"There Will Be Blood" and other current crop of movies"

[henryrobinett]

I finally saw There Will Be Blood this last weekend. Uh . . . you know I don't get it at all. It's not the movie I don't get. It's this current crop of aesthetic for movies considered great. Similar thing with "No Country For Old Men." It's not that the movies were poorly made, it's just that I really disliked them for reasons other than production and general writing or acting. Those things were fine. The values extolled were questionable. The messages were obfuscated by the desire to create an effect. I don't want to spoil this for anyone who hasn't seen either movie, but the endings were really upsetting for various reasons. At least for There Will Be Blood, if you don't want spoilers you shouldn't read this, I guess.

I think there's a real moral schism in our society today and I think these movies reflect that. Of course art will always reflect societal problems. Look at our music.

There seems to be a statement that crime may not be good but you aren't necessarily going to have to pay for it. Who's going to stop you?

[dan p]

This deserves more discussion than the forum allows imo.I did not see there will be blood but i did see no country.
Like you said,look at music today as a reflection of our society.Just look at our Government.I dont believe a word our current administration says,from top to bottom,Common criminals to our highest office it's pathetic.To get to a better place you got to go thru it and hopefully end up in a more spiritual place whatever that may be.

DP

[joelpatterson]

I saw that movie too, and I was similarly mystified... in spite of the elegant cinematography, I couldn't tell what the "story" was supposed to be. And I had one hell of a time trying to distinguish between the "brothers" who were both played by the one actor.

I missed the whole morality/immorality tale, too. You could say both those guys who perish brought on their own doom, engineering and begging for it. I dunno. No desire to ever see it again, bottom line.

[Animus]

No Country For Old Men was a masterpiece. There's lots of meaning to me in that movie.

[Shabo]

I thought “There Will Be Blood” was a masterpiece. But im also a huge fan of the director. The soundtrack was exceptional also. I had many problems with “No country...”. I always thought the hype “No Country ..” got should of all went to “Blood”..the awards and all. just my opinion.

[CrankyRayHanky]

Originally Posted by Animus

No Country For Old Men was a masterpiece. There's lots of meaning to me in that movie.

Agreed

The Good, the bad, and 3rd character who's both- brilliant!

I wathced this movie with headphones- there's no music...very odd, but it did increase the tension

[Jay-]

These are both masterpieces such as A clock work orange.
I studied theater for a decade and they will tell you a movie is supposed to move you either to tears, to anger or be awe struck. No one wants to go see a movie where there is a void of drama and its all happy happy.

They were both dark and with the theme that man is greedy thing that makes a machine of greed producing lifeless greed in a cycle of mindless consumption.

Similarly the content Oil/Cocaine driving either movie in a torrent of death and violence, now we see there raging wars over the production and consumption of both of these "Commodities" in our current day.

If you use drugs or oil then your as guilty the profiteer's of those commodities.
Thats partly what I got out of the movies.

[joelpatterson]

What I got out of "Blood" was alot of people, standing around, staring grimly, maybe waiting for their lines to be written, maybe waiting for the director to give them some idea of what direction this next improvisational scene should go.

Or, maybe it's one of these movies that could easily have been boiled down into a half-hour TV drama and been much more effective.

[henryrobinett]

Boy. Masterpieces they're not to me. I preferred Atonement to either of those, and that certainly wasn't a masterpiece.

Masterpiece? Lawrence of Arabia was a masterpiece. Raging Bull was a masterpiece. Reds, although not considered as such by many, to me was a masterpiece. Even Pulp Fiction in its way was a masterpiece. Even Forrest Gump. I haven't seen anything close to what I think is a masterpiece in a very long time. Clock work Orange a masterpiece? Please.

There's nothing unduly complicated in either movie, unless it all went right past me. No Country For Old Men did at first, well they both left me bewildered at the end, but they tried to be bewildering. Simple concept and confuse the audience because we can.

But they both had greedy, murderous bastards that, as far as we know, walked away at the end. Why am I even interested in that shit? The point is I'm not. And the world is moving on, a new kind of evil and complication is on the rise. It's time to retire? What kind of message is that?

Next.

[Jay-]

A Clockwork Orange (1971) - Awards
A Clockwork Orange (1971) Awards:
Nominated for 4 Oscars. Another 5 wins & 12 nominations

I was speaking of movies with Absurd Violence.

[henryrobinett]

I know it received a lot of awards. I also know it's highly praised. I think it's anything but a masterpiece. I think few things Kubrick did were actually masterpieces though. He was way too clinical, dry, woman-less, unreal in his dialogue and stories tended to be silly because of that. Dr Strangelove was close because all of that worked for a nutty movie. But I think Kubrick also didn't have much of a sense of humor, which made Dr SL stranger still.

[Animus]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Boy. Masterpieces they're not to me. I preferred Atonement to either of those, and that certainly wasn't a masterpiece.

Masterpiece? Lawrence of Arabia was a masterpiece. Raging Bull was a masterpiece. Reds, although not considered as such by many, to me was a masterpiece. Even Pulp Fiction in its way was a masterpiece. Even Forrest Gump. I haven't seen anything close to what I think is a masterpiece in a very long time. Clock work Orange a masterpiece? Please.

There's nothing unduly complicated in either movie, unless it all went right past me. No Country For Old Men did at first, well they both left me bewildered at the end, but they tried to be bewildering. Simple concept and confuse the audience because we can.

Atonement was absolute garbage imo. Talk about a hyped up movie.

As far as No Country I think we will just leave it at that, it went right by you.

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

But they both had greedy, murderous bastards that, as far as we know, walked away at the end. Why am I even interested in that shit? The point is I'm not. And the world is moving on, a new kind of evil and complication is on the rise. It's time to retire? What kind of message is that?

Next.

But it is kind of ironic. One of the the many themes of the movie.... you being from an older generation and alienated in your ivory tower not able to understand.

btw, it's not about a new kind of evil on the rise. It's the evil that's been with us for a long time and the devil wears many faces. Anton Chigurh was not evil per se. Evil is a point of view and is relative. THere was purpose behind his designs, however convoluted that may be to others. He was Death and Fate/Chance/Freewill incarnate.

[Jay-]

Ha, Dr Strangelove title track is about my great grand mother.
Written for her and about her by the original artiest. (Well thats what they told me and it was played at her funeral.)

[doorknocker]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

I I think few things Kubrick did were actually masterpieces though. He was way too clinical, dry, woman-less, unreal in his dialogue and stories tended to be silly because of that. Dr Strangelove was close because all of that worked for a nutty movie. But I think Kubrick also didn't have much of a sense of humor, which made Dr SL stranger still.

Whoaaaaaaa....... Opinions differ, I guess.

Very few movies impressed me as much as '2001' did, I think it's a masterpiece if there ever was one. Plenty of humor in it too, I think. Kubrick was a genius IMO.

In general I kinda like movie where it's not always 'good guy vs. bad guy and good guy wins'. Life ain't like that.

[uosdwis]

I had objections against 'There Will Be Blood' as well, especially the ending. Didn't quite know what to bring home from that experience... Also, Jonny Greenwood's score didn't work for me. At all. I won't go so far as to saying he ruined the film, but it was damn close. I'm going to catch NCFOM next week. The story doesn't interest me, but the storytelling does - and the sound job.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by Animus

Atonement was absolute garbage imo. Talk about a hyped up movie.

As far as No Country I think we will just leave it at that, it went right by you.

What went right by me?? Nothing went past me in that movie. Just because somebody doesn't like something you do, is no reason to assume the person didn't get it. If it did, explain what I didn't get then.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

Whoaaaaaaa....... Opinions differ, I guess.

Very few movies impressed me as much as '2001' did, I think it's a masterpiece if there ever was one. Plenty of humor in it too, I think. Kubrick was a genius IMO.

In general I kinda like movie where it's not always 'good guy vs. bad guy and good guy wins'. Life ain't like that.

LOL. I used to be convinced is was a masterpiece. I saw it 10 times fer crimmony sakes. But I guess it was around the 10th time as I'm showing it to my kids who thoroughly bewildered an thought it was garbage I suddenly agreed with them.

It was all dolled up to seem complicated and arty; highly significant and symbolic, but it wasn't really.

[henryrobinett]

I have to go to work now -- damn. But Atonement I liked BECAUSE of the message. I don't kow how hyped it was because I didn't hear any of that. I certainly didn't think it ws garbage. It wasn't a great movie. But I liked that we're all responsible for those actions we create. They have lasting, sometimes indelible and disastrous effects.

[Animus]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

But I liked that we're all responsible for those actions we create. They have lasting, sometimes indelible and disastrous effects.

lol That was a theme of No Country too.

[Infernal Device]

I saw both. Loved both.

Both had endings where the "bad guys" won.

Someone thinks that isn't the way real life is?

[Shabo]

Originally Posted by uosdwis

I had objections against 'There Will Be Blood' as well, especially the ending. Didn't quite know what to bring home from that experience... Also, Jonny Greenwood's score didn't work for me. At all. I won't go so far as to saying he ruined the film, but it was damn close. I'm going to catch NCFOM next week. The story doesn't interest me, but the storytelling does - and the sound job.

Here is more info about the sound in both films. This is a great site!!

filmsound daily


filmsound daily

[TheRealRoach]

I was also very unimpressed with the score of the movie. I thought it was overly abstract simply for the sake of being overly abstract.

It sounded like someone plopped a keyboard in front of Mr. Greenwood as he just improvised and made shit up. Then when he was done they just took the midi information, printed out the score, then gave it to the orchestra.

Holding a minor 2nd for hours isn't well thought out music. I felt as though he was playing a bad joke on the audience.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by Infernal Device

I saw both. Loved both.

Both had endings where the "bad guys" won.

Someone thinks that isn't the way real life is?

Nope, not at all. That's the big difference for me. I don't see the bad guy winning. And I think most times people today do. I see the bad guy loses every single time. But it's harder to distinguish cause from effect.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by Animus

lol That was a theme of No Country too.

I don't think so. The theme of the movie was "No COUNTRY for OLD MEN."

You have a murderous bastard who kills people by flipping a coin and thinks only of himself and his greed. The closest to retribution he gets is being stabbed in the leg, (or was he shot?) and to get hit by a car when he wasn't looking, -- a completely serendipitous act entirely unrelated to consequences. Where are his consequences? Where is his cause and effect?

You're talking about the loser who found the money and decided he'd get away with something for nothing. That's a crucial part of the story, but the message is completely obfuscated by the murderous Mephisto. He ran into the devil. Actions are met by the devil. If he as THE DEVIL that'd be one thing, but he wasn't. He was merely a powerful incarnation of evil, and losers act threw him into his own irretrievable consequences. As soon as he came back his fate was sealed.

What's complicated? I thought it was OK, but certainly not the best picture territory and nothing to write home about. I mean, I REALLY didn't like it. Acting was fine. Direction was fine. The starkness of the "score" was very dramatic. Cinematography was fine. The morality of the story I despised.

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by doorknocker

In general I kinda like movie where it's not always 'good guy vs. bad guy and good guy wins'. Life ain't like that.

Absolutely agree with you there. "Who's Afraid Of Virgina Wolf?" spring to mind for some reason, as does Lawrence Of Arabia. No clear good/evil in either of those. Well the professor and his wife were both clearly deranged.

But where there's such insidious, intense evil, I want to see a point the writer is making with such over the top evil.

[Denny McNerney]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

LOL. I used to be convinced is was a masterpiece. I saw it 10 times fer crimmony sakes. But I guess it was around the 10th time as I'm showing it to my kids who thoroughly bewildered an thought it was garbage I suddenly agreed with them.

It was all dolled up to seem complicated and arty; highly significant and symbolic, but it wasn't really.

wow. that is so ignorant i don't know how to respond to it.

not happy enough for ya, huh?

[henryrobinett]

Originally Posted by Denny McNerney

wow. that is so ignorant i don't know how to respond to it.

not happy enough for ya, huh?

Damn, talk about ignorant responses. If you're going to call me or anyone ignorant, please tell the person why.

I've analyzed this movie backwards and forwards. I've read the book. I'm not the smartest guy in the world but I'm also not the dumbest. So try, just try to respond. Take enough responsibility to tell someone who you think is ignorant, and use a little non-ignorance to explain for an ignoramus.

[Animus]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

I don't think so. The theme of the movie was "No COUNTRY for OLD MEN."

You have a murderous bastard who kills people by flipping a coin and thinks only of himself and his greed. The closest to retribution he gets is being stabbed in the leg, (or was he shot?) and to get hit by a car when he wasn't looking, -- a completely serendipitous act entirely unrelated to consequences. Where are his consequences? Where is his cause and effect?

You're talking about the loser who found the money and decided he'd get away with something for nothing. That's a crucial part of the story, but the message is completely obfuscated by the murderous Mephisto. He ran into the devil. Actions are met by the devil. If he as THE DEVIL that'd be one thing, but he wasn't. He was merely a powerful incarnation of evil, and losers act threw him into his own irretrievable consequences. As soon as he came back his fait was sealed.

What's complicated. I thought it was OK, but certainly not the picture territory and nothing to write hoe about. I mean, I REALLY didn't like it. Acting was fine. Direction was fine. The starkness of the "score" was very dramatic. Cinematography was fine. The morality of the story I despised.

****SPOILER*****

THe consequence was that Josh Brolin's character was given a choice to save his wife's life or keep the money and his own life. In the end he lost everything because of his decision. That's consequence.

imo, one of the key point's of the movie was "chance", how random life is, "chaos theory". This was repeatedly illustrated throughout the movie. Chigurh's coin tosses of course and when Tommy Lee Jones related the story of the farmer trying to shoot the steer but shot himself. Nothing is preordained. Even Chigurh's character is not immune to the universe's merciless indifference when he get's into the violent accident at the end. The title No Country For Old Men is not to be taken literally in the sense of older generations not understanding modern times in socialogical terms. It's that Man's once faith in a solid orderly universe has been shaken by modern science and philosophy; discoveries into quantum mechanics, string theory, "chaos theory", etc. The death of God. My 2 cents.

[henryrobinett]

I don't disagree with your assessment of the movie at all. But I don't believe in the death of god. So this come to the crux of my disagreement with the movie, as I said from the beginning. I don't believe in "chaos theory," or chance. So it doesn't jib with my weltanshaung (sp?) - world view.

As I said earlier the consequence is clear with loser (Brolin). But I don't like the throw my hands up, it's all over now, I can't cope with this world any longer as an answer to pure evil as movie or work of art. Nihilism. It's not for me. I'm an optimist and believe in people and the sanctity of life.

As I said the consequence of Brolin was clear, but what of the bad ass dude? That's what I'm talking about.

[Denny McNerney]

Originally Posted by henryrobinett

Damn, talk about ignorant responses. If you're going to call me or anyone ignorant, please tell the person why.

I've analyzed this movie backwards and forwards. I've read the book. I'm not the smartest guy in the world but I'm also not the dumbest. So try, just try to respond. Take enough responsibility to tell someone who you think is ignorant, and use a little non-ignorance to explain for an ignoramus.

are we talking about 2001 or ncfom?i will respond (...or WILL TRY, JUST TRY)...but not now. i have been up for a very long time. and i will take responsibility to explain to you, who i don't think is ignorant at all. on the contrary, anyone with a real opinion they can defend i respect. really, i do.

but then sometimes i realize... that this is futile. i really enjoy a debate over intellectual things... but then i feel like a fool for "bearing my naked feelings". like i am doing right here en masse.

i was offended by what you said about 2001. to me, it was one of the bravest artistic statements ever said by a filmmaker. i saw it when it first came out in 1968. it inspired my life. it changed my life.

it made me realize that sometimes you have to put everything on the line, and not take the easy way out, ... however much that would streamline your path as an artist. you have to make a stand, and believe that maybe someone will connect with that.

so, i am sorry if i personally attacked you. i am just so full of passion about art.

d.