Your opinion is welcome here. Please be civil.
Though I haven't seen the film myself, it sounded interesting based on what some Christian film reviewers have said. They described it as something akin to one man's complete devotion to self and, metaphorically at least, descent into hell. Essentially they compared it to Citizen Kane. Unless you hate Citizen Kane, I'm guessing you don't agree. Honestly, I'd rather see "Juno" again anyway.
Comparing this film to Citizen Kane is like comparing the Los Angeles Cathedral to St. Peter's.
It could only be the fruit of abject ignorance of the art form, or else an aberration of the will.
My review was exactly the same. Everyone is ranting about the acting. One reviewer called it the best acting since "The Godfather." Please. Dano and Day-Lewis are so over the top, it's embarrassing.
Ultimately, this only ends up being a character study, and I didn't enjoy the character study since the characters were...cartoonish. Unfortunately, I think many people are getting onboard cause they get to see their favorite targets (Christians and Capitalists) caricatured.
Barb--I think the new "Rambo" movie is going to be a classic! You should definitely see it
(jk).
I agree with your comments about the way religion is portrayed in this film and the length...but I disagree completely about the sound design and the acting. The sound scape was a very post-modern take on a period drama, which I thought captured the physical landscape brilliantly. I felt Day-Lewis gave the performance of a lifetime. Being more a visual person, I was stuck with the nuanced performance of Day-Lewis, which leaped off the screen. I could have watched him for two more hours. I thought the ending was terrible and I was expecting something more daring than the oblivious analogy of human blood. What did you think of the adopted son character?
BIG FAT RATS!!!
Chris is literally hooking up the DVD to the TV in the bedroom (There Will be a Sinus Infection) so we can watch it tonight.
Have I missed the post where you explained why Jesse James came and went with no fanfare, when it was easily the best movie I saw this year?
Dude you're off on this one. The film was amazing, Daniel Day Lewis mesmerizing...and as far as the Elmer Gantry moments -- i didn't see anything remotely Christian about Eli Sunday, the false prophet, so I took no offense -- though there were a few cringe worthy moments. Haven't seen such a powerful film in ages.... though I respect your opinion enough to re-watch and re-evaluate.
>i didn't see anything remotely Christian about Eli Sunday
Even the fact that he was a minister?
Come, come...
Remember when you watched "Tender Mercies" with us in Georgia and hated it? And didn't you re-think that?
Or do you still hate it? If so, it's because you're a Yankee.
Not that Texas is the south.
I should stop now, I have enough anonymous admirers in the blogosphere already.
Wow. In your response, you know who you sound like?
Eli Sunday! At the pulpit!
Having *seen* preaching like this, I had no trouble interpreting it for what it was: an example of one of the more disgusting distortions that has occurred under the banner of "church."
And it's from the same writer/director who gave us Officer Jim Curring, a nuanced, humble, gracious professing Christian in Magnolia.
And it's also from the same writer/director who gave us the Motivational Speaker version of Eli Sunday... Tom Cruise's chauvenistic monster (also in Magnolia). Consider the similarities between the two, and you have yet another prodigal son determined to take revenge on his father by pumping himself up... but this time in the house of God rather than the "church of the masses," the mainstream media.
No, this is, indeed, a false prophet. As malevolent and wicked as Plainview is, he's right to name Sunday as a false prophet. And Eli Sunday knows it.
The film reveals more subtlety and nuance every time I see it, just like Punch-drunk Love before it.
And for what it's worth, Anderson classifies it as a "horror movie." Which would explain all of the hints of Nosferatu along the way.
Jeffrey -
While it's true that Eli is clearly not an icon of the average Christian minister, it's hard to avoid the impression that he has become a whipping post in this film. We are not given any reason to sympathize with his character... he's one-dimensional, which I don't consider a characteristic of a masterpiece of filmmaking.
Can you point me to the interview with the director? I'm seriously interested in what the director intended with this film. If he aspired to something truly noble, I'm interested in knowing how he failed so miserably in the execution of his aspirations.
More of my thoughts on the film here:
http://www.doxaweb.com/blog/2008...ste-of-
time.htm
Jeffrey-
Where did you go to see preaching like Eli's?
The Celebrity Center for the Church of Scientology?
Eli's preaching style was the least egregious aspect of the terrible caricature that is his character. Much more problematic was his greed, lust for attention, his blasphemy, hypocrisy and cowardice.
It's the same old Christians are one-dimensional idiots portrayal that we have seen countless times from Hollywood.
I don't know why PT Anderson made a good Christian in Magnolia and now has sunk to horrific bigotry. Perhaps he has Bush Derangement Syndrome. Or else maybe he is annoyed with himself for making a good Christian before and is trying to atone?
The two men had virtually the same characteristics, true. I would content there was a power struggle between the two. Both men - Eli and Daniel -- knew they had to sway the masses in their favor... both men were corrupt -- and each knew they had to destroy the other to win. Never occurred to me that Eli was a true Christian -- just a huckster like Daniel. Amazing film.
Clayton wrote:
If he aspired to something truly noble, I'm interested in knowing how he failed so miserably in the execution of his aspirations.
Well, it seems you've already made up your mind about him and the film. I'm not eager to point you to interviews so you can scorn him him. Try a search engine.
barbn wrote:
And There Will Be "Post-Modern" Evangelicals Struggling With Faith-Tradition Loathing Syndrome Who Will Rave About This Movie Seeing It As "Sticking it to The Man"...Although Ultimately the "Man" in This Scenario is Christ Whose Mystical Body Is The Church.
Hmm. Haven't read any of *those* reviews yet. That's certainly doesn't describe what I liked about the film.
It will be interesting to see how the wide range of critics at Christianity Today Movies end up rating the film in their annual best-list. That's a diverse team of men, women, playwrights, instructors, students, authors, a managing editor of Christianity Today, and more. They often disagree sharply. But none of them strike me as suffering "faith-tradition-loathing syndrome." I doubt that CT would publish them if they did.
I'm fine if folks don't like a movie and want to rant about it. But when they imitate Ted Baehr* and start groping for nasty labels they can slap on people who disagree with them... that's just ugly and judgmental. It's the kind of thing I'd expect from Eli Sunday.
If you dislike the movie, well, be my guest. But please don't judge or label me for being moved, inspired, and challenged. For many reasons, it's already one of my top ten of the decade.
Jeffrey
*Baehr on There Will Be Blood: It will appeal "only to narrow-minded bigots with an ax to grind, whose mental faculties and hearts have been poisoned by their sinful misanthropic prejudice."
Regina Christine -
I will grant that Daniel was no more virtuous than Eli.
My contention is that two one-dimensional characters do not add up to a single two-dimensional character.
Also, I have to ask the question... what was the profession of anti-faith (the anti-Creed) all about in the last scene? Daniel manipulated Eli into saying, in effect, "I am a false prophet, and God is a superstition." Umm... those two statements are not inseparable or even logically connected. In fact, if God is a superstition, on what basis do you declare someone to be a false prophet? My point in raising this issue is that the film refused to offer a moment of grace along the lines of a Flannery O'Connor story. There's no room for grace in a world where God does not exist. In fact, there's no room for the human person in such a world. So the story was fundamentally inhumane, in my opinion, a la War of the Worlds by Speilberg.
It's the difference between 21 Grams and Mystic River... the former is a true tragedy, where grace is offered and is a real possibility... the latter is simply a fatalistic pity party.
http://www.doxaweb.com/blog/2004...stake-
river.htm
Someone please show me an actual moment of grace being offered in this film... and being taken seriously as such.
Jeffrey -
The fact that I asked for more information about the director's intentions meant that I have not made up my mind about the director. What gave you the impression that my intention is to scorn the director?
And how is it okay to call my intentions into question? That is something I did NOT do with regard to the director, or in regard to you.
It's true that I didn't like this film, but I have a lot of respect for other work by this director. I appreciated many elements of Boogie Nights and Magnolia, but this film didn't even approach that level of artistry or humanity, in my opinion.
Forgive the snippy tone of my previous remarks. I just don't respond well when criticism of a film turns to belitting characterizations of those who disagree.
Clayton, here's an example of grace being offered:
SPOILER WARNING!!!
When Mary puts her arms around Plainview in the church after his confession. A rare and shining moment of grace in the middle of chaos. And the way Plainview reaches back and squeezes her hand, I find that to be a startling moment of real emotion from him.
Plus, Mary stays with H.W. through his troubles. She marries him. In a church wedding. And that is not portrayed with any scorn. It is a part of H.W.'s brave and painful retreat from his "father."
Some are also saying that Plainview only knows how to interact with others in an aggressive, competitive way. When he drives his son away at the end, we see flashbacks that show moments of awkward tenderness between them (albeit, tenderness expressed through playful rough-housing). This suggests that Plainview is actually *trying* to show mercy to his son in the end. He's doing it the only way he knows how... by PUSHING him away with the awful, cruel truth. The closest he can come to a generous act is given in the form of wrath and brutality. But it does "cut the cord." H.W. is free, and won't be back.
Clayton, please forgive my misinterpretation of your post. When you wrote...
Can you point me to the interview with the director? I'm seriously interested in what the director intended with this film. If he aspired to something truly noble, I'm interested in knowing how he failed so miserably in the execution of his aspirations.
... it sounded to me like you have already decided that Anderson "failed miserably." I perceived that you wanted to see an interview not to be persuaded, but to learn "how he failed so miserably in the execution of his aspirations."
I guess I "heard" a scornful tone there, but I have a wild imagination, so my sincere apologies.
For what it's worth, there is a *lively* conversation about the film happening at Arts and Faith. So far, nobody's come up with a list of character traits that define people who like or dislike the film. It's a civil disagreement among movie enthusiasts.
And for what it's worth, Anderson and Day-Lewis were interviewed on Charlie Rose. Anderson's "horror movie" comment was quoted at Ain't It Cool (but I know I'd read it elsewhere before that, I just can't put my finger on it right now.)
He was also interviewed by Jeffrey Wells several weeks ago, and the audio file was up at Hollywood Elsewhere for a while.
The scene in the bowling alley, by the way... was apparently a late revision to the script because they were filming inside the mansion of a rich "oil man" who had become misguided in his old age and been guilty of murder. The filmmakers discovered the underground bowling alley while they were renovating the place for the shoot, and they were so inspired by it that they cast the inevitable showdown there.
Thanks for the link - I appreciate it.
And the interviews with Charlie Rose can be found here:
http://www.charlierose.com/shows...e-will-be-
blood
Even as someone who loved BLOOD, I can't say I'm terribly surprised that Barbara doesn't like it -- we disagreed over GANGS OF NEW YORK, another style-over-script, impressionistic, lengthy, loosely-plotted period film centered on an operatic DD-L performance, which I liked much more than she did.
As for the portrayal of Eli Sunday, several things:
(1) I'm curious what would in her mind distinguish an acceptable portrayal of a bad clergyman from an unacceptable one. And surely the former has to exist, otherwise were in Baehr-land.
(2) There are plenty of other Christians in the movie that are not shown as corrupt -- Mary and HW, the rest of the Third Revelation Church members and the Sunday family, who are mostly just shown to be good simple folk -- welcoming the quail-hunting strangers, hugging and congratulating Daniel Plainview upon his conversion, rather than slapping him.
(3) Is it at all relevant, if we're going to complain about "the 'Man' in This Scenario is Christ Whose Mystical Body Is The Church" that the church in question is a charismatic, revivalist group with only the most tenuous of connections to the actual holy, catholic and apostolic Church? I'm not saying we Catholics should have contempt for our separated brethren, but we do believe that they are, at some level, conscious or otherwise, frauds. Particularly the sort of group that the Church of the Third Revelation is.
(4) What happens in the plot is not that "Religion and Capitalism [Are] the Most Corrupting Influences in Human Life," but, if one looks at the film in those sorts of allegorical terms, then its clear point is that "Capitalism [Is] the Most Corrupting Influence in Religious Life."
You can complain about that at a certain level as secular-liberal propaganda, but it's hardly "Blasphemous ... and Christian-Hating." (Orgiastic I'll give you, but that's the style of the scene's playing, not its content.)
Look at what happens ... Eli sees Daniel entirely in terms of his $5,000 promise, and uses membership in the church, baptism, as a tool to leverage business and sell land. And in the final scene, Daniel blackmails Eli into denying God by holding the prospect of money over him, something he is able to do because, as the changes in his costume show, Eli has become comfortably wealthy and can't imagine living without it. He could never have done this with a vowed or ordained clergy. (I'm not saying this was PTA's point ... simply noting that there is nothing blasphemous or anti-Christian about showing a preacher corrupted by material things. Our Lord warned His disciples not to worry about making material provisions, and Eli is one sort of scenario He warned against.)
Also, look at Daniel's character trajectory. It begins relatively sympathetically. He really is a miner, starting off with the wordless scenes of his actually doing his own mining, taking his own risks and making something of the sweat of his brow, his own hard
(reposting last graf ... Haloscan cut off for length)
Also, look at Daniel's character trajectory. It begins relatively sympathetically. He really is a miner, starting off with the wordless scenes of his actually doing his own mining, taking his own risks and making something of the sweat of his brow, his own hard-scrabble. And then, more or less every scene after that makes him less sympathetic than the one that went before until by the very last scene he's a raving maniac (the utter genius in DD-L's performance is that the trajectory is equally present in both the plot events *and* in his style of playing). And what are the last words -- "I am finished." i.e., "it is finished," turned into the first person -- Christ-delusions mixed with God-complex. That's the capper of a straight downward moral spiral, the eschaton of a life of sin. So ... I fail to see what is blasphemous about a minister being bullied into denial of the Lord (didn't Daniel make him say it three times?) **by a character who is a raving maniac for whom we have ZERO sympathy** -- as opposed to, say, being rebuked righteously by someone with a legit grievance.
So ... I fail to see what is blasphemous about a minister being bullied into denial of the Lord (didn't Daniel make him say it three times?) **by a character who is a raving maniac for whom we have ZERO sympathy** -- as opposed to, say, being rebuked righteously by someone with a legit grievance.
That probably wasn't the best way to put it ... I should have said something more like:
So ... I fail to see why it is Christian-hate to show a minister being bullied into denial of the Lord (didn't Daniel make him say it three times?) **by a character who is a raving maniac for whom we have ZERO sympathy** -- as opposed to, say, being rebuked righteously by someone with a legit grievance. After all, it's not as though a reasonable viewer can think by this point that he is supposed to approve of what Daniel does. ("Stick it to those Christianists ... yeah!!!")
Jeffrey -
I made an observation that the impulse to support this film by certain Evangelicals is part and parcel of the current implosion of Evangelicalism - which I call 'Faith Tradition Loathing Syndrome.' I am seeing it more and more in the last several years, and I can't say that it strikes me as a good thing. Many Evangelicals are losing their faith because their whole faith life has been wrapped up in the church as source of fellowship. So, when people get stripped of that by cultivating a vigorous despising of those with whom them fellowship, they have nothing left in a spiritual/ecclesial sense.
The impulse to see the message of "There Will Be Blood" as true, is the same thing which led some Evangelicals to get all suave and unconcerned about the The Da Vinci Code, and also to nod and apologise to the folks who made films like 'Forgiving the Franklins.'
My feeling is that most of the FTL Syndrome is coming from the desire to disassociate from the political positions of the religious right, which disassociation again takes the form of Evangelicals bashing other Evangelicals and seeing themselves as being hipper and more enlightened (ref. your despising of Ted Baehr.)
So, what I wrote was a sociological observation as an effort to try and account for the fact that you and others like you who are Christians are praising a film that make Christianity appear as a corrupting influence.
It was perhaps ugly and judgmental, but that doesn't make it untrue or unnecessary.
Jeffrey -
P.S. I am going to remove the offending line in the review because it really should have a lot more explanation, and it was meant to pique, not insult. (...and if I add everything I just wrote inthe prior comment, it will ruin my brilliant little "There Will Be...." format in the review.)
Barbara,
I don't despise Ted Baehr. I am grieved by some of the things he writes. Big, big difference.
Further, the New Testament points out charlatans, false prophets, and people who perform wonders in the power of the wrong spirit. Such deceivers exist to this day. If I acknowledge that this is true, do I get tagged with your FTL Syndrome sticker?
I've been a churchgoer my whole life. I'm devoted to Christ, and I will Christianity and the church is his body in the world today. I am enthusiastic about what God is doing in my own church, even if I sometimes speak with strong emotion about the state of the arts in the church (as you do on a regular basis). I respect the Republicans, Democrats, conservatives, and liberals in our congregation, although I make a concerted effort not to let any kind of "category" interfere with my relationships with them.
And my admiration for There Will Be Blood has nothing to do with my feelings about "the religious right". Nothing whatsoever.
(Actually, I have few feelings about "the religious right" or the "left" for that matter. I try to focus on individuals. Contempt for individuals *or* groups of people is ugly whoever is doing it, and whatever group they single out.)
And I'm saddened to read about some of the assumptions you've made about me and why I'm praising this film.
If what you assume about me were true, I wouldn't be able to bear my day-job, which I love. I wouldn't be able to bear my church. I wouldn't be able to bear my family. I wouldn't read many of the books I read and re-read.
If I was so eager to celebrate anything that portrayed Christianity as a corrupting influence, you'd find very different words about The Golden Compass on my site.
The reasons I loved this film are my own. So please don't bother "trying to account for the fact that me and others like me are praising" this film. Who are these "others like me", first of all? Just curious who else you've branded. They might be surprised to learn that they're praising this movie because it "makes Christianity appear as a corrupting influence."
Try listening to why I *do* admire the film, instead of inventing a version of me that doesn't exist. I do not believe the film makes Christianity appear as a corrupting influence. I think it portrays psychotic, egomaniacal charlatans as a corrupting influence. Big, big, big difference.
You mentioned:
The impulse to see the message of "There Will Be Blood" as true...
Umm... I wouldn't boil down a work of art to a simple "message." I don't get "a message" from There Will Be Blood. I find a lot of themes explored, and see things such as greed, hypocrisy, lying, ego, murder, and self-imposed isolation exposed as evil. On top of that, I believe that excellent craftsmanship itself is worth praising. And I find a great deal of that in Blood.
Jeffrey
Sorry about the typo in Paragraph Three. I tried to type:
I've been a churchgoer my whole life. I'm devoted to Christ, and I will celebrate Christianity and insist that the church is his body in the world today.
Basically, the point was that I don't support the impression that Christianity is a corrupting influence in the world today. I'm just generally displeased when false prophets mislead people.
Okay, I'm going to bed now.
If anybody else here ever gets the impression that I'm inclined to celebrate movies that portray Christianity as a corrupting influence, well... please email me and let's talk. I don't want any more sociological studies being done about "me and those like me" based on false assumptions.
Jeffrey
By the way, congrats on your new screenplay opportunity. I congratulated you on my blog earlier this week.
Yes, the secret's out: I tend to get excited when films portray Christianity as a meaningful, transforming, redeeming influence in society.
Oh people (except Overstreet)! Where is your sense of history! It's not a bash on religion in general, it's a bash on Amie Semple Macpherson style old school holy roller manipulating religion, the type that gave us the wonderful genre of televangelism. Sunday was never meant to be genuine, and he never was, not once in the film.
As for more profound thoughts - I need to see it again.
Jeffrey -
You gotta understand this about me, I'm a maffioso for Jesus. It's the Sicilian thing, I think. I don't have a lot of gray area when I sense an attack on "the family" and my impulse is to get the tommy-gun out of the violin case and ask questions later.
I'm always working on it, but there it is.
I really wanted to like this movie because you had said it was a masterpiece, but I couldn't get past what seemed to me to be the project's stunning artistic missteps, so I tried to piece together a reason that Christians would want to overlook the flaws. You say I got it wrong. I'm open to that. It has happened once or twice in the distant past. (Ha! JOKING!) But I think my overall observations about the trajectory of "post-modern Evangelicalism" are being vindicated every day and will continue to be. Let's talk about it in ten years and I bet I will be sad and smug.
Thanks for the good wishes for the Carmelite movie. We need to raise money, but I am going to write the script regardless. Eventually, one of these things I write is bound to make it all the way. You can't lose 'em all. Even in Hollywood.
Victor,
I like much of what you write here -- between you and Jeff, you've got me really wanting to see the film a second time -- but for what it's worth, I am not so sure that we can count on the audience to distance itself from Daniel's attitude towards Eli simply because Daniel himself is an increasingly unsympathetic character. A film like There Will Be Blood might not be a case of Good Guy Vs. Bad Guy, but it is, I think, a case of Bad Guy Vs. Even Worse Guy -- or at any rate, that is how it will be perceived by many audience members. And for most audience members, the "Even Worse Guy" will not be Daniel -- because Daniel has a certain strange, twisted integrity, whereas Eli is a fraud. I think it was Matt Zoller Seitz who compared the Daniel-Eli relationship to the way the Godfather films always used to contrast the Corleone family members with the even worse corrupt cops and senators, etc. Something of that dynamic seems to exist in this film, too.
One of my concerns with the movie is that the themes it embraces are simply mantras/refrains -- rather than insights that can transform me as a viewer. I mean, greed, dishonesty, hypocrisy are bad... I will grant that... but just saying that over and over doesn't really ignite the first spark of conversion or transformation in me.
The characters here are unspeakable dark and depraved in a Calvinist sort of way. It seems to me a true embodiment of the Puritan tradition... looking at others through the eyes of Young Goodman Brown.
And I don't relate to them for this reason. I experience in my life an attraction to the good, and also, at every step, mixed and impure motives. I didn't see this in the characters, and so it was difficult to connect with their humanity... it didn't ring true for me.
I wonder if other viewers experience the same thing. Depicting depraved characters who I don't related to might very well cause me to leave the theater feeling as smug as a Pharisee, ready to go out to the streetcorners and pray loud in thanksgiving that I am not like the rest of men. I don't like that impulse. I don't want movies that will confirm me in complacency, that will let me get away with pointing the finger at everyone else... it's leads to a counterfeit experience of redemption. What is needed is a theme that will get under my skin, like a parable, to throw a light into the unredeemed corners of my soul... that will reveal how I am more afraid of grace than I am of sin... that will disturb me.
For me, the problem with There Will Be Blood is that it doesn't challenge me to be better than I am.
Clayton,
I have to disagree respectfully about There Will Be Blood not being a challenging film. I think a study of the adopted son character shows an immense amount of challenge.(Plot Spoiler). He is made deaf by the greed of his father, sent away and brought back again...forced to be the prodigal son. That is parable I can't get out of my skin. The last scene with the interpreter was immensely challenging, he tells his father he loves him and that he needs to be separate from him. In addition, his marriage scene is the only authentic moment of Christianity depicted in the film...a solemn high marriage ceremony!
Just some thoughts.
Peace!
You gotta understand this about me, I'm a maffioso for Jesus. It's the Sicilian thing, I think. I don't have a lot of gray area when I sense an attack on "the family" and my impulse is to get the tommy-gun out of the violin case and ask questions later.
The reason why this model fails is that PT Anderson is also part of the family, even if he is angry at his Father.
For what it's worth, our chat about it is here. I think I didn't mind the relatively uncomplicated portrayal of Eli Sunday because I didn't think the film was really about the clash of the two men. I thought it was about Plainview and Plainview alone, and everybody else was a person only insofar as they impacted his life. I don't think we ever see a scene involving Eli that doesn't involve Plainview. Even in the scene where Eli attacks his father, Plainview is the reason why.
barbn wrote:
You gotta understand this about me, I'm a maffioso for Jesus. It's the Sicilian thing, I think. I don't have a lot of gray area when I sense an attack on "the family" and my impulse is to get the tommy-gun out of the violin case and ask questions later.
And I consider it an "attack on the family" whenever any Christian in the spotlight opens fire on other believers, branding and condemning them simply because they had a different impression of a work of art.
I'm defensive of the church too. Which is why I am very, very careful to differentiate when a movie is condemning "the body of Christ" and when a movie is condemning the abuse or desecration of the body of Christ.
I was horrified by Eli Sunday. Partly because he looks familiar to me. I've seen people do spectacularly disgusting things in the name of Christ. I *want* to see that kind of evil exposed for what it is, but I want the spirit of Christ to be held up as triumphant. I sensed that in this film, whether Anderson intended it or not. (Artists' intentions often have little to do with what their works end up saying.)
So what I don't understand, Barbara, is why you start diagnosing me for reacting in dismay toward, for example, Baehr's review, when that very review was an act of belittling, condescending judgment toward "those in the fellowship."
It's the slandering and the judgment that makes me sick. Not my "faith tradition."
It's Sunday morning. I don't want to go to church angry, so I'm going to try and hand all of this over to the Lord. But I will just say for the record that I feel deeply saddened that anything I've said has given the impression that A) I "loathe" my "faith tradition," or B) that I am trying to "distance myself from the religious right," or C) that I delebrate films that paint the body of Christ as a corrupting influence.
One of my favorite films this year was "Lars and the Real Girl," in part because of its sensitive, lovely portrayal of a caring Christian community and a pastor who knew just when to say "What would Jesus do?" My *favorite* film was "Into Great Silence."
And for me, "There Will Be Blood" was a vivid case of "Have nothing to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness... but instead even expose them." Exposure of such cancer is, for many, the first step toward understanding the disease. It's not a pleasant film, but it is for some of us a meaningful one. And I don't think any of us who think so deserve to be labeled as loathing the church.
[Edited by moderator...the point has been made. I am editing your negative labeling of my work in response to your request to be called when you do the same thing. "Basta," as we say in the family.]
Edited By Siteowner
>The reason why this model fails is that PT Anderson is also part of the family, even if he is angry at his Father.
I think this is wishful thinking.
Now, granted that the defining state of Protestantism has been internecine warfare, still, I think it is naive to interpret assaults like the one Anderson perpretrates in "blood" as being the flailing around of some disciples whose feelings have been hurt.
Sometimes, these attacks come from Judas who was also a former disciple, but who the Scriptures inform us allowed Satan to enter his heart.
In the end, "Blood" leaves no one in the audience wanting to be part of a Christian community. Au contraire. I call that a very effective assault.
I have seen this movie twice. I enjoyed it. I guess I need to study film more, because I didn't see it as being self-indulgent, lacking plot points, or lacking in unmotivated characters. I was also not offended by the portrayal of "Christians". I thought PT Anderson was right in the way he portrayed Eli. I grew up in a very, very Pentacostal church and saw way to many men like him. I'm very serious. Charlatans, actors...calling themselves men of God, only after money, fame and power. I will think your observations through, though. Thanks for your opinion Barb.
- Chris
Did anybody notice how one costume had Eli wearing a black shirt with a white button at the top, making it look suspiciously like a clerical collar? Or how Eli joined his hands through the whole film, a symbolic pose I associate with Catholicism, not Evangelicalism.
No, no. Sorry, friends. The message is clear: Eli Sunday represents the whole body, not just bad, backwood fundamentalists.
This was clearly present in the first draft script for "There Will Be Blood," which I've read. Eli talks like a backwoods fundamentalist, but has all sorts of garb and symbols associated with high churches (namely Catholicism). PTA clearly mixes up his denominations, which is either out of ignorance or is intentional. And PTA is too smart for ignorance.
Victor says: There are plenty of other Christians in the movie that are not shown as corrupt -- Mary and HW, the rest of the Third Revelation Church members and the Sunday family, who are mostly just shown to be good simple folk -- welcoming the quail-hunting strangers, hugging and congratulating Daniel Plainview upon his conversion, rather than slapping him.
Oh, you mean the Christians that beat their children if they don't pray? Or the ones that gullibly go along with Eli? No Victor, I didn't see a positive portrayal of faith in the entire film.
No Victor, I didn't see a positive portrayal of faith in the entire film.
You may have missed Mary, then, who was so moved by Plainview's admission of sin (genuine or otherwise) that she embraced him in comfort... such an unusual gesture in the film that it even moves Plainview.
She befriends H.W. in the midst of his troubled childhood.
She eventually marries him in a solemn Christian ceremony and ushers him out of the hell of his life (which echoes the way that Emily Watson's character, another symbol of grace, rescues Barry in "Punch-drunk Love").
That tells me that in spite of the abuse by her father, she did not abandon the church (although how much she has remained involved is unclear).
Of course, anyone is free to classify Mary's character as "wishful thinking."
I'm fairly shocked that you're deleting portions of Jeffrey Overstreet's comments.
It's not like he's some unknown troll.
He's a well-respected writer, and you're...editing his comments?
Wow. What in heaven's name is that about?
You're not the same Mary (full of grace) who's in There Will Be Blood, are you?
Jeffrey
P.S. What I meant was, please let me know if I slander or belittle a person in my writing. I didn't mean to say, "Stop me if I question another person's choice of words." The work and the writer are two different things.
But this is Barbara's blog, and if she wants to delete things she doesn't like reading, that's her perogative. So far, I've let her feisty comments on my own blog stand for all to see.
There's a lot of talk about the HW/Mary part of the film. I have to say this sub-plot seemed to drop into the story from nowhere -- I didn't see much setup for the wedding, and as far as the character arcs that brought them to the altar, well, I'd have to say I think the filmmakers pulled a Bella here: they left out the narrative and just showed us the end of some transformation, without giving much information about how they got there. I think this relationship could have been layered/multidimensional enough to hold my interest as a story, if they hadn't left it offscreen.
Did anybody notice how one costume had Eli wearing a black shirt with a white button at the top, making it look suspiciously like a clerical collar?
You mean this scene?
Or how Eli joined his hands through the whole film, a symbolic pose I associate with Catholicism, not Evangelicalism.
You mean like this?
Actually, Clayton, I agree somewhat with what you say about the "dropped-in" quality of the Mary-HW relationship, particularly on a first viewing. On second viewing, it's clearer how much had been going on on the edges of the frame between the two children, little recognized by us and even less so by Daniel Plainview.
And there is no doubt that the last two scenes of the movie are telescoped and have a "coda" or "rest of the story" quality, summing up events over decades in one single mano-a-mano scene each. The only thing I can say (that telescope quality bothered me some as I left the theater) is that the psychological development in the movie is over. Daniel Plainview is past redemption and the only thing to do is count the carnage (something those two scenes DO very effectively do).
Peter wrote:
but it is, I think, a case of Bad Guy Vs. Even Worse Guy -- or at any rate, that is how it will be perceived by many audience members. And for most audience members, the "Even Worse Guy" will not be Daniel -- because Daniel has a certain strange, twisted integrity, whereas Eli is a fraud.
Clearly, there is no way BLOOD is good-guy-vs.-bad-guy ... but stipulating that the minister presented in this movie is corrupt, that still leaves open the question of whether he is corruptING or corruptED. I don't see that the rest of the congregation has been harmed by him or turned bad because of him (though that depends on how you take the reactions of the old holdout Bandy and his conditions for the pipeline rights ... I take it as indifference to property, YMMV). And, as I've noted, Eli is first and last a creature of money, which suggests the ED-word.
I'm sure the Hitchens-fans can take the film the way you suggest. But I think that's a bit of a bigoted reaction on their part given how *utterly* and (literally) *laughably* over-the-top Day-Lewis is in that last scene. How much more explicitly can a film distance itself from its main character?
I don't know what audience reaction has been when you've seen BLOOD, but both times I did, there's been quite a bit of laughter at various points in that last scene. And while that's usually a bad thing in a movie that isn't a comedy, here I think it was an authentic nervous reaction, a kind of seat-squirming that's the opposite of identification, even on the terms you describe.
I think the ultimate difference here is that the corruption of churchmen simply doesn't strike me as a terribly trenchant or deep-cutting criticism of religion (all men are sinners; even priests ... I think that's been in the news a bit lately). And I **really** cannot understand Barbara's defensive "Sicilian/shoot-first" reaction. I can only take from her point about "sensing an attack on the family," that she sees any and every portrayal of a corrupt churchman as an assault on the Body of Christ. A revivalist Aimee-Semple-MacPherson (yay above!!!)huckster like Eli Sunday?? Criticism of THAT is blasphemous Christian-bashing?? That's a position I can't even understand, much less rationally disagree with. And if I'm wrong, what distinguishes an acceptable such portrait like [Film/Novel X] from an unacceptable one like BLOOD? If it were as simple as "showing bad churchman = blasphemy" then a Church so brittle would have long ago been shattered into dust (and deservedly so).
Actually, I just found the costume Mark refers to. It's in the trailer here, starting with above 1:35 left on the countdown trailer.
"Did anybody notice how one costume had Eli wearing a black shirt with a white button at the top, making it look suspiciously like a clerical collar?
You mean this scene?
Or how Eli joined his hands through the whole film, a symbolic pose I associate with Catholicism, not Evangelicalism.
You mean like this?"
This is ridiculous. The point of Eli's religion is that it's a sort of viciously post-modern one - reappropriating, copying, stitching. Inauthentic. In other words, like a thousands other cults grown from the ground soaked red in the blood of aboriginal peoples, secessionists, and opportunists. As inauthentic and obscene as any other head cheese pumped out of the mechanized melting pot.
To try and locate anti-Catholicism in Eli's garments is like saying "ya ever notice how that New Age priestess wears a collar very similar to that of a High Anglican circa 1888?"
I had problems with the film, and was turned sour by what I perceived as religious bashing, but the more I think bout it, the more I come to the conclusion: if the Body of Christ won't expose the charlatans, I'm glad somebody does.
And as for "capitalism," Chesterton, that hideous progressive, was certainly no fan, and the Holy Father regularly makes statements that seem to call any Christian intercourse with the capitalistic fever into question. Catholicism long predates capitalism, and will certainly (praise the Lord!) outlast it.
Hollywood wouldn't be the battlefield it is if it wasn't beholden to the bottom line and the innate capitalist need to make more money at any cost. At root, there is no ground that the capitalist and the Catholic can share.
As for the coda, I rather liked it, because it gave us that wonderful last line from Plainview (SPOILER):
"I'm finished."
Amen, brother. A telling, perverse echo of Christ's "It is finished."
Victor wrote:
I don't know what audience reaction has been when you've seen BLOOD, but both times I did, there's been quite a bit of laughter at various points in that last scene. And while that's usually a bad thing in a movie that isn't a comedy, here I think it was an authentic nervous reaction, a kind of seat-squirming that's the opposite of identification, even on the terms you describe.
My one screening so far was a press screening a month and a half ago, and yeah, there was definite laughter there. But I don't think that failing to identify with Plainview means we will necessarily disagree with what he does to Eli; or, rather, I don't think it means that we won't necessarily get some satisfaction out of seeing the corrupt minister get what's coming to him. The movies are full of monstrous characters who act out the violent fantasies of the audience members -- fantasies that go way beyond what anybody in the audience would ever officially "approve" of -- and I'm not sure there isn't a similar dynamic working here.
To put this another way, I'm not sure I could imagine a movie that turned the tables and ended with a hilariously over-the-top preacher humiliating and then murdering a capitalist and then smugly declaring "I'm finished." Religion tends not to get the upper hand like that.
Clayton and Victor -
I'm intrigued by your comment about the HW and Mary thing being dropped in with little development - and also by the criticism the film's been receiving about the stagnancy of Plainview as a character. I'm not sure this necessarily makes it a bad film, or even a flat character - I think rather, Anderson is taking a more literary approach to his film than we typically expect in American cinema. It's a slow reveal of the depths of a character, not a traceable arc of what made him that way. I see much more of classical storytelling in that (as in Greek tragedy's not really about a dynamic arc, but a revelation of character - very little psychological drama in the ancient world). In that sense, as my infinitely smarter brother commented, it's really a Homeric style epic of America. I find it compelling on film, but I can understand why others don't.
I guess it boils down to whethe ryou think that can be successful or not.
In our screening here in Hollywood, there was snorting all throughout the scenes in which the Christians were praying in church, or any time any one said anything religious.
And during the beating of Eli, people were whooping it up. "Yeah!"
There are people who call us Christianists and Christers, for whom watching a Christian minister being revealed as a fraud and a hypocrite, and then beating him to death is a happy, happy fantasy. For these folks, watching "Blood" was like sex addicts watching the Spice Channel.
Victor wrote:
But I think that's a bit of a bigoted reaction on their part given how *utterly* and (literally) *laughably* over-the-top Day-Lewis is in that last scene.
Heck, if I gulped down an entire bottle of... what was that, whiskey?... I'd be laughably over-the-top too. I can't speak from experience, but I've heard tell that the booze can make some people rather... flamboyant. (I just watched the the Peter O'Toole/Woody Allen/Peter Sellers version of Casino Royale, and their drunken rants are far, far, far more flamboyant and outrageous than those in There Will Be Blood.)
Further, religious zeal can provoke people to over-the-top behavior as well. As evidenced in this comment thread.
And I think the last scene is supposed to be discomfortingly funny. Both characters have become funhouse-mirror distortions of their former selves, descending farther and farther into their own internal abysses. (Abyssi?) The "milkshake" reference only serves to emphasize how insanely immature Plainview and Sunday really are... two infantile egomaniacs clashing over who gets whose ice cream? I laughed too... at the honesty of their childishness and vanity. I thought of the Gigantic Infant in Spirited Away, throwing a tantrum and trashing the nursery. (Strange, I also thought of the Greed Monster in Spirited Away, which seemed to be made out of oil.)
chris wrote:
I grew up in a very, very Pentacostal church and saw way to many men like him. I'm very serious. Charlatans, actors...calling themselves men of God, only after money, fame and power.
... continued ...
chris wrote:
I grew up in a very, very Pentacostal church and saw way to many men like him. I'm very serious. Charlatans, actors...calling themselves men of God, only after money, fame and power.
... continued ... (Sorry! The html typo cut it off.)
chris wrote:
I grew up in a very, very Pentacostal church and saw way to many men like him. I'm very serious. Charlatans, actors...calling themselves men of God, only after money, fame and power.
Thank you, Chris. I'm surprised when others question my claim that Sunday reminds me of preaching I've seen before. I thought that hysterical circus-sideshow tactics like that were fairly well-known.
And then there's the intriguing question: Is Eli possessed? He talks about casting out evil spirits, and about his new method -- "a gentle whisper" -- and within a few moments he's shrieking and growling in a voice that sounds like it's coming from somewhere... or something... else. I thought of The Exorcism of Emily Rose.
Barbara:
Would it be permissible, to say, make a film about, say, a corrupt 9th century or Renaissance churchman?
Or is that an attack as well?
Would it confirm prejudices of a secular audience?
I am really not getting you here. It seems to me that your criterea are not about art, but about Christian PR, and I thought that was the opposite of what you were about.
--At root, there is no ground that the capitalist and the Catholic can share.--
Stuff and nonsense. Capitalism is an economic system, not a synonym for "greed." Unless in this movie (which I have not seen yet!), the use of Capitalist is more of a metaphor for something far more sweeping than mere economics...and then you're not talking "capitalist" but "Capitalist" (as in "every man" versus "Everyman").
The system is neutral; the misuse of it is wrong. Don't confuse the two.
Mary -
Running here so don't have time to answer a really great question. I'll try to get to it before too long.
Briefly, I would say that a balanced Christian worldview requires that the most powerful moments in a story should be of grace being offered, not of the triump of darkness. Good and evil are not equal, and it is a lie to represent them as so.
(And I might be okay with lie as provoking people toward the truth. I object to lie masquerading as truth.)
Secondly, I would say that art always has a context, and it might be that there are ethical considerations in this respect that make asking certain questions at volatile times like shouting "Fire!" in a crowded, well, theater. Hitler understood this which is why he put a lot of money into artistic projects in support of the Final Solution. Jesus himself said, "I have many things to say to you, but you can not hear them now."
It isn't a question of artists not having a right to ask prophetic questions. It is whether it is loving to do it.
On another level, my instincts are that no subject is off limits if it is handled with respect for the audience's full humanity. Thus, you can talk about anything as long as you do not play to the audiences' base inclinations. There needs to be balance.
But in this case, the truth is that by not making a stronger point of showing grace being offered to Eli and Daniel, "Blood" posits that their corruption is in their fabric of their identity as minister and capitalist. That isn't just.
But in this case, the truth is that by not making a stronger point of showing grace being offered to Eli and Daniel, "Blood" posits that their corruption is in their fabric of their identity as minister and capitalist. That isn't just.
I thought of them as two corrupt men, not a minister and a capitalist. I was kind of perplexed by the reactions I've seen from some Christian reviewers denouncing the movie as anti-Christian and anti-business. I think you'd have to be really looking for that agenda in order to find it in this movie. It's like reading "Night of the Hunter" as anti-Christian because of Mitchum's character.
A telling, perverse echo of Christ's "It is finished."
Yes, that was definitely apropos. I was more impressed by the Trinitarian anti-liturgy in the assassination scene of Jesse James and the Coward Robert Ford, with Jesse as the suicidal anti-sacrifice of the Son in order to condemn the world...
The system is neutral; the misuse of it is wrong. Don't confuse the two.
That is inherently incorrect. Capitalism, by nature, is meant to increase capital and profit, at any cost.
Like a rapacious amoeba. To attempt and argue that it is "neutral" is like attempting to argue that cancer is neutral as long as it's kept in check by the natural processes of the bloodstream.
>I thought of them as two corrupt men, not a minister and a capitalist.
The director doesn't agree with you. Look on line for lots of interviews about the religion and capitalism thing he was playing out.
From an interview with the AV Club:
--------
AVC: Some people will surely see it as a message movie because Upton Sinclair's name is on it, but for other obvious reasons as well. Were you thinking about modern-day strong-arm capitalism and mega-church religion while you were writing and shooting it?
PTA: I was thinking that we'd better be very careful not to do too much of that. And what I mean by that is what I said earlier, that we should approach the film as a horror film and a boxing match first. You know you're walking into a film about an independent oilman and a guy that runs a church. The risks that you run are big, long speeches that would help in paralleling or allegoricalizing, if that's a word. [Laughs.] We thought, "Let's be careful." That's a slippery slope, isn't it?
-----------
Doesn't sound like he was aiming at what you're saying he was.
Another quote from Anderson on the religious/capitalist aspect of the film:
"Well, aware of it to know that if we indulged too much in it, or let that stuff rise to the top, that it could get kind of murky. And it’s a slippery slope when you start thinking about something other than just a good battle between two guys that kind of see each other for what they are, just trying to work from that first and foremost and let everything that is there fall into place behind it. I would be wrong - it would be horrible to make a political film or anything like that. Tell a nasty story and let the rest take care of itself."
Daggum ... John beat me to the punch. Exact same interview even.
I think we have part of the reason Barbara reacted so negatively (though, as I've said, I don't think this film was in her aesthetic wheelhouse under any circumstance) -- the screening she attended and the audience she saw it with. An audience can determine our reaction to a movie beyond what is on the screen. I've often wondered whether my vastly differing opinions on two Todd Solondz films -- HAPPINESS being great; PALINDROMES being vile crap -- was merely a function of my seeing the former more or less by myself in a huge theater and reacting to it as a sad story, while seeing the latter at a packed auditorium that was yukking it up at a movie I didn't think was a bit funny.
I would have to agree with Barb's comment that there is nothing in this film that would make one want to join the Christian community. One of the keys is Eli's over the top "ministry" which overall seemed rather bizarre (however, as a former Protestant myself, I have seen types of that preaching).
So we are set up knowing Eli is a total fraud and conducts services most everyone in the audience would consider laughable.
Then we have the Christians. They are sincere, they are nice. But ultimately, they are dupes taken in by a fraud, who apparently are too gullible to see through the charade.
The last scene almost has the sense of, "This whole Christian thing is a fraud adhered to by innocent dupes. Maybe it's better if we just kill the minister and then maybe these dupes can get a life."
This is a complete aside to my previous topic, but one thing I found really odd was when at the church service Eli talked about having something (I forget what, revelation, anointing?) coming out of his "stomach."
I just thought that was such an odd word because usually in a context like that you'd hear "heart" or "spirit" or maybe "gut." But stomach?! Like he's going to regurgitate a sandwich?
This brings up a good question:
What the heck is the THIRD REVELATION anyway?
Is that like the third trumpet, or the third seal of the scrolls of the apocalypse?
either the third revelation is an example of PTs total ignorance, or a nod to the syncretic nature of Eli's ego-ligion.
Perhaps it's Old Covenant/New Covenant/Third Revelation typology.
In any event, unless we have read OIL!, we cannot assume that the ignorance (if it be that) is PT's. And unless we want to hold church names to a standard of theological truth (which'd be absurd), we cannot even really assume ignorance at all.
Forgive me if this has been discussed earlier, but trying to wade through this comment box has given me tired head.
When I first walked out of this film, I also thought it was another religion-bashing, "Golden Compass"-esque kill-God kind of film. But then in reading some reflections on the film online, I found one very interesting interpretation about the final scene ...
SPOILER ALERT - ENDING DISCUSSED
This film is first and foremost about Daniel Plainview's descent into madness. After he ditches his adopted son, there is nobody left to alienate himself from except God... or in this case, Christ -- which is represented to Plainview in Eli Sunday. Judging by the lack of reaction of the butler to the "crime scene" and the lack of aging in Sunday, it has been proposed that the final scene was all in Plainview's mind... by killing Sunday, he has finally completed his descent into madness/hell... hence he says "I'm finished."
When I heard that, it made sense... Sunday and Plainview represented what the other resented most...
Having thought about the above wants me to see it again.
Hmmm. That doesn't quite work for me, at least not without some persuading.
Anderson goes out of his way to introduce the butler coming down the stairs, and then he gives us a view of that bloody spectacle from the butler's vantage point. Why bother with that, if it's all in Plainview's mind?
If "The Church of the Third Revelation" suggests anything to me as a name... it suggests an aberration, a cult, something that claims to separate itself from the Old and New Testaments, or from earlier manifestations of the gospel.
Perhaps that's why Plainview says so little about Jesus, and so much about what God is revealing to him and him alone.
Perhaps that's why Plainview says so little about Jesus, and so much about what God is revealing to him and him alone.
... a distinction that goes back to THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER and the Gish-Mitchum "Leaning" duet and Mitchum's credo at the start of the movie and in the prison cell.
Victor wrote:
Perhaps it's Old Covenant/New Covenant/Third Revelation typology.
Yeah, that's how it came across to me, too. Which may make Eli more of a Joseph Smith figure than an Elmer Gantry figure -- in other words, precisely the sort of figure that we would probably not consider Christian, not in any way that reflected on mainstream Orthodox or Catholic or even Protestant churches. But I'm not sure PTA -- or, more to the point, Plainview -- really cares all that much about those sorts of distinctions.
Feisty thread here. And one recurring theme here makes me wonder: I wonder if there's a blog for oilmen somewhere out there, and if they're complaining that one of their own has been portrayed as a "one-dimensional idiot" and that the film is giving oilmen a bad name.
Bottom line: EVERY profession -- clergy, oilmen, lawyers, doctors, film critics, etc. -- has its wayward/corrupt/immoral characters, and as far as I'm concerned, such characters are just as much fodder for Hollywood portrayals as the good guys. This just happens to be a movie about bad guys in both lines of work.
One more thing: I have no doubt that Daniel Plainfield is a legitimate oilman who knows the ropes of his business -- how to find oil, how to get it out of the ground, how to make money -- even if he goes about it in immoral ways. But I have serious doubts about whether Eli Sunday is a "legitimate" preacher -- he *doesn't* know his business, or even the basics of the gospel message . . . or at least has a seriously twisted view of what the "gospel" really is (and in his mind, it's clearly a gospel without grace). Eli might just be a poser who never went to seminary or received proper theological training. One might even argue that Eli ISN'T at all "one of our own" -- as I believe Jeffrey has suggested, he might well even be one of the Devil's own.
It's not my favorite movie of the year; I think the film was *too* character-driven (whether you call them caricatures or not) without enough emphasis on the story itself. It felt more like just a Big Character Study rather than a story. But I found the lead characters quite compelling, despicable as they are.
FWIW . . .
mark -
The difference is that Daniel is good as an oilman. Whereas Eli is bad as a minister.
So oilmen would have no objections to his portrayal as an oilman. (Although if there were such aq thing as oilmen websites, I could see them objecting to the caricature of themselves as greedy, lying, blood-sucking maniuplators.)
But I don't understand why everyone is so willing to view this project apart from its historical context. This movie which depicts Christians as phony and willing to blaspheme for their own greed is being lauded in a moment in which there are just not a lot of holy ministers on the screen. It seems to me like making a movie cabout a greedy, manipulative Jew in 1932 in Germany. I mean, there are greedy manipulative Jews, right?
Barb wrote:
But I don't understand why everyone is so willing to view this project apart from its historical context. This movie which depicts Christians as phony and willing to blaspheme for their own greed is being lauded in a moment in which there are just not a lot of holy ministers on the screen.
Really? Huh. The thing that has struck me about the anti-Christian stereotyping in recent movies like The Mist and There Will Be Blood is how, well, retro it is. Lots of recent movies like Juno, Lars and the Real Girl, The Bucket List (a Rob Reiner film, no less!), The Great Debaters and Firewall -- to cite the first five films that come to mind -- have featured decent Christian characters, including ministers and worship leaders. Sometimes they are only relatively minor supporting characters, and sometimes they are major co-stars, but the movies in general haven't felt anywhere near as hostile to me lately as they did a decade or two ago. And because the movies haven't felt so hostile lately, I find it relatively easy to take a negative caricature like Eli Sunday and to look at him in the broader context of the movie as a whole and to ask what is really going on with that character and his interactions with other people. I don't feel the need to do the identity-politics thing and demand better representation, because it's already out there.
Peter -
I definitely think the tide has turned as you noted, but I think you are seeing that tide changing on the indie side. The baby boomers in Hollywood who still have studio/agency power are pretty solidly biggotted as regards Christians, and their efforts will continue to be reflected on studio films while they have breath.
This movie which depicts Christians as phony and willing to blaspheme for their own greed is being lauded in a moment in which there are just not a lot of holy ministers on the screen.
Correction. It depicts a religious fantatic as phony and willing to blaspheme for his own greed.
I see little evidence that Eli is, in fact, a Christian. What Christian believes that "God will not tolerate stupid men"...?
The fact that Eli's church is given a name that practically shouts "Cult!", and that there is an obvious lack of gospel in his message, suggests that he's may not be much of a Christian.
And Paul Thomas Anderson is the last major-studio-picture director who I would suspect of being part of some Hollywood Baby Boomer Bigotry trend. In that case, his past films have been bigoted towards: Game Show Hosts; Small Businessmen (mattress men, specifically); certain porn industry folks (but not all); blonde brothers from the backwoods; and big Jewish families. This time, it's a devil disguised as a minister... a cult leader.
Anderson's 37. He's always done things his own way, and Hollywood has gone for it because he gets big stars on board. His films are more like indie films than Hollywood products.
And is Plainview such a good oil man? He scrambles to become one when he strikes oil (accidentally). He's sloppy. He breaks his leg because of his own shoddy skills building a ladder. His oil drills cause multiple deaths. He shows little regard for his workers or for anybody. He acts like a seventh-grader in a cafeteria brawl when he sees Real Oil Men. If I were an oil man, I'd consider this to be about as wicked a representative as I could imagine. But it's just one oil man... so I wouldn't take offense.
Again, I never once considered this an attack on Christianity. It seems obvious to me that it's about a distortion, an abuse of power within the house of God. But more than that, it's about an oil man's abuse of power. And thus, above all, it's about pride, ego, hatred, and competition.
If I were writing a story, I wouldn't step back and say, "Hmmm, I must consider the trends. Are there other villains like this one around right now?" I would write the story I felt led to write.
And then there's the question of the source material. Is Eli Sunday in Sinclair's book? I've read that this is a very loose interpretation, like Children of Men was a very loose interpretation. But still, if this was the story he was given, and he wanted to explore it, well... perhaps you should direct your anger at Sinclair Lewis.
Oh for heaven sakes, of course Eli is a Christian.
I need more than a glimpse of his pulpit and his costume to be convinced. His sermons and his behavior certainly don't persuade me. And when does he ever bother to tell Plainview about Jesus? He only strives to make Plainview kneel, so he can beat and manipulate him. Plainview's only use to him is money and land.
Jeffrey wrote:
He acts like a seventh-grader in a cafeteria brawl when he sees Real Oil Men. If I were an oil man, I'd consider this to be about as wicked a representative as I could imagine. But it's just one oil man... so I wouldn't take offense.
Just to play devil's advocate -- if that's the right term -- I think part of the issue here may be that, while the film does contrast Plainview with "Real Oil Men", the film never contrasts Eli with "Real Church Men". So there is a nuance to the film's portrayal of oil-rich capitalists that is lacking from the film's portrayal of charismatic ministers. Arguably.
Jeffrey, it was good being allied with you.
Peter wrote:
I think part of the issue here may be that, while the film does contrast Plainview with "Real Oil Men", the film never contrasts Eli with "Real Church Men".
To play jujitsu here, I *would* argue that Daniel Plainview is at the very least, a real miner. We actually, you know, see him mine, with his own pickax. And take risks, and suffer therein. (At the time, fatal accidents in mine fields were not rare events and the two we see in BLOOD were clearly accidents, so I wouldn't overemphasize that.) He takes in HW at first as a post-mortem homage to a man whom we're cued to see at the time as his "best buddy." Plus Daniel knows his stuff (geology and technical).
Whereas, the men from Standard are shown as plutocrats with, as they say, clean fingernails. They're better-dressed than Plainview, and his resentment of them, both personal ("don't tell me to run my family") and business (having to pay their railroad), lies decidedly on the ressentiment side of the things.
It's the "business as craft"-vs.-"business as business" story that's been told a gazillion times (Anderson sketched the porn business on a similar polarity in BOOGIE NIGHTS -- film-vs.-video, Jack-vs.-the Colonel)
This also better fits Plainview's straight-down, Calvinist (hoorah to whoever said that above) character trajectory. He begins as a decent if rough-edged yeoman and ends as an insane rich capitalist, as his own labor is alienated, as he becomes rich, and as he takes on wage servants -- in other words, becomes exactly what he resents. (Other parallel -- he comes talkier as the film progresses.) In other words, Plainview IS a "real oilman" but one who becomes otherwise when corrupted by capitalism.
I'm with you, Victor. I can't remember much unprofessionalism on Plainview's part outside of his relations to Sunday. He loses it with the Standard Oil men when he perceives them to be trodding on his personal life. He encourages workers to bring their families to the drill site. He seeks to improve the places that make him rich - bringing roads and schools, etc. Most tellingly, he goes to Eli about giving the dead oil worker a funeral, even though he hates Eli, out of regard for the fact that the deceased was a religious man. I might suggest a little wrinkle in your account of his corruption: he is ruined in part because, for him, the good is in the getting and the fighting to get. WIthout the fight, he must rest, and he is ruined for resting, because he has no love. At the opening of the bowling alley scene, he is practically comatose. But when he meets his old enemy - when he has fight before him - he springs to life in almost manic fashion.
He encourages workers to bring their families to the drill site. He seeks to improve the places that make him rich - bringing roads and schools, etc.
I remember him saying he would do those things. But did he? Perhaps I need to watch the movie again, but I don't remember seeing those things actually happen.
In fact, when he talks about the workers bringing their families to the site, those words play over a scene in which solitary workers come out of tents and walk toward the rig. I'm not arguing with you, I'm just asking, because I don't remember these things actually happening. His promises were also full of language about how he's a family man, and the children are our future, and he's a man of plain-speaking, etc, lie, etc, distortion, etc, buttering people up, etc....
Ah, Jeffrey, it's good to be back on your side again.
You are remembering the "bring their families" promise correctly. It is a voiceover to images of single men in tents. And historically, the oil industry and other risky professions (other miners, soldiers, cops, firemen, prizefighters) have preferred and attracted single men, precisely because of their unattached status.
As for Plainview's economic and infrastructure promises, they almost certainly did (though we don't see it happen in BLOOD [or pointedly not-happening like the families] for story-trajectory reasons). Its happening would not have been dependent on Plainview's intentionality though, because those sorts of things are the natural result of business success ... insert Adam Smith's maxim about our not being fed by the benevolence of the butcher and the baker.
Well, Eli certainly couldn't a Muslim. Or a Jew. And he doesn't seem to be any kind of funky Hindu or Shinto.
It's a hit piece.
George "Oilman" W. "Christian" Bush is the target of the frothy-mouthed tinsel-towners in adoration of this thing.
Now, I will grant (because I can grow) that other people may like it for other reasons...
George "Oilman" W. "Christian" Bush is the target of the frothy-mouthed tinsel-towners in adoration of this thing.
Letting others, the They, influence your assessment of a work of art for negative reasons ("they like it, and I don't like them, therefore I don't") is hardly more rational doing the same for positive reasons ("they like it, and I like them, so I will too").
Actually, I've read reviews in which critic said they started out worrying that it was going to be just that... "a hit piece"... because of the subject matter, but that they were relieved to find it was a work of art, rather than a work of propaganda. I'm extremely sensitive to propaganda in art... I don't like it when it's against the church, and I don't like it when it's for the church. If it's propaganda, it's not art. There's a timelessness to this movie that means it will give just as much substantial fodder for contemplation and discussion in twenty-five years as it does now. And I believe that, in part, because the film boasts so many of the same strengths as great films by Altman and Kubrick and Malick, to name a few.
Regarding Eli and whether he is a Christian minister or not, I think there are a couple of points I’d like to make. One is the use of the term “blood” as in receiving or being washed in the blood, as one of Eli’s congregants told Plainview he needed to do. And the scene where Plainview does that he uses phrases about receiving the blood, and “I want to receive the blood, Lord.” Which is obviously consonant with Protestant/Pentecostal evangelistic phraseology.
On a different point, regarding Eli’s representation of Christianity, I think it’s interesting to note that this is really not a Mano E Mano showdown, but more like a Mano E Effeminate Boy showdown (and thus another aspect of representing Christianity poorly when the minister is effeminate). Plainview at one point calls Eli effeminate (among other things). And naturally with the look of the two actors, Eli just naturally looks more effeminate.
Victor -
You're being - uncharacteristically - unfair. My review cited plenty of reasons I found this project wanting.
I'm sorry I came across that way, Barbara. I said more than once above that I'm not terribly surprised that you didn't care for THERE WILL BE BLLOD FOR OIL, that it's not aiming for the sweet spot of your aesthetic bat.
That said, reading your words in the combox, particularly about the screening you attended (I was careful to note that it's something we've all had happen to us) and what you said about your own temperament, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that these things are no factor whatever -- as an amplifier or intensifier rather than a cause per se.
. . . Mano E Effeminate Boy . . .
Just for the record: "mano a mano" means "hand to hand", not "man to man".
". . . Mano E Effeminate Boy . . .
Just for the record: "mano a mano" means "hand to hand", not "man to man"."
Yes, that's true, but according to the Urban Dictionary:
1. mano e mano
man to man, one on one, usually used in the context of a physical confrontation / altercation between two gentlemen.
okay, buddy, you and me, mano e mano.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/
d...erm=mano+e+mano
Just saw it again and am still sticking by the theory that the final scene was all in Daniel's mind.
Your evidence FOR that is??
From me earlier post...
<
<
This film is first and foremost about Daniel Plainview's descent into madness. After he ditches his adopted son, there is nobody left to alienate himself from except God... or in this case, Christ -- which is represented to Plainview in Eli Sunday. Judging by the lack of reaction of the butler to the "crime scene" and the lack of aging in Sunday, it has been proposed that the final scene was all in Plainview's mind... by killing Sunday, he has finally completed his descent into madness/hell... hence he says "I'm finished."
Does anyone know why Eli poured three drinks in the final scene when it was just the two of them?
Well, how about that!!
Apparently, the team at Christianity Today Movies is utterly blind to bigotry against the very church they love! Either that or... or maybe... maaaaaybe... maybe there's another possibility.
Eli poured three drinks because it was symbolic of Christ and the last supper. During the passover meal Hebrew tradition has 4 glasses being consumed. Christ was on the third glass at the last supper which is called the Eucharistic glass. Then while on the cross Christ said, "I thirst" and was given bitter wine. He then bowed his he and said "it is finished." That is what Anderson was trying to replicate in the exact opposite way -- his way of showing Eli and Plainview as opposite of Christ -- hence, "I am finished" is the last line.
Fascinating discussion here. My husband came back from seeing There Will Be Blood saying that it was the best movie he'd seen in five years. He said it made him understand the sin against the Holy Spirit, and damnation.
I had already decided not to see the film, being both a staunch Barbara loyalist and a disliker of violence except in genre films -- mystery, SF, fantasy, horror (except for the torture sub-genre, ugh).
Over on Sister Rose Pacatte's Cineandmedia list, one naysayer has been unsuccessfully trying to mount an opposing viewpoint to the praise the film has received. I thought I'd scout around and see if I could find him some support. Coming back to Barbara's blog and reading all the commentary since I last visited, though, has had an opposite effect. Now I want to see the movie.
So Bill and I are going out tonight to see it. He welcomes another viewing. He's got a fairly keen spiritual insight, and so I think a visceral view of the sin against the Holy Spirit and damnation could be a salutary experience during Lent.
Rae
I had already decided not to see the film, being ... a disliker of violence except in genre films
THERE WILL BE BLOOD, whatever else might be said about it, is not a violent movie. It's pitched at a very high emotional register, it features a thoroughly dislikable protagonist, there's quite a few psychologically harrowing scenes. But it is not a violent movie by any bar the most rigorist standards ... where did you get the idea that it was? It has three industrial accidents, two murders and a couple of fights/beatings -- none of them played for entertainment's sake.
If I could add a couple points that I think was fascinating about the film that were missed over or overlooked. The fact that Eli was corrupt from beginning to end, yes he was, does not bespeak poorly of all religion. Think back to Canterbury Tales, Chaucer is constantly creating clergy caricatures, but he follows that up with revealing what 'good Christians' are liken to. So where does this happen in There Will Be Blood? In the character of H.W., arguably the one normal and rational character in the film, we see not only a good Christian but a good capitalist. Metaphorically purified by fire, he grows deaf to the lies and deceits that would have transformed him into another Daniel Plainview: ("Thank God I am not like You," he says after stating he is going to go start his own business, hence capitalist) Also, we see that H.W. comes to Christ through... Mary (did this not seem coincidental to all you Catholics?) Throughout the entirety of the movie we see only crosses, no Christ, but one time do we see Christ in this film, and that is around the neck of Mary on a crucifix. Someone commented earlier that there wasn't much development of the relationship of H.W. and Mary's relationship; however, we have all we need to know: centered in the first shot of their wedding is Christ! Ergo, we can make the deduction that H.W. (the one rational character) has centered his relationship with Christ in and through the aid of Mary (the one person who was there with him through the trials of his life i.e. deafness). And Anderson poignantly marks the belief of his character by showing H.W. make the sign of the Cross. Doesn't seem anti-religious to me. Seems to be saying something quite profound. Secondly, I believe this movie was a very Dickensian look at life, not a literal one. Even looking at the characters names makes me think of something out of David Copperfield. That is why I disagree with what the average Joe may take out of this movie. Anderson doesn't make his movies for the average Joe, they are not surface level... there is severe metaphorical spelunking to be done to ascertain the truth to his works. Come on, how many people instantly grasped the meaning behind raining frogs in Magnolia? Yet, it remains a fundamentally Christian work...
Victor, you are right that There Will Be Blood is not a particularly violent film. I got the idea it had a lot of violence from the title, the television ads, and the buzz that Daniel Day-Lewis played an extravagantly evil man. I guess I thought it was going to be like Gangs of New York.
I enjoyed the movie, but came away from it non-plussed. I liked it about as much as I thought I would from the description, and would have been just as happy if I hadn't read this discussion and never seen the movie. It does not seem like Best Picture material to me. (But few Best Pictures do).
I was not outraged, like Barbara, by the depiction of Christianity. From the moment Daniel made his "plainspeaking" offer to buy the land for quail hunting (!), and Eli responded with understanding that his family was being made a mark, I thought the film was not about ideology but competition and aggression.
Who knows what kind of Christian Eli might have been if Daniel had not tried to cheat him so egregiously from the beginning? Sin has a domino effect. The soil was rocky already for Eli. His family included beatings and betrayal. Parched soil for any good seed to grow, just like his land.
My husband explained his previous comments about damnation to me. He said the last scene shows how the damned live through eternity. They know they are sinners, they despair of their sin, and they lash out at each other over and over again.
My observation to my husband was that this film, like so many films about men doing bad things, lacked one vital element: not enough women! One reason that Miller's Crossing is my favorite gangster movie is that the relationship between the sexes is integral to the movie. Not like in Goodfellas or the Godfather, where the women are always an afterthought.
So in the end, I yawned more than I like to at a movie. It could have been shorter. The derrick fire was spectacular, and deserves this year's Academy award for Best Fire.
Commenting by HaloScan
