There Will Be Blood - a film by Paul Thomas Anderson

I agree that this film was overrated. Felt like Anderson was trying to make a masterpiece, rather than trying to make a film. The entire pacing just screamed 'pretentious' to me. That is not to say that the film is bad - it's just not great.

But, of course, I must digress for Daniel Day-Lewis. An inspired actor with a nearly inspired role. The man is incredible (although, the whole John Huston thing is troublesome).
 
His goal wasn't to make a film. It was to make a work of art. That's a bad thing. A film needs to be a film first before it becomes art (if that makes sense at all). I feel like he bypassed/distorted some of the elements that make a good film because he was aiming for something else - and I think it backfired.

Cinema is entertainment first and foremost. Then it is art. For a movie to be a great work of cinema, it first must be a great work of entertainment. Without that first step, it can still be art (just like a landscape portrait or sculpture), but not cinema. I personally don't think There Will Be Blood, for the most part, succeeded as entertainment - at many points I found myself incredibly bored. A friend of mine (an avid cineaste) fell asleep (though he was running on little sleep). Of course this is my opinion, but I trully don't think There Will Be Blood can be called a masterpiece, at least of cinema, by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe very good; maybe great; but not a masterpiece.
 
cinematical said:
His goal wasn't to make a film. It was to make a work of art. That's a bad thing. A film needs to be a film first before it becomes art (if that makes sense at all). I feel like he bypassed/distorted some of the elements that make a good film because he was aiming for something else - and I think it backfired.

Cinema is entertainment first and foremost. Then it is art. For a movie to be a great work of cinema, it first must be a great work of entertainment. Without that first step, it can still be art (just like a landscape portrait or sculpture), but not cinema. I personally don't think There Will Be Blood, for the most part, succeeded as entertainment - at many points I found myself incredibly bored. A friend of mine (an avid cineaste) fell asleep (though he was running on little sleep). Of course this is my opinion, but I trully don't think There Will Be Blood can be called a masterpiece, at least of cinema, by any stretch of the imagination. Maybe very good; maybe great; but not a masterpiece.
Click to expand...

You're using distorted logic to make a point. Film is both art and entertainment. Whether or not it's bad or good art or entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. But one does not supersede the other. And I was entertained by the entirety of There Will Be Blood so your point is completely subjective anyway.
 
I was entertained and watched it 3x in theaters which is rare for me.
I also find myself acting scenes and moments of the film in my mind constantly - or in the shower, ha. Can't seem to get moments out of my head. (the drum beats during the oil fire...)

And ...I'm going to make enemies here but I don't care, as I have Javier Bardem and Sean Penn on my side (haha...but I've read quotes form them saying similar): but Daniel Day Lewis is (at least near) perfect in this film. and whoever doesn't think so, doesn't know acting....or at least good acting. As Javier said: "He's probably the best actor alive. ever".

edit: to clarify a bit....It just bothers me...mostly is shocks me to hear someone think DDL wasn't that good. I can understand not liking him, as there's an opinion out there for everything. But there are movies I don't "like" but I know they're great.
Also, he WAS NOT OVER ACTING. yes, I had to "over act" that and put it in all caps. -- He was drunk, and pissed off....what'd you expect him to not yell at eli? And sure...say you manage to prove he was over acting in the films final scenes....what about the other 2 hours before it? he was almost under-acting those, if anything. especially the first 15 minutes of no dialogue! so c'mon.

oh and the javier/sean penn quotes were from some article about the SAG awards where they said something like "I'm so glad DDL is here...he's the best actor alive, and his performance is one of the best in history". -- yes, is there opinion. It doesn't make it a fact, I know.

I think people are just thrown off by that calibur of intensity / acting. There is a lot more movies with bad acting or "monotone" acting, so some people think that is the "way acting should be". then when something like TWBB and DDLewis come out, because it doesn't fit what they're used to seeing...they think it's too wierd and over acted etc...


Anyway, neat that it won best cinematography....thats the one thing I disagree with -- though it had great cinematography, great color pallete and skin tones.....but I think Jesse James should have won that. Just my 2 cents on an aspect of it, other than DDL.
 
Last edited:
I think people are just thrown off by that calibur of intensity / acting. There is a lot more movies with bad acting or "monotone" acting, so some people think that is the "way acting should be". then when something like TWBB and DDLewis come out, because it doesn't fit what they're used to seeing...they think it's too wierd and over acted etc...
Click to expand...

I agree. I dont think he was over the top in a way he shouldn't have been. People go over the top and do crazy stuff in real life all the time. Most movies are underacted or acted with little realism because there is a status quo of what realism is in hollywood...which isn't necessarily true in real life.
 
I'm so glad that some of the people I respect the very most on these boards have agreed with my perspective... I was torn on this movie... sometimes loving it, sometimes feeling that it was totally up it's own ass... I had a love/hate relationship with it, and I still do. I'll buy it on DVD and I'll watch parts of it again... and eventually I'll watch the whole thing again, but I doubt it will be in one sitting.

Maybe this post will seem pointless w/o reading further back into the thread, but I don't care... I just drank some of your milkshake.
 
cinematical said:
Cinema is entertainment first and foremost.
Click to expand...

with all due respect, I wouldn't be a filmmaker if cinema didn't have immense potential for being more than entertainment. but maybe this is semantics, because what many would probably call "self-indulgent art" is what entertains me on an intellectual, emotional and sometimes spiritual level because it is different and revealing and challenging and obliterates my expectations.
 
cinematical said:
His goal wasn't to make a film. It was to make a work of art. That's a bad thing. A film needs to be a film first before it becomes art (if that makes sense at all).
Click to expand...

It doesn't make sense to me. You cannot define these nebulous things. Plus, what makes you think that you know what was going through his head? Did he tell you? You are making this up to fit your argument.
 
jim, his is the very definition of a "straw man argument" -- to misrepresent someone's position or to oversimplify it, making it easy to refute.
 
I should restate - that's what his goal seemed to be, when I watched the film. Of course I don't know what he was thinking, and it was rather blow-hard-ish of me to assert so. But that was the distinct impression I got, and that others I have talked to (from other laymen to cinema professors) got. But, then again, it's purely subjective (see below...).

As for entertainment - it's what makes film the most popular modern art form. A problem I think many people have with such a linkage is the often crass connotation of the term 'entertainment'. To be entertained is an incredibly inclusive concept; it can be basic, it can be intellectual, it can be spiritual. Film, I think, has taken entertainment to the level of high art. So yes, I think a film must be entertaining (in whatever way you define that) to have any value and then be considered art. And yes, this is completely subjective - but everything is ultimately subjective. My evaluation of this film is based on my subjectivity, which I have found others to share (which is the beginning to claiming something is objective). My thoughts may be completely worthless to you because you have a different subjectivity, and that's fine - that's why we can have passionate debates: because no one can truly claim to be right.



...this post got way too philosophical.
 
Probably. I think what you call film's possibilities to appeal on an emotional, intellectual, and even spiritual level, I call the art of entertainment.

And, again, I don't think There Will Be Blood is a bad film; I just don't think it's worthy of the praise that some level upon it (based on stated reasons).

And then we're back to the subjectivity of all things.
 
cinematical said:
Probably. I think what you call film's possibilities to appeal on an emotional, intellectual, and even spiritual level, I call the art of entertainment.

And, again, I don't think There Will Be Blood is a bad film; I just don't think it's worthy of the praise that some level upon it (based on stated reasons).

And then we're back to the subjectivity of all things.
Click to expand...

But I'm right and you're wrong.:kali::kali::kali:
 
Ok, the film did have one of the best lines ever in "I drink your milkshake!"

At the same time, it also had "I'm your brother, from another mother." Either PT Anderson was maliciously taking advantage of the audience's willingness to believe the world of the film, or he was actually naive enough to put that in.

Of course, I still laughed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top