Quote:

Originally Posted by agracru 

I'm loathe to go into Oscar talk at any time of the year-- even Oscar time-- but  as premature as it is to talk about awards for an actor whose full performance we haven't seen yet, I can't help but nod in ascent. I have a suspicion this is going to be a massive, massive role for Phoenix in terms of golden statues.

Surprised with all the other talk about the film just getting made that no one has mentioned Academy voters who may be Scientologists and if the circumstantial nature of the film's relevance to Hubbard keep it out of the courtroom you can be damned sure they will snub the hell out of it come awards season.

Seriously? We've hit "Scientology runs The Academy!" level conspiracy discussions now? 

There's more Catholics than there are Scientologists--didn't stop Doubt from getting a metric ton of nominations, now, did it?

I don't care a bit about Oscars or Scientologist influence in Hollywood, nor do I want to take this discussion too far off course, but I don't see anything in Doubt that would be offensive to Catholics (offensive to the rest of us, sure). Yeah, it has a child molesting priest, but at this point everyone knows that tons of priests are child molesters, so I don't think its really all that controversial. Plus, the "hero" of the film is a "noble" nun.

Anyway, fuck that movie, it sucks. Bring on The Master.

Yes! Yes indeed. Bring on The Master. Screw all this talk of Scientology conspiracies!

I almost typed There Country For Old Blood. All this talk of TWBB not being perfect has me tongue-twisted in rage! 

Speaking of DOUBT...

That movie's final line had me in stitches.  It reminded me of that Simpsons episode where Marge is watching movies that Homer recommended in order to get over her fear of flying.

 Man 1: No thanks to the plane, many of us are still...
Everyone: Alive!
   Man 2: [through full mouth] We certainly are.  [chews]
   Man 3: Pass me another hunk of copilot.

I am so excited for this, the teaser looks incredible. I hope the Scientologist crazies don't start any shit. 

Wikipedia Bans Church of Scientology

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

Yes...stuff like this I don't get:

It's a movie that many people call a masterpiece seemingly on automatic. It has several masterful elements: performances; score; cinematography and editing etc. But it tackles not one but two huge and incredibly complex subjects in about the broadest way possible (the two main characters may as well be Mr Capitalism and Mr Religion). If you're going to do that you'd best have an interesting angle, and I don't think it does.

As a fable the message borders on trite, and as a focused character study the leads are both ultimately one dimensional cyphers who barely evolve at all over the course of the movie, so it doesn't come up with much in the way of profound insight on that level either.

Has a lot of brilliance in it and overall is an 8/10 at the very least, but I've never bought into the untouchable masterpiece talk and still don't.

I think the movie has an interesting angle on capitalism.  I mean, not profound, but most movies' messages aren't particularly revelatory; nor do they require a degree to understand.  Plainview is not broadly drawn because the movie has a simplistic "Capitalism is eeeeevil!" message. It's because he's a force of nature.  A volcano which levels everything in its path; but we also might see benefit from as time goes on.  Nor is he one-dimensional; he's just consumed by one thing.  The movie portrays his black, withered soul quite effectively, I thought.

I agree, I thought the way they handled the intersection of capitalism and religion was quite interesting. It's more than just conflict; in a way, I feel like the movie is aimed as a warning to the religious. Plainview is basically crying out through the entire movie to be "saved", but Eli keeps putting his own greed and powermongering ahead of Plainview's soul, and it ends up destroying both of them.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul C 

 

It's a movie that many people call a masterpiece seemingly on automatic. It has several masterful elements: performances; score; cinematography and editing etc. But it tackles not one but two huge and incredibly complex subjects in about the broadest way possible (the two main characters may as well be Mr Capitalism and Mr Religion). If you're going to do that you'd best have an interesting angle, and I don't think it does.

The talk of THERE WILL BE BLOOD some kind of allegory about the battle between capitalism and religion is overblown. There was more of that in Sinclair's novel OIL! than in Anderson's film, which often avoids those aspects. There's little comment in THERE WILL BE BLOOD on capitalism or religion as categories; it's all far too specific to ever speak as broadly as you seem to suggest it does. (Anderson, in his long interview with the AV Club, suggests his intent was to avoid making an allegorical, "message" film.)

I think the movie IS making some (well-observed) points about religion and capitalism, but it's not JUST doing that. It works on multiple levels.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Werewolf Girl 

I am so excited for this, the teaser looks incredible. I hope the Scientologist crazies don't start any shit. 

I hope they absolutely start some crazy shit. It's been a while since a movie has actually stirred the shit on any real social/religiously cultural level, and I'm rearing for this one to.

old John C. Reilly interview where he talks about Paul Thomas Anderson's COPS videos

For me what's missing from There Will Be Blood (and most PTA movies) is solid subtext, and that's what makes it difficult for me to accept it as a next-level masterpiece. There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men are both built around characters that are single-minded, enigmatic forces of nature. No Country takes that character, puts him in a traditional thriller format, subverts our expectations of that format in a disconcerting way, and then has the characters mull over the existential implications of such a person existing.

So on a subtext level you can treat Chigur as a stand in for pretty much any destructive force that's beyond our control and understanding, and the movie is about wrestling with the existence of such things. That's just one way of looking at it, and there's probably more to it than that. But given that it explores these ideas in an original and sometimes almost poetic way, on top of the impeccable levels of craft, and memorable performances, dialogue, set pieces etc, I'd say that's a decent starting point for arguing for something as a masterpiece.

There Will Be Blood takes another such monolithic character and pits him against yet another one, who he destroys along with himself in the process. But once you look beneath the 'boxing match' aspect PTA talked about in that interview, what's it really about? As a character study it's limited because Plainview doesn't really change over the course of the story, he just follows through on his inevitable trajectory. It can't really be about the corruptive influence of capitalism or religion because the characters are the way they are from the very start, and we're given no real insight into how they became that way. Really the theme seems to be 'greed is bad' which when expressed as one dimensionally as it is here seems a touch trite for a supposed masterpiece of cinema.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bailey 
Plainview is not broadly drawn because the movie has a simplistic "Capitalism is eeeeevil!" message. It's because he's a force of nature.  A volcano which levels everything in its path; but we also might see benefit from as time goes on.

See that would potentially be a quite interesting angle: capitalism/the oil industry as something destructive, amoral and corrupting, but arguably worth it? But so far as I can remember that idea isn't actually explored in the movie at any point. Likewise Prankster's idea that it was about a sort of moral failure of the church was interesting, but I'm not sure how much it's actually supported by the movie itself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

And since a film is only the sum of its parts (what else could it be?), and all those parts are seemingly masterful as you put it, I would definitely not hesitate to call it what it is.  If you don't think so, that's perfectly okay with me.

You yourself were vocal about considering Prometheus a worthless movie because of its duff script, despite many aspects of its craft being exceptional. TWBB's script is hardly terrible, but I've still to be convinced there's any great depth in it. As soon as discussion moves away from how this movie looks and sounds, and from DDL, they tend to get very vague about exactly what makes this thing the masterpiece I'm constantly being told it is. Can anyone mount a defence for it?

Watch the movie again. Plainview is desperately reaching out for human connection throughout the movie, practically in every scene, and people keep letting him down, especially Sunday. I know that sounds weird at first blush, but it's absolutely there in both the script and Day-Lewis's performance. In fact it's hard to miss once you've seen it.

Okay well that would certainly connect with his relationships with 'brother' and son, I'm due for a rewatch so next time I'll look at it with that angle in mind.

I last saw this a little over a year ago and remember thinking that I wasn't as taken with it as everyone else seemed to be.  DDL was quite good (though, even with the way the character was written, I didn't much care for Dano or the heavy-handed way in which his storyline was often handled) but nothing ever really cohered for me into a film that I could engage with, aside from a few individual scenes here and there.  Perhaps I should watch it again this weekend and see if I feel any differently.

Yeah, I've only seen the film once.  I certainly did like enough of it in certain scenes to be interested in giving it another try to see if I find a new perspective.  It did seem, even at the time, to be a film that you should watch at least twice to fully form something of an opinion.

I've never understood when people say that Plainview doesn't change throughout the course of the film. Really so you're saying souless crazy guy at the end of the film is the same one in the beggining? I don't see that at all. Maybe he wasn't the most pleasent guy at the beggining but he also wasn't adrift. After all he did discover oil, build dericks, and essnetially develop town. He did that mostly sane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

If only because it will boost the film's box office.

If only because it would great if an important film had an actual cultural impact. Anything that actually helps spark a public conversation on Scientology (whether it be something as insignificant and boorish as covering Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes divorce, or something as artistically significant as a new PTA film) helps expose the insidious nature of this cult to a public that likes to mostly make fun of them without actually realizing how terrible they are.

I'm mainly excited for the Master because I expect a thrilling and beautiful narrative film from Paul Thomas Anderson. But the potential for actual cultural impact (this is the first major motion picture about Scientology, I believe*) also has me excited.

*Discounting Battlefield Earth, of course.

To continue the THERE WILL BE BLOOD convo, I think the film's most under-explored aspect is its frequent citation of imagery from the apes segment of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, which realizes its fulfillment in the film's final moments, where Plainview's use of the bowling pin recalls the ape's use of the bone (proto-man's first use of the tool is to use it as an instrument of violence).

(Warning: Spoilers)

From The Village Voice: Case Closed: Paul Thomas Anderson's Script for The Master is Nothing But Scientology.

Wow.  I'm actually honoured to have beaten someone.  My post count would be at least in the 400's by now if I wasn't continuously losing out to you damn keeners.

Wow, do I want to see this movie. Can't think of anything else on the horizon that even comes close.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

Wow, do I want to see this movie. Can't think of anything else on the horizon that even comes close.

Same here.  I'm still looking forward to Django Unchained, but so far what I've seen has left me a little underwhelmed. Everything I see in regards to The Master only gets me more excited.

Trailer is gorgeous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnovAgwS1V4&feature=player_embedded

Loves it.

Finally got around to watching the full trailer-- and man, am I looking forward to this movie now. I'm positive, however, that any resemblances between this motion picture and the life of L. Ron Hubbard or Scientology are purely coincidental. Right--? Right.

Somewhere above someone wrote that if PTA even touched on a third of Hubbard's activities (by coincidence, of course), you'd have a hell of a movie. This looks like it.

Side note: a fun fact I learned from an Adam Carolla podcast this past week (and backed up by thorough research on Wikipedia just now) is that PTA's dad, Ernie Anderson, was the "voice" of ABC when I was growing up. I don't know, I just found that interesting. "This... is ABC"-- I loved that guy.

Fucking hell, what a trailer. I want this film now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slim 

Side note: a fun fact I learned from an Adam Carolla podcast this past week (and backed up by thorough research on Wikipedia just now) is that PTA's dad, Ernie Anderson, was the "voice" of ABC when I was growing up. I don't know, I just found that interesting. "This... is ABC"-- I loved that guy.

Yeah, because his dad was a voice over actor, PTA became good friends with fellow voice over actor Robert Ridgely and ended up casting him as the Colonel in Boogie Nights.

I cant wait for The Master.....amazing director, fascinating subject and an interested Phoenix really adds up to something I need to see.

As for TWBB, Daniel Day Lewis breaks my heart in that movie, his perspective and approach to the world shatter and destroy every chance he ever has for human connection. I really have a hard time even discussing the assertion that there is nothing going on in that movie except 'capitalism is eeeeviiilll'.

The movie comments on father/son, family dynamics, religeon, loneliness, capitalism.....and the corruption of all these. This movie is about powerful human motives smashing into eachother and the casaulties in the wreckage.

The scene in the resteraunt where plainview confronts the guy from standard oil....there is more subtext and meaning in that film as most entire movies.

Honestly, my reaction is that Paul is just trolling on this one.

Fun Stuff

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

Wow, do I want to see this movie. Can't think of anything else on the horizon that even comes close.

Obviously I can't speak for you, and I'm incredibly jazzed to see this movie, but the rest of 2012 really does look amazingly strong: Cosmopolis, Looper, Argo, Django Unchained, Skyfall, and the Hobbit, just to name the most promising stuff.

This may go down as the year when the summer blockbusters were duds (except Avengers, which opened really really early) and the rest of the year was really strong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Prankster 

This may go down as the year when the summer blockbusters were duds [...] and the rest of the year was really strong.

1999 was kinda like that too. If by "dud" you mean "made money but was shit anyway."

As I suspected it might, the full trailer marries together the micro-narratives of the first two teasers in a bizarrely gripping way. I say "bizarrely" because I don't usually let trailers have this kind of effect on me; trailers, largely, are by design meant to gives an impression of good quality when we watch them. We're supposed to walk away from them thinking, "man, that film looks great". But The Master's full trailer feels assertive and commanding in a way that has me thinking I've only got a few months until I see one of the best films of the year. Which is dangerous, but I can't shake the feeling anyways.

And while I haven't read the linked article firmly establishing the film as being very scientology-driven, I get that impression from the full trailer very, very strongly. That line about needing to attack, the bit about cults...I mean, I don't think this is being very subtle.

Beginning my underground tunneling now.