Imagine: Film criticism on TV?

I doubt that they will be better than Ben Lyons. I mean, he makes a very convincing point that it was a terrible injustice not to give an Oscar nomination to Christopher Nolan for directing that awesome event movie "The Dark Knight" in the following clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2paspcLW5Ko (His "case" for Nolan starts at 1:12).

Good luck to them. Real criticism is a rare breed in any medium. Time will tell if they have the chops of those who came before them.

I didn't have as much of a problem with the dull Ben as I did with the obnoxious Ben. But I'm really looking forward to seeing two actual critics sharing their thoughts with us on TV again.

I just hope it doesn't become so "Inside Sports" that the mass audience tunes out and endangers the longevity of these two guys.

I'm sure the Scott/Phillips show will be enjoyable and I look forward to checking it out, but for now I'm most impressed that the marketing there seems to be making a point of their seriousness, of their credentials as critics, of their capacity for in-depth analysis. Wow. Could somebody in TV actually have realized that maybe, just maybe, people actually *do* want to watch something intelligent, something that deals with film as more than just an ephemeral pop culture phenom? Maybe I shouldn't be so impressed by the mere fact that a piece of advertising is trying to make the point that a particular show is intelligent. But the fact is, that's not a common thing. When's the last time you can think of a network show about entertainment that was marketed on the grounds that it was smart and serious?

Actually, the Clift/Brando comparison Tarantino mentions is between him and Paul Thomas Anderson. Tarantino says he's Brando and PTA is Clift. Both men were better actors because of the existence of the other, he says.

JE: Yes, and I'm applying QT's comparison to Dano and Day Lewis, each of whom could not have given the performance he did without the other to spur him on.

That AT THE MOVIES ad is painful. Its like an SNL parody of a show trying to class it up: "...the arc of the story is about his humanization...", "...it's achingly beautiful...", "NEW YORK TIMES," etc. I say replace these two with Armond White and Outlaw Vern and let 'em go at it over one movie for an hour.

I saw the Tarantino post yesterday, and found it quite interesting. It's funny: I've been going around telling my friends that "Inglourious Basterds" is my favourite film since "There Will Be Blood", without realizing the two directors are friends/competitors (or as Plainview would say, "com-PET-IT-ORRRR"). Lo and behold, I then see this clip saying that Tarantino was inspired by TWBB.

P.T. Anderson is my favourite filmmaker currently working (well, when you take the entire body of work, I'd have to say still Spielberg and Scorsese, but in terms of current level of output I'd go with PTA), and Tarantino is right up there as well. Along with the Coens and perhaps David Fincher, they strike me as a more-than-respectable generation of filmmakers...perhaps not quite as legendary as the Scorsese, Coppola, Spielberg, De Palma group, but still great torchbearers for American cinema.

P.S. I too disagree with Tarantino about Dano. I think that he perfectly captures a certain type of smarmy religious superiority. You're spot-on...he's meant to be the weaker of the two. The movie isn't MEANT to be the Plainview/Sunday equivalent to Frost/Nixon, if you will...it's Plainview who is the force of nature all the way.

I'm delighted that you're revisiting There Will Be Blood, since I just saw it again this weekend. I love the film, although I agree with Tarantino that Boogie Nights is still PTA's masterpiece. (Can't a director have more than one masterpiece? Sure he can.)

TWBB is a big, sweeping film, with big, giant events. Yet upon a second and now third viewing, I find many little, wonderful moments that reinforce how great the movie is. Like when Plainview (who is clearly an alcoholic) splashes some liquor on the crying baby's bottle. Or the look on his face when he starts to realize Henry's deception. (" I said, we'll take them down to the Peachtree Dance"). Or the hurt in Fletcher's voice when he asks Plainview " You took Henry to the meeting with Standard"?

PTA doesn't linger on these moments. He never underlines the emotions, instead rushing on to the next scene. It's easy to miss some of the subtleties at work here.

And as far as Dano, I mostly agree with you Jim that he was an equal match for Day Lewis' towering performance. I love his passive/aggressive nature. Before asking to bless the well, he first asks Plainview " Is there anything I, anything the church, can do for you"?

Yet, I think the final scene might be where Dano isn't up to the task. Plainview turns the trick on Eli, making Eli confess his most damaging secret ("I am a false prophet"), the way Eli made Plainview confess (" I have abandoned my boy").

Both men think that they are going through the motions, giving the other what they want in order to achieve financial gain. Yet Plainview's confession is extraordinary in that you see him almost break down, almost lose it, almost convert for real. Then he shakes his head with a growl, as if to rid himself of those thoughts, and smirks "now I have my pipeline" or some such sentiment. He went to the edge of redemption, looked down, and turned around. I think this is some of the best acting I've ever seen.

In the last scene, Eli's emotions are more obvious. He smiles when he's done confessing, sure that he'll be able to cash in on the Bandy tract. I'm not sure what PTA or Dano were going for, but I feel Eli is just a litle too smug in this scene.

A small complaint in a brilliant movie. I hope you follow through and watch it again Jim, because I can't get enough analysis of this one.

JE: One of the things I found fascinating in the movie from the start is that this was NOT a confrontation between two giants. This was a bitter struggle between a monstrous, larger-than-life character (Plainview) with a God-sized ego and an equally corrupt, punier-than-life character (Eli) who somehow manages to pass himself off as a man of God. The thing is, they are well-matched. Plainview gets under Eli's land, sucks out his oil and drinks his milkshake, but Eli gets under Plainview's skin. They destroy each other. Plainview "wins" in one sense (he fights and he survives), but look at the pathetic figure slumped on the floor at the end: "I'm finished." Yes he is. In fact, without Eli, he has no more reason to live.

I hope you like There Will Be Blood better the second time around. I'm glad you want to give it another try. It was a movie, like Inglourious Basterds, that its detractors tried to convince me was a bad movie and those liking it were nothing more than PTA fanboys. You didn't come off that way and neither did the better critics/bloggers out there but like IB I saw a film in TWBB so captivatingly filmed and edited that I was a bit perplexed by those who didn't find a love of cinema coming through in every frame even if the story didn't quite move them.

When Tarantino suggests that Dano is not up to the fight with Day-Lewis, I can see his point.

Before seeing "There Will Be Blood", I read Upton Sinclair's "Oil!", on which the film is very loosely based. Without going into any great detail, Sinclair's novel depicted a relationship between Eli Sunday and the oil tycoon that was actually, honestly competitive. They both had legitimate reasons to hate one another. It was symbiotic. They were near equals that needed each other just as much as they wanted to destroy each other.

The film, by making Sunday a weak counterpoint, doesn't work for me, because he seems like someone that would be sort of below Plainviews attention. Anderson's Eli Sunday doesn't seem smart or crafty enough to really take Plainview on. In many aspects, I was pleased at how PTA differed from the novel, but not here.

I found it odd that the critics (including Roger Ebert) seemed a little lukewarm to There Will Be Blood. I found it one of the most fascinating films I've seen this decade, strangely bizarre and otherworldly, and yet the kind of over-the-top performance by Lewis that just makes you, even at his worst, incapable of looking away.

I've watched it three times now, and while I confess the ending seems somewhat jarring, the whole movie is really like that, and I can't imagine any other way to finish the film.

Besides, I get my wife in stitches with what I am told is a rather good impression of Plainview, and since I normally can't mimic anything, I just gotta love the movie for that reason.

I'm with you on this one, Jim. I think Dano was fine as the sniveling Eli. I picture Plainview as a large gorilla, his temper just barely in check, who is used to bullying his way around. Eli is more akin to a cockroach, slimy and just small enough to be able to evade Plainview the way any annoying bug sometimes can when you're trying to squash it.

I can't believe he wasn't sure if the derrick explosion was a set-piece...the second that was over, I leaned over to my neighbor in the theater and said 'that is one of the greatest things I have ever seen on film'.

About Dano...I think I'm with Jim on this one, but I still can't help feeling that he did go a bit too big a couple of times. But even in those cases- they don't out-scale the movie (could anything?), they're just so obviously an over-the-top performance by Eli Sunday, that it can become a bit uncomfortable.
Tarantino put into words for me something I feel like I always knew, but didn't express- how much Plainview's work-ethic (for lack of a better term) plays into the mythos. There's something eminently admirable about the man...we don't just like watching him because he's a magnetic villain.

This prompted me to check out Tarantino's McCabe & Mrs. Miller review, and I'm surprised to find that he's not an Altman fan. (I do agree that the mix is rough in the begining...but that's why the lord invented subtitles)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6sh9X-V0XA&feature=related

Total burn to Ben Lyons. I love the emphasis on two serious journalists.

I think the fact that Plainview/Sunday are so clearly mismatched is what makes their surprisingly equal struggle so compelling. Sunday may be a cockroach, but he's effective at what he does. Look at the expression on Plainview's face when Sunday gets him to divulge the ONE thing that genuinely hurts him - abandoning his son - in front of his congregation. That's why Plainview has to crush him.

How about his take on the remake of Psycho? Pretty interesting stuff but I am a bit of a Hitchcock acolyte and still regard the work as being unnecessary.

I'm very excited for Scott and Phillips on TV, but my, what a funny commercial.

"SERIOUS journalists in SERIOUS film discussions. Not like those last two guys. That was a joke. Forget that. These guys are SERIOUS. Look at the SERIOUS faces they make. Listen to their SERIOUS voices. Those two Ben guys were a joke. They're dead to us. We killed them. Forget about them. Seriously."

And on the topic of "There Will Be Blood," the mismatch between Plainview and Sunday didn't bother me as much as accepting that Sunday could dupe somebody as wily as Mr. Bandy. We're supposed to believe that Bandy is sharp enough a judge of character to see right through Plainview, but that he can't see Sunday for the transparent snake-oil salesman he is? That seemed to me like too much a plot contrivance to give Sunday an advantage over Plainview, but I think I have that impression only because Dano is pitched so over the top that he doesn't quite make a convincing con man. So I agree with Tarantino that Dano's performance is a weak point, but not really because of the Plainview/Sunday dynamic.

You mentioned in a response, Jim, that Eli somehow manages to pass himself off as a man of God. I think that may be too big a "somehow" in the film. To me, his histrionics on the pulpit wouldn't nearly be enough to fool anyone with common sense, which I think we're supposed believe Bandy has plenty of, given his talk with Plainview in the woods.

JE: I don't recall enough about Bandy to have a comment (as I said, I feel I need to revisit the movie). But as for utterly unconvincing snake oil salesmen passing themselves off as men of God... well, Eli falls into the old fire and brimstone tradition. More recently, have you ever seen Jim Bakker or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Jimmy Swaggart or Ted Haggard or Robert Schuller (and so on and so on and so on) at work? I find it nearly impossible to believe that anyone in this day and age could be swayed by these transparent con-men (not only what they say but how they say it), and yet they have had thousands (millions?) of followers who think they speak the truth. And for what they said about god after 9/11, I can't believe that Falwell and Robertson weren't tarred and feathered and run out of the country on a rail. But they weren't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_evangelist_scandals

Daniel Day Lewis had a whole year to rehearse his role. Dano, as a last minute replacement, had less than a week to get into his part. Considering that fact, I'd say Paul Dano was pretty amazing, and you can actually see real fear in his eyes. An intimidating task to say the least.

JE: That is true. I think PTA's instincts were right about Dano.

I agree with you about the Plainview/Eli Sunday relationship as purposefully being one of the strong versus the weak. In fact, power is a major theme in the film. Daniel beats Eli, who beats his father, who beats his daughter Mary. Anderson's portrayal of humanity is a bleak look into the soul of the American man as trying to obtain power by any means necessary (Even lying as shown by Henry).

As for the Daniel Day-Lewis performance, I was also a bit disturbed by the notion that it was purely a loud performance of pure bombast. It's the moments of quiet desperation and keen observation of subtle human nature that makes him the best at his craft.

I think I slightly agree with QT regarding Dano's performance - as an actor, he is clearly diminished by the sheer ferocity of DDL. However, I think that Sunday, as a character, is a complete equal to Plainview.

From the perspective of Hegel's dialectics, each character is one of a thesis and antithesis. What is interesting is that the movie suggests that there can never be a real synthesis of these two opposing forces. In other words, Plainview's OIL can never mix with Sunday's (holy) WATER. If we're going to take this analogy literally, it makes sense that Plainview "comes out on top" in the end. However, neither character is better (or worse) than the other - they are simply trying to occupy the same space at the same time.

What the film observes is the relationship between two strong forces - it is looking at the infinitesimal space between the philosophies of these two men. One is a God-less capitalist, the other an evangelical opportunist. Plainview is psychologically isolated from humanity - he just can't stand most people, except his son (and even then...). Sunday, on the other hand, is a mouthpiece for the populace, a commanding and motivating force in the community. The film is a great commentary on the forced-yet-bound relationship that exists between business and religion. Business requires consumers and religion requires money - both needs related to expanding an empire. In this way, Plainview and Sunday do need each other. The ending of the film, I think, it Anderson's comment on the boom of capitalism and the struggle of religion to keep pace.

Reading all these comments, I'm surprised at all the praise for TWBB. Unlike Tarantino, I don't regard it as a masterpeice; not even close. My issue with the film is that it's too self-concious. The film wants to establish Plainview as this GREAT villain, in the same way that Kane was in 'Citizen Kane', Noah Cross was in 'Chinatown' and Mr. Potter was in 'It's a Wonderful Life.' (One could also include Michael from The Godfather Part II.) The problem, however, for me is three-fold:

1)I may have missed something (although I've seen the film twice, it has been a while since the second time), but I don't see what he did that was so bad. He betrayed his son, but then his son was probably the one character who had a happy ending. He also killed Dano's and the guy who pretended to be related to him. He also alledgly betrayed the town, however we didn't see the consequences of his 'greed.' He was made into this horrible and 'evil' man, however I didn't see any evidence of it.

2)Day-Lewis was magnificent for much of the film, but am I the only person who felt that he overacted badly in the final scene? He's a brilliant actor, but uttering the 'milkshake' line, he was embarassing. BTW, I agree with you that Dano probably made Day-Lewis better, however in judging Day-Lewis's performance, I try to ignore the final scene as IMO it was simply terrible.

3)The film feels artificial. What made Kane such a amazing creation is that he was woven into the film and truly fleshed out. The same thing with Michael from The Godfather Part II. To me, it felt as if Plainview was a weak caricture. PTA wanted the audience to consider him as a GREAT villain, but I never got the sense that he was. It's like all those current-day musicians who try to be controversial, but could never be as controversial or as shocking as groups like Led Zeppelin, who weren't interested in controversy; they just were. To me, PTA wants to be recognised as a great autaur with TWBB as his Citizen Kane-like masterpiece. I'm just not convinced.

Oh, and BTW, I contrast Plainview to Chirkew (sp) in No Country For Old Men. In that film, the villain didn't kill the hero, however he was completely terrifying as he was woven into the story.

That said, the film looks wonderful and is truly cinematic. I have to admitt, I'm not the biggest fan of PTA, but I respect and appreciate Tarantino's rivarly with him. BTW, why aren't I surprised that Tarantino called himself Brando in the Clift-Brando analogy?!

I loved the opening scene as a character study but will appreciate it even more after the insights of Tarantino. I can honestly say I hadn't noticed the 'in between frames' adding to Day Lewis' character.

Dan--

There is more explicit character development in Kane to be sure, but make no mistake, Citizen Kane is every bit as much a work of artifice as TWBB. Just as self-conscious.

Also, regarding the choices made by Lewis and PTA in the final scene...it's going to be a debate for the ages. Clearly, the decision was made to "go for it" in that final scene. The screw had been loosening for most of the film, and in that scene the whole hinge flew off. The way DDL played the scene was risky, from a performance p.o.v., and such a risk will always divide an audience.

I think it worked, because it was so absurd, so unhinged. For some, and I can see this perspective, it was too much.

Who was originally cast as Eli Sunday?

JE: Kel O'Neill.

Quite the item!

Lee, I think the difference between Citizen Kane and TWBB, and the reason why I don't agree with you that Citizen Kane is just as self-concious, is that Citize Kane didn't have a Citizen Kane to compare itself with. TWBB was made in 2006, set in the early part of the 20th century, and had numerous classic films featuring GREAT villains to compete with. I mean, yes, Citizen Kane was artificially constructed in terms of people investigating this Great Man's life, but it still felt to me, as if he was woven into the story; he also came across to me as a fully fleshed human being, three dimensional and not like a caricture.

I think that with TWBB, Plainview did come across as a caricture, but also it felt to me that PTA was too focused on creating his own 'Citizen Kane.' Perhaps if TWBB was made 60 years ago, it might have been different, but I think there was too much of a focus on deliberately casting Plainview as this GREAT villain.

Funny, I remember my friend telling me she was in the same audience as PTA and Tarantino when they watched the movie together, in a small little Los Angeles theater a few months after its release.

Realizing that PTA and Tarantino both still have many decades of outstanding filmmaking ahead of them makes me very, very anxious to see how this friendly rivalry evolves. Totally different directors, yet equally brilliant.

I like what Scott and Phillips had to say, and although film, like other art forms, is a subjective medium, I think that their expertise and credentials are solid, and I'd like to hear what they have to say about certain movies. I agree with them about how one of the best parts of seeing a movie is discussing and debating it afterward. Look forward to the show.

For more than 25 years, I have watched Siskel and Ebert religiously, and I loved both. I miss Siskel all the time, and Ebert, although he went through a tragic health experience in 2006, he is still plugging away with his writings.
Then came the annoying imitators every time Siskel and Ebert left their shows to move onto other shows. Among them were Jeffrey Lyons and Rex Reed. Jeffrey Lyons, an ultra-competitive critic for all the wrong reasons,is the worst of all the imitators and decided to do "Reel Talk" just to remind the public that he is just as great as Siskel and Ebert would ever be. Then in 2008-09, only Jeffrey and Ben Lyons had to corner the movie review show market by being the only critics on TV with shows like that. Now, with the Lyonses out of the way, we are back with much better critics, A.O. Scott and Michael Phillips, and they are the guys who will remind us of the bygone days of great movie criticism on television.

Very intelligent use of Tarantino's comparison Jim. Every performance, in order to be great, needs a context, and Paul Dano provides one to Lewis in 'There Will Be Blood'.

"JE: One of the things I found fascinating in the movie from the start is that this was NOT a confrontation between two giants. This was a bitter struggle between a monstrous, larger-than-life character (Plainview) with a God-sized ego and an equally corrupt, punier-than-life character (Eli) who somehow manages to pass himself off as a man of God. The thing is, they are well-matched. Plainview gets under Eli's land, sucks out his oil and drinks his milkshake, but Eli gets under Plainview's skin. They destroy each other. Plainview "wins" in one sense (he fights and he survives), but look at the pathetic figure slumped on the floor at the end: "I'm finished." Yes he is. In fact, without Eli, he has no more reason to live."

Exactly. I wonder why you didn't like this film that much then.