BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Paul Thomas Anderson

 
 
PatrickMM
00:35 / 09.09.04
Despite scattered love for Magnolia and a thread on Punch Drunk Love, there's never been a thread all about Paul Thomas Anderson here on the 'lith, so here it is.

I just saw Hard Eight for the first time, and, even though it's not as good as Boogie Nights and Magnolia, it's still a really well made film, with great character development. Anderson has a way of framing shots that makes everything feel exciting, and even early on, his use of music is extraordinary. I loved the way the film is basically a microcosm of the parent-child relationship. Sydney creates a new John, watches him grow up, and at the end has to let him go for his own good. He's left alone again, basically with an empty nest, a parent whose children have left him, because John doesn't really need him anymore.

Other than a lot of the actors, I'd argue the biggest constant running through his films is the idea that kindness really can save people. Despite all the cynical touches, at the heart of every one of his films is a kind act that prevents a person from falling into drugs or crime or other bad stuff. In Hard Eight, it's the beginning, when Sydney takes John under his wing. In Boogie Nights, Jack forgives Dirk, and brings him back to his "family," saving him. In Magnolia, basically every character is saved by the kindness of another, most notably Jim and Claudia. Each of these people has their lives completely changed because someone cared enough to help them.

So, any other themes that run through PTA's work, and what's the general opinion of his films around here?
 
 
Tsuga
22:49 / 09.09.07
So, I don't know who else cares, but PTA has a new film coming out at the end of the year, called There Will Be Blood.
It stars Daniel-Day Lewis and Paul Dano (the older son in Little Miss Sunshine) among others, and is scored by Johnny Greenwood. It's based loosely on Upton Sinclair's novel "Oil!". A good website with somewhat of an inside track on the production process is
Cigarettes and Red Vines, it has updated links to the new trailer, and you can see some photos from the production process here. I'm looking forward to this film.
 
 
Tsuga
17:17 / 09.12.07
If you so desire, you can see the new trailer here.
 
 
PatrickMM
19:02 / 09.12.07
I saw There Will Be Blood a couple of days ago and was pretty disappointed. Most of the dynamism and energy of his early works is absent, and the story peaks too early. The film falls prey to the major problem with period movies, and that's the fact that no one felt real. Daniel Day Lewis gave a performance so over the top, he completely lost touch with any recognizable humanity. And, not in the sense that the character is an inhuman monster, rather that you become much too aware of him acting, and lose any sense of his character as a real person.

Beyond that, the people didn't feel real, and the story has its moments, but ends up not really going anywhere. Anderson seemed to rely too much on Day Lewis, and used less of the stylistic flourishes of his earlier films, so in the end, you wind up just watching this one guy hamming it up, with all emotional connection and humanity absent.

It pains me to say that because Anderson is a brilliant director, and his last three films are each masterpieces in their own way, but this film is a major misstep.
 
 
Mark Parsons
21:05 / 11.12.07
It just won the LA Film Critics' Prize for best feature. I think these are the people who helped Gilliam out by giving the award to the almost-molested-by Uni-Execs BRAZIL way back at the dawn of history.
 
 
Tsuga
00:03 / 12.12.07
Damn, I'm sorry you didn't like it, Patrick MM. No offense, but I hope I end up disagreeing with you. I'll let you know, if I ever get to see it.
 
 
Mark Parsons
01:45 / 12.12.07
I have high hopes as well, but I'm glad to know in advance, via pMM, that the movie is a departure from PTA's former style.

DDL's character in GANGS OF NY still sticks in my mind as a favorite, despite having had only one viewing. Looking FWD to this role too.
 
 
PatrickMM
22:47 / 12.12.07
I may have been a little harsh on the film before, it's still undeniably a good movie, but coming off three classics in a row, it's disappointing to see PTA do a movie that, for me at least, was in good, not great territory. There's some great moments, but the movie peaks with a sequence that happens a little after halfway, and from there, just sort of goes along, without any drive or direction.

And, I'll admit it's the advance buzz hailing the film as a major "step forward" for PTA, a more "mature" film that bothers me. It's more within the traditional definition of what a "quality" film is, but it didn't hit me in the same way his other movies did. If he hadn't directed it, I probably would just say, that was pretty good. But, coming from someone I know can do such brilliant work, it's disappointing. Still, definitely check out the film for yourselves. Other people seem to be loving it, so maybe it just wasn't for me.
 
 
Mark Parsons
20:13 / 13.12.07
How is the Greenwood score, Patrick? I have seen a rave or two about that.

I loved BOOGIE & MAGNOLIA, esp the latter, which was very daring & bold. HARD 8 looked cool in the bits I have seen.

How is PDLove? I was skittish due to Sandler (Jooliani-supportin' Republican bastich!) but I did hear that it was interesting and rather un-bigstudio-mainstream.
 
 
Tsuga
21:16 / 13.12.07
I have to say I think that Hard 8 is a very good film, though it's been years since I saw it. I should rent it and see what I think now. That was the first movie where I saw that John C. Reilly could actually act very well.
Punch Drunk Love was so extremely interesting, I've seen it three times now, I think. The first time I was a little confused, maybe? I didn't know what to think exactly, so I suppose, yes, confused. Adam Sandler was brilliant as a wound-up, repressed and lonely man who finds the perfect person and doesn't even know what to do. Philip Seymour Hoffman is perfectly sleazy as the mattress man, and I like Emily Watson even when she's in shit movies, which this is not. If you like his movies, see it.
 
 
PatrickMM
22:26 / 13.12.07
PDL is a great film. The way I think of it is that it's like the Watchmen of Adam Sandler movies. Watchmen took the implicit themes of the previous works, and removed the goofiness to examine what these characters would be like in the real world. PDL does the same thing, taking the rage filled manchild protagonist of Sandler's other movies, but putting him in a real world context, where that rage is more frightening than it is funny. That's not to say it's all heavy stuff, but it's a wonderful use of the Adam Sandler star persona in service of a story. And, this is coming from someone who can't stand pretty much all Sandler's other films.
 
 
Tsuga
12:01 / 27.12.07
I did get to see this last night. I thought it was really very good, I would have to disagree with Patrick saying that Day-Lewis was over the top, I think he did a superb job. I didn't find the suspension of disbelief difficult at all with him. The soundtrack was powerful and, like the tone of the movie, sometimes relentlessly tense for long periods. While I thought at times it was some of the best scoring I'd heard, a couple of times it seemed to get too heavy-handed. There was a somewhat important element of the story that myself and the group I was with all either missed or were unclear on until late in the movie, and I still can't figure out if it was intentional obfuscation by PTA or just a bit unclear if you were not paying enough attention. Overall, I was thoroughly impressed.
 
 
Mark Parsons
01:01 / 03.02.08
Saw this last night and was horribly...pissed off? Too harsh. Annoyed? Maybe, although also amused at how overpraised this movie is in the US. Hated the rushed, shallow last act and the way it all wrapped up, or did not wrap up, as it were. Thought Anderson stranded Day-Lewis up a tree by writing a would-be-great part that went, IMO, nowhere.

Suffice to say that I disliked this intensely by tale's end (I am a big fan of BN and Magnolia), almost as much as a disliked another oft-nominated pig's ear CRASH.

Oy, vey, I should have seen RAMBO instead...
 
 
Tsuga
01:13 / 03.02.08
Well, I agree with you about Crash.
 
 
Mug Chum
11:14 / 03.02.08
Same on Crash.

Serious Spoilers for 'There Will Be Blood'




Is it wrong that the only moment I got a rise out of it, was when Lewis beat that annoying little shouting shit-priest to death? I heard so much good about the film (and about the 'milkshake monologue' "that was genious", but it was just, urgh, well-acted shit), but I left dried. I gave my milkshake.

It felt he was trying to go for a C.F. Kane character with no Rosebud. But damn, it was awful. The resolution with the son... just... argh.

I really want to wash the memory of it, but I fear I'd go see it again thinking "alright, PT Anderson!". And I fear I might give it another chance in the future years.
 
 
PatrickMM
15:44 / 03.02.08
That's how I felt too, though I'd take the well acted qualifier out. Anderson just didn't give Day Lewis or Dano enough story or character development to make their performances work. There's moments in his other films that have huge acting, but work because they're placed in an emotional context where that works. Think of something like Heather Graham snorting coke telling Julianne Moore she wants her to be her mom in Boogie Nights, it works because we care about the characters and are immersed in the reality. Dano's "Out, spirit, out" scene doesn't quite work because it feels too much like an acting exercise.

Ultimately, it's the last hour or so that lets the film down. Daniel leaving his son to go back to the oil well after it blows up tells us everything we need to know, the character has nowhere to go from there, and the rest is just hammering home the same points again and again.
 
 
The Idol Rich
17:04 / 03.02.08
I didn't really enjoy There Will Be Blood - I just couldn't see what it was supposed to be or where DDL's character was meant to be coming from. It looked good and there were (a few) good scenes but when it finished, on what I imagine was meant to be a powerful scene, it left me more confused (maybe even amused) than disturbed. A lot of criticism (in the press) has had DDL's acting as over the top but that seems to miss the point slightly, presumably he was doing what he was supposed to, I think the problem was more to do with the director in failing to make the things that supposedly created that rage and misanthropy resonate in any way.
 
 
Mark Parsons
17:54 / 03.02.08
I liked DDL's performance until the last act, where I feel everything went horribly wrong and the story and characters collapsed in on themselves. A strong final act could have revealed more interesting things about Plainview, but instead we get shallow bollocks. Such care was taken with the kid, then we leap twenty odd years ahead for a snapshot wedding scene (what was Planiview's RXN?) then we get a single scene with the adult son, then he walks out of his father's life. It's as if PTA ran out of money and time and wrapped the whole story up with a few remaining shoot days. I also expected the preacher to have a more substantial role or POV in the last act, but nope, he's a blubbering, insincere asshole (nothing wrong with that) with nothing to add to the story save becoming a sacrificial lamb.
 
 
Mug Chum
21:16 / 03.02.08
The weird thing is that it's beautifully filmed, the music at times brings an amazing rhythm to the editing and to the story, it's fantastically well-acted (except for the priest, that I don't know if the actor was irritating and unconvincing, or if that was intentional), and the main character hits incredibly interesting notes (that "I see nothing worth liking in people" scene is haunting -- altough it doesn't really goes nowhere). But it feels -- I hate to use the word -- aborted. The last few moments and the lack of dealing with some of the themes (and at times being totally redundant on them) killed the moments I liked before, to the point I don't want to see them again (that's a bit rare for me).
 
 
Mark Parsons
22:48 / 03.02.08
Yes, it's a huge shame, really. There is so much to respect about the movie until the 2 hour mark.

The Preacher is played by the chap from LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE - another vastly over-rated movie, IMO. he replaced another actor in the role, thirty days into filming. We spend so little time with that character that his shameless sham performance persona is never really examined until it is hurriedly stripped away in the final scene.
 
 
The Idol Rich
07:50 / 04.02.08
Such care was taken with the kid, then we leap twenty odd years ahead for a snapshot wedding scene (what was Planiview's RXN?) then we get a single scene with the adult son, then he walks out of his father's life. It's as if PTA ran out of money and time and wrapped the whole story up with a few remaining shoot days.

That's exactly what I thought, where was the development for that breakdown in the relationship? I was watching it on a moody copy and I actually thought that it had gone wrong and jumped forward by half an hour or so at that point. If it wasn't for the fact that I've seen that kind of breakdown in a million other films I wouldn't even have known what was supposed to be happening at all. You're in real trouble if it's only film cliches that allow the audience to figure out what's going on.
 
 
The Idol Rich
08:50 / 08.02.08
I keep reading AMAZING reviews of this film. What am I missing? Can anyone convince me? Strange that the reviews don't seem to address or even mention any of the things that I found problematic and concentrate on the performance of Daniel Day Lewis and vague generalities that don't (for my money) stack up.
 
 
tickspeak
20:03 / 08.02.08
I've gotta say, for me the final scene makes the whole movie. Until that point it's just so slow, and yeah Day-Lewis is super intense (and at moments truly frightening, which is great) but aside from a couple key moments (any of the fake brother's scenes, for instance, or the baptism scene) nothing really feels NEW about this movie until the end, which I think is the best conclusion to a film I've seen in years.

Why do I love it so much? That's hard to articulate...The scene is extremely funny, for one thing, and has a propulsive drive that contrasts really well with the rest of the movie's sort of simmering energy. It feels like a reward for getting through the previous 2 hours of period hardship, extreme close-ups of brewing psychosis, and loud, disconcerting music. I love watching two loathsome bastards go at each other, and even if only one of them really gets what he deserves, that's still something. Really, when DDL is chasing that shrieking rat of a priest around and throwing bowling pins at him, how can you not laugh? When was the last time you were given such clear-cut villains who were nonetheless compelling characters whose ruthless climb to the top you could enjoy as much as their comeuppance? PTA said in an interview at The Onion that the film could be called "There Will Be A Morally Unambiguous Ending", which, as much as I usually appreciate moral ambiguity, I also appreciate an artist with a strong point of view.
 
 
FinderWolf
00:16 / 09.02.08
Just saw this - it's a fantastic film. Less meandering than MAGNOLIA (which I thought was great but the pacing & plotting was a bit off at the end), this film is terrific for about the first 80% and then the final two scenes feel like they go off track a bit (I felt those final 2 scenes could have used a bit of cutting/editing).

Still, it's well worth your time (and lots of it; the film is something like 2 1/2 hours). Day-Lewis gives a great performance here - many have talked about it being too similar to Bill The Butcher in GANGS OF NEW YORK, but for me, it was sufficiently different and independent from that character. Bill The Butcher is more like a racist mafia don... Daniel Plainview, oilman that he is, is more like a misanthrope who despises himself and despises humanity.

Paul Dano gives a very strong performance, going head-to-head with Day-Lewis and only occasionally coming off a bit actor-y. It's Ciaran Hinds' big year in Hollywood, as he is guest-starring in a bunch of films and tearing up the stage as The Devil himself on Broadway in THE SEAFARER (go see it now if you're in NYC)!

The score is also AMAZING - really the first time in a while that a film's score has stood out as something extraordinary, unique - dynamic and distinct, grabbing your attention while complimenting and flowing with the picture as a whole.

Eli and Daniel are more alike than they realize - full of anger, driven to make themselves Very Important People. The struggles they have for dominance in the community and their scenes where they try to out-do each other and retaliate for past wrongs are something to see.

The film also makes you realize, on a visceral level, the inherent danger in any work that deals with mother nature - harnessing mother nature and the like. The construction scenes also rapidly come to be terrifying, as we see what kind of accidents can and do happen, more than we'd all like, in both the past and present, in any construction endeavor.

I still think No Country For Old Men is the better picutre and should win the Oscar for Best Picture. But There Will Be Blood is terrific - just a notch or two less terrific than No Country.

when he says 'I'm finished' to the butler, does that indicate that the butler is used to his tirades which end up with someone having been murdered, and that the butler will 'clean up the mess' and help him keep it secret somehow? Or just that the butler will then immediately call the police and send Daniel to the clink or the madhouse? Obviously, his 'I'm finished' is also a statement about his future/his soul/his journey... and I suppose the Morally Ambigious Ending leaves either possibility (as to what the butler makes of this bizzare, horrific sight) open for interpretation/speculation...
 
 
CameronStewart
02:21 / 09.02.08
when he says 'I'm finished' to the butler, does that indicate that the butler is used to his tirades which end up with someone having been murdered, and that the butler will 'clean up the mess' and help him keep it secret somehow?

I think that's a stretch.

Plainview states at one point that he hates people, and all he wants in life is to be able to have enough money to separate himself from everyone. It's in his very core, it's what motivates his every action. So at the end of the film, having made his success in the oil business, he's hugely wealthy and secluded in his home. His adopted son reveals that he wants to strike out on his own and start his own business, giving Daniel cause to disown him. The last remaining connection to the outside world is Eli, who comes to visit him to try and get money from him. Daniel bludgeons Eli to death and utters that final line - "I'm finished." He's achieved his life's ambition - he's enormously wealthy and, at long last, alone.
 
 
Thorn Davis
08:07 / 17.02.08
I was suprised to see so many negative reactions to the film early on in this thread; I just watched it yesterday and thought it was incredibly good, to the point where for about the first hour of the film my heart was pounding with exhiliration just for how great the movie was. I don't agree with some of the criticisms - although I suppose that's obvious - but one that did strike me on here was "that "I see nothing worth liking in people" scene is haunting -- altough it doesn't really goes nowhere.

I didn't think that was fair; the movie seemed most similar to me to Raging Bull, in that you've got a series of scenes that reveal elements about the character with the narrative being driven less towards the end of a story than to some final understanding of that character's life. You could equally say that Jake LaMotta head butting the wall in the prison cell is a great scene "altough it doesn't really goes nowhere" in the sense of progressing a story. One of the elements I liked about There Will Be Blood was the way it showed you something, made its point and then moved on. For the most part, at any rate - there was a point towards the end where I felt that the film was repeating itself for a short while, and the momentum dropped away. But that's not really something that bothered me - I couldn't really think of any film that created such a gripping intensity for two hours plus in the first place.

Probably my favourite thing about it was the terrific sense of doom in the film. That powerful sense that things are going to go badly wrong that runs all the way through, and is at its most explicit during scenes like Plainview's failed shakedown of the Sunday's near the start, where he starts losing his cool as it becomes evident that they had more awareness of the land's worth than he thought. It reminded me of being introduced to Frank Sobotka in The Wire - as soon as you get to know the character you understand the inevitability of his fate.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
20:30 / 21.02.08
Plainview states at one point that he hates people, and all he wants in life is to be able to have enough money to separate himself from everyone. It's in his very core, it's what motivates his every action.

I do see what you're saying, but I'd respectfully disagree. It's perhaps worth remembering the context of that speech. The one thing Daniel cares about has been hurt, and it isn't Daniel's fault. In a way, he might have been happier if it had been. And then he's let down again. I wouldn't say that Plainview's a misanthrope (in this excellent film, which everyone should go and see) so much as a man who can't bear to be disappointed.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
20:50 / 21.02.08
Which is to say that Plainview's particular demons might not have been set loose under different circumstances.

They'd always have been there (the coda seems inevitable) but I don't, honestly, get this thing about Daniel being 'a monster.' Not to sound deliberately facetious, but isn't Plainview a guy who has had bad luck on exactly the wrong occasions? Amd who is consequently punished by the fates thereafter? It does seem like a tragedy, in the classic sense.
 
  
Add Your Reply