to betray him by going to drill in Mexico.  Look at what blood relations did to his brother as a juxtaposition. 

So family, it would appear, meant everything to Plainview.  Except that he had none.

Day Lewis' character, invites us to ask questions.  I'm nut sure he gives us any answers.  The sketch was fascinating that way and very much a demonstration of our window into the other.  I'm just not sure there was a great movie around this character sketch.

[ATB]

watched it tonight. This movie sucks.

DDL was great though.

[Eduardo X]

watched it tonight. This movie sucks.

You would think so.

[Moliere]

during the first 15 minutes I was about ready to yell at the screen 'SOMEONE SAY SOMETHING!'

I thought that was incredibly cool myself. And the part where they show the hills and play that weird music, made it kind of eerie.

I actually brought up the timer when the first words were spoken to see how long had passed.  I liked it as well.

Did it beat 2001's 25 minutes and 38 seconds?

[Toe]

I watched it tonight. I enjoyed it a lot. Did not care much for Paul Dano's performance (the preacher) and think the movie would have been a lot better with a different casting choice.

[Pong]

I was bored to tears. Took me 3 sittings to get through the entire thing. I've been told there's something wrong with me for not liking it

Stupid question ahead:

Spoiler for Hiden:

Is Eli and Paul sunday the same person ? afair they only mention Paul once at the dinner table and the dad just stares at Eli like he's crazy (or something like that, mnight be the other way around, can't remember the preachers name ).
Or maybe I just didn't pay enough attention

[McNutt]

Spoiler for Hiden:

That confused me too.  I think I read that they were different people.

[Moliere]

Spoiler for Hiden:

That confused me too.  I think I read that they were different people.

Spoiler for Hiden:

Twins, I think.

[Marik]

DDL was awesome as ever, but the whole movie just seemed so empty.  It reminded me of No Country For Old Men.  It was well done, I could see exactly what they were going for, but I just couldn't see why anyone would bother telling that particular story.  It was just grim with a side of grim with grim on top and once you spot that pattern in the beginning nothing really comes as a surprise.  In the end I didn't really care about any of it.

I guess I'm with ATB.

[LordMortis]

Spoiler for Hiden:

That confused me too.  I think I read that they were different people.

Spoiler for Hiden:

Twins, I think.

Spoiler for Hiden:

Confused me a lot at the beginning.  But no they were not the same.  I don't know if they were twins.  But the point was that Paul got an insanely high finder's fee and got out of dodge.  Eli didn't do anything, wanted to stick around, and wanted to continue to syphon money for nothing.

[Pong]

Spoiler for Hiden:

That confused me too.  I think I read that they were different people.

Spoiler for Hiden:

Twins, I think.

Spoiler for Hiden:

Confused me a lot at the beginning.  But no they were not the same.  I don't know if they were twins.  But the point was that Paul got an insanely high finder's fee and got out of dodge.  Eli didn't do anything, wanted to stick around, and wanted to continue to syphon money for nothing.

Spoiler for Hiden:

Makes sense I guess. Thought that he might be schizophrenic (sp?) or something. Dunno why
But twins it is then.

[YellowKing]

Regarding the above confusion:

Spoiler for Hiden:

In an interview on the National Public Radio program "Fresh Air with Terry Gross," Paul Dano told Gross that he had originally been cast in the much smaller role of Paul Sunday, Eli's brother, and another actor had been cast as Eli. However, after Dano had already started filming his one scene as Paul Sunday, Paul Thomas Anderson decided to replace the actor playing Eli. Anderson then asked Dano to play Eli Sunday (a much bigger role) as well as Paul Sunday, and they decided to change the film to make the brothers identical twins. Anderson asked Dano to play Eli on a Thursday, and filming for the role began four days later, on the next Monday. Daniel Day-Lewis, by contrast, had a whole year to prepare to play Daniel Plainview.

[LordMortis]

Ten Meg file warning:

http://www.vantageguilds.com/twbb/FinalScript_TWBB.pdf


Page 12 and Page 20 should answer the spoiler question and also call into question a very specific decision and make you wonder why it was chosen.


Edit:  And YK answers that question with a sort of sloppy directorial answer IMO.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

DDL was awesome as ever, but the whole movie just seemed so empty.  It reminded me of No Country For Old Men.

I liked There Will be Blood, though I thought it was a bit long. On the other hand, I loved No Country For Old Men. It was the bee's knees. 

[Pong]

YK and LM : Thanks for clearing that up

[ScubaV]

I just watched it tonight with my folks.  Horrible, horrible movie.  I want nothing more than to retrieve those 150 utterly wasted minutes of my life.  The main actor did an exceptional job and the cinematography was nice, I'll give the movie that, but everything else was complete crap. 

Music?  There's ominous strings scattered throughout to no purpose.  There's no suspense, no danger, no scenes of terrible acts to warrant it.  Pacing?  What pacing?  Listening to Ben Stein read the dictionary would be a 90 minute action thriller compared to this.  Plot?  The plot was about as exciting as a narration of a day at work.

If the movie had been condensed into a 60 minute format, it may have risen to mediocrity maybe even been slightly interesting.  As it is, it's a character study that only spends a small fraction of the time actually developing the characters in a meaningful way.  Eventually the main character becomes as crazy as the director and writers (perhaps this was an autobiographical piece of sorts?).  This is the type of artsy, cliquey movie that the critics will rave about because it makes them look like they know what they're talking about and like they have powers of artistic analysis ordinary people are incapable of.

[Harkonis]

watched it tonight. This movie sucks.

DDL was great though.

I'll rent this then, this means I will probably like it.

[CeeKay]

watched it tonight. This movie sucks.

DDL was great though.

I'll rent this then, this means I will probably like it.

make sure you're not tired at all or it may put you to sleep.

[YellowKing]

Here's the thing that I think is a bit unfair about dismissing critics' views, especially when they come to a consensus like they did with this movie. If I had a choice between two mechanics, one of which works on a couple of cars a week, and one who works on 20 cars a week, which one am I going to trust more based purely on experience? The thing you have to keep in mind is that movie critics watch *far* more movies than most of us ever will, and they typically have a far deeper knowledge of film history than we ever will. So when they're judging a movie, in their mind they're comparing it to thousands of films, most of which the general public has probably never even seen. And whereas most of us judge a film on whether it entertained us or not, they're looking at acting, cinematography, editing, direction, writing - things we may notice if they're particularly good or particularly bad, but sometimes just don't think about really analyzing when we're just sitting there on the couch with a bucket of popcorn.

I don't always agree with movie critics, but I do respect their knowledge of film. If they didn't love movies, then they wouldn't be watching and writing about them as a profession.

[Ironrod]

It's about the endless dance of conflict and accommodation between two primal forces in American history, as embodied by the protagonists. Religion and naked capitalism are two sides of the same greedy coin. Its musical score and cinematography contribute to the movie's mythic proportions. The ending seemed rushed and overblown to me, but I don't know how else it could have ended. This gripping film about two unstoppable forces that can't be free of one another was one of the best films of last year and I look forward to seeing it again someday.

This NY Times review goes into considerable depth, but is also riddled with spoilers. Don't read it unless you've already seen the movie.

[hepcat]

I just watched it tonight with my folks.  Horrible, horrible movie.  I want nothing more than to retrieve those 150 utterly wasted minutes of my life.  The main actor did an exceptional job and the cinematography was nice, I'll give the movie that, but everything else was complete crap. 

Music?  There's ominous strings scattered throughout to no purpose.  There's no suspense, no danger, no scenes of terrible acts to warrant it.  Pacing?  What pacing?  Listening to Ben Stein read the dictionary would be a 90 minute action thriller compared to this.  Plot?  The plot was about as exciting as a narration of a day at work.

If the movie had been condensed into a 60 minute format, it may have risen to mediocrity maybe even been slightly interesting.  As it is, it's a character study that only spends a small fraction of the time actually developing the characters in a meaningful way.  Eventually the main character becomes as crazy as the director and writers (perhaps this was an autobiographical piece of sorts?).  This is the type of artsy, cliquey movie that the critics will rave about because it makes them look like they know what they're talking about and like they have powers of artistic analysis ordinary people are incapable of.

scuba, i've gamed with you at octocon and i and all my friends think you're a great guy (even though lawboy swooped in and stole your thunder towards the end of the roborally game) ...but the next time i see you, i'm gonna punch you in the forehead so hard that you're gonna forget who you are for 15 minutes.   

there will be blood is an instant american classic.  i place it almost on the same level as Citizen Kane in its depth and vision (although nothing will ever overtake Kane in the pantheon of great movies.  the number of cinematic innovations contained in that film still boggle the mind). 

[LordMortis]

As it is, it's a character study that only spends a small fraction of the time actually developing the characters in a meaningful way. 

I agree that that the movie was really a character study and this is why it fails, IMO.  It ignores a lot of what makes us want to see movies.  I also agree that it doesn't develop characters.  I don't think character development is necessarily part of character study.  It's more really part of plot and action and such.  What I think I disagree on is that you make it sound like it failed as a character study because it didn't develop the characters.  Or that it fails as a movie because it didn't develop the characters.  I don't think either is necessarily true.  I think it fails me as "reader" because the movie deliberatly didn't develop the characters in a meaningful way but didn't give me another reason to care about the story and the stagnation of it's characters.

The thing you have to keep in mind is that movie critics watch *far* more movies than most of us ever will, and they typically have a far deeper knowledge of film history than we ever will. So when they're judging a movie, in their mind they're comparing it to thousands of films, most of which the general public has probably never even seen. And whereas most of us judge a film on whether it entertained us or not, they're looking at acting, cinematography, editing, direction, writing - things we may notice if they're particularly good or particularly bad, but sometimes just don't think about really analyzing when we're just sitting there on the couch with a bucket of popcorn.

I don't always agree with movie critics, but I do respect their knowledge of film. If they didn't love movies, then they wouldn't be watching and writing about them as a profession.

No offense, but I don't have to keep that in mind.  They have to keep that in mind and then know their audience.  I can shrug off their opinion as irrelevant to me.  I don't have to meet them half way, understand them, or care about them.

It's about the endless dance of conflict and accommodation between two primal forces in American history, as embodied by the protagonists. Religion and naked capitalism are two sides of the same greedy coin. Its musical score and cinematography contribute to the movie's mythic proportions. The ending seemed rushed and overblown to me, but I don't know how else it could have ended. This gripping film about two unstoppable forces that can't be free of one another...

What happens when you get that sort of thing and just don't care?  What happens if you change the word gripping to stagnant?  Though I must admit that I'd debate watching the movie again.  There was lots of good stuff in there, even if the movie fails, IMO.

[YellowKing]

I don't have to meet them half way, understand them, or care about them.

No, you don't have to, but then you're limiting yourself to your own isolated world view. If you want to live life thinking your opinion is the only correct one and the rest of the world can go to hell, and you're comfortable with that, then knock yourself out.

[CeeKay]

but the next time i see you, i'm gonna punch you in the forehead so hard that you're gonna forget who you are for 15 minutes.   

note to self:  avoid hepcat at Origins 2009.