OK - since you seem to be in explaining things mode, can you explain why, in El Orfanato, the wallpaper under the stairs is still intact.



You made a reference one Friday afternoon, and I'm trying to give you enough information here to generate an answer without doing the spoiler thing - but maybe I don't need to worry about that this long after release.

Mark, while I think that Anderson's film is the best thing to come out of Hollywood in ages, I would like to make a few points in response to your review:



1. I don't agree about the score. I sense that Anderson was interested in using 'horror music' (the influence of The Shining has not been mentioned much)and what's more scary than Oil Prospectors! But it's so full of cultural baggage and modern composition techniques that it got plain annoying. The Arvo Part piece was much better. Still love Jonny Greenwood though.



2. Please be the first to publicly comment on the huge influence of Robert Downey Sr. on Anderson's film(s). A totally underappreciated/under-documented director. All I hear is 'the new Scorcese' or 'the new Griffith'. I'm no expert, but sometimes I wonder whether film critics watch films! The influence is huge but There Will Be Blood is no Greaser's Palace! Why has no one said anything?

While we're on the subject of answering questions.



Can you please tell me Mark, why the distributor have decided to kill Che: Part 1?



It's barely been mentioned, it's up for any awards (as far as I know, certainly no big ones), it's barely had any sort of cinema release.



For me it was the film I most wanted to see of the recent "Oscar worthy" group of films, yet my local arthouse cinema only gave it a week (the week after New Year, not exactly a week a I relish going to the cinema in) and my further afield multiplex only showed it on at 9:20pm but not oddly Saturday.



It's now gone completely from any cinemas near me, it was only released a few weeks ago.



Which reminds me, unless I' mistaken I don't think you've reviewed it.



That bloke who stands in for you when you're away from Radio 5 did but his reviews are always so short, there's barely any point bothering.



Thanks

Sorry, I should learn to proof read before I post:



"it's not up for any awards (as far as I know, certainly no big ones)"

Dear Doctor while i usually love your reviews and takes on films......This time you are just plain wrong



There will be blood is rubbish.



He wasn't redefining the language of modern cinema....He was making some arty overblown intro to a boring boring movie.....And if you are right (which i doubt) then he wasn't saying anything very interesting in this new language of his.



I agree with you about the assassination of Jesse James....the best film of the last 10 years...



..But you couldn't be more wrong about T.W.B.B......it was just a slow moving completely nonsensical story with a good lead performance and not much else going for it.



The snotty film students/geeks that inhabit this site are probably overjoyed by your praise of Paul Thomas Anderson and his new language of cinema and will probably be writing their thesis on this or something equally as pretentious.



But spare a thought for your drug addled fans that enjoy cheap nasty exploitation and review or give your thoughts on some more low brow films like Waterpower or Combat shock or Maniac or even Cruising.



You claim to have a love for the lower echelons of cinema yet all you talk about is oscar nominated films.......this site is almost like sitting in a student bar listening to "know it all" students talk about stupid things like the language of cinema.

There Will Be Blood's wonderful. That's that.



In brief...



It gave Daniel Day-Lewis the opportunity to be even better than normal.



It gave Paul Dano a chance to banish the memory of The Girl Next Door.



It had PTA better his previous films (all great, though I've not seen Sydney yet).



It's like The Spire in that I can't help watching it thinking every single word and shot has been laboriously planned and put in place with purpose; it crams in countless themes and ideas while making them able (should you wish) to ignore them and simply see the story of a man descending into himself and his own obsession and madness.



THERE'S A WHOLE OCEAN OF INTERESTING THEMES:



- THE WAR ON TERROR AND OIL; Both Daniel and Eli can be seen as George W Bush. You can see Daniel as Cheney, HW as Bush. No, this isn't massively impressed on the viewer, but TRUST THE TALE, NOT THE TELLER.



- GREED AND AMBITION; and the abuse of people within that, both physically and spiritually etc.



- SINS OF FATHERHOOD AND FAMILY; Not just Daniel's actions, but the Abel/Eli/Paul relationship, the lack of women, Henry 'using' Daniel etc, Daniel's odd want/hatred of family, his (voluntary?) misanthropy, Daniel's also impotent, natch.



- RELIGION; Daniel's fear of it, Eli using it for himself etc.



- COUNT DANIEL; he's clearly a horror figure, at points I can't help seeing Dracula. It's "a horror film about the birth of California". Etc.



- EVOLUTION OF MAN; the Dawn Of Man opening, gaining of knowledge and loss of innocence ironically portrayed in a man seemingly hateful of religion. Etc.



And that's not HALF of it. The astonishing time jump to the 1920s and those two incredible scenes, culminating in THAT climax and a brilliant, discomforting and disorienting music cue.



AND THEN THE TITLE CARD COMES UP AGAIN. THIS AIN'T FOR NO REASON!



And that's not the half of it.



If anyone'd like to offer monetary support I may just write one of those BFI Modern Classics on it.



It's TRANSCENDENT.

Dammit. Typos.

AND.....(to comment for the third time in a row, my apologies)



IT'S BUILD TO BE LIKE DRILLING FOR OIL!



Build up, build up, tension, fear, shaking, woah, phallic drill (see Daniel's impotency)...then the burst of Kabuki, operatic overthetopness of the climax. And the oozing liquid, be it oil or blood.

Hi Mark, sorry this is a bit off track, but I'd just like to mention what a fun time I had watching the William Friedkin-directed music video for the song 'Self-Control' by Laura Branigan.



I'm not sure if you're a fan of 80s pop (or were even aware that Fredkin directed a music video!), but this raises a few questions I have:



1). If you have seen it, what did you think of it?



2). More generally, what is your view of movie directors branching out their profession into other media forms?



Many thanks in advance.

A terrific film from the best director working in Hollywood right now. Dr K has rightly pointed to Marisa Tomei's key role in The Wrestler, and in a similar vein can Paul Dano's superb performance in TWBB be flagged up? His presence as the religious zealot is just as important a counterbalance to DDL's proto-capitalistic monster, illustrating the two incompatible poles of American idealism brilliantly. That Dano received little acclaim for this (outside of the BAFTAs) is truly a travesty: his Eli Sunday is just as pivotal to the thematic concerns of the picture, and deserves just as much credit as DDL's villainous Daniel Plainview.

One of the great things I most admire about Paul Thomas Anderson is that in a profession where once you find a niche in a genre or style that is successful you are expected to stay in that field, he has had the courage (and, of course, the ability!) to produce films which seem so different on the surface (different genre, different morality, different period. Even the different running times of his films, which would seem unimportant, show that he can handle a three hour epic like Magnolia or a ninety minute comic drama such as Punch Drunk-Love. I do not really know of another modern director who can work comfortably both in brief and at length - usually it seems that a filmmaker finds a running time that they are comfortable with and sticks with it. The same with finding an influence -Welles, Kubrick, Scorsese, Hitchcock etc - and sticking to that), and yet underneath have a through line of constant themes of creation of substitute families of characters who have their loyalties tested, of characters with insecurities that define them at the same time that they threaten to destroy them, and so on.



I'm not a big fan of Punch-Drunk Love, in the sense that I don't 'enjoy' the film, but I do sincerely admire the technique and daring on display throughout it.



I thought the theatrical trailer for There Will Be Blood was perfectly chosen, not just for the power of the scene itself but the way that Day-Lewis's speech played differently in that context - more of a stand alone rant, a grand monologue - which still left the nice surprise of the way it was used in the film itself where the listening Henry changes the subject a couple of times and Daniel sticks with his train of thought, so ingrained it is that he doesn’t really need the other party to converse, just to witness his confession. I like that idea of the material you use in a trailer being used with a slightly different context in the actual work itself - it adds resonance and even prevents the scene from seeming stale from having seen it used a hundred times before in the advertising!

I love There Will Be Blood, I think it's one of the finest films of the past 20 years but many people have taken against it because later in the film it tried to compare itself to Citizen Kane. Which in my opinion is completely wrong, yes it has references to Citizen Kane with Plainview eerily alone in the dark lonely mansion which does indeed references the later scenes of Kane, but for me, those final scenes in There Will Be Blood very clearly echo Kubrick. The symmetry of the final scene is similar to that of A Clockwork Orange and the long corridor shoots that seemingly go on forever in Plainview's house also has some similarity to the corridor shots in The Shining. What do you think Dr. Mark?

Dear Mark,



Here's a completely unrelated question. I've been wondering about the future of 2D animation, now that we've had such high-profile 'grownup' examples like Persepolis and Waltz with Bashir. Is the animation arena shifting, away from 3D digimation and back to something purer? Or is it simply expanding to include a wider range of themes? Also (and I think this is the key question), is it all over for the Disney 2D animation?



What with a new Miyasaki film in production as we speak, I can't help feeling that 2D is alive and well, but I can't imagine where it's going to end up.



Jo



PS I echo a previous commentator in requesting a longer review of Che part 1. I loved it, but found the dialogue a little bewildering in parts.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

I'm glad you tried to answer these questions, and the responses you got to your response were interesting, but you failed to explain to us, perhaps through the shot-by-shot analysis of a sample scene, how precisely this new grammar worked, or how it dramatized the film's narrative themes to reveal something new in them. About the oil trade, religion, the self-made man, etc. As far as I could see the film merely trucked in a vague heavy atmosphere of dread that didn't come to much except for the usual Anderson climax of arbitrary violence, which was supposed to symbolize DDL's self-loathing. It's rather like Humbert Humbert's rationalization for the murder of Clare Quilty in Lolita. The difference is that while Nabokov understood there is no such thing as an alter-egoic extension of everything wrong with oneself, this film insists on it, which throws everything out of whack, possibly because the real drama in the film, despite its enforced structure, has nothing to do with this faux profound idea of Hoffmanesquerie, the moral equivalence between doubles. At least now I know that I was right when I suggested that all you meant by this "grammar of the cinema" business was in fact that the scenes weren't structured with the usual payoffs, etc. That's not a reinvention. Godard, Antonioni, Bergman, Altman, Malik (these last two, I think, seem much closer to Anderson than any of the directors you mentioned, with Blood's wash of dark colors, conflagratory images, and pastels all hung around a simple plot drawn out with glancing atmospheric sequences which don't always add up to much) In my opinion this is not so much a form of reinvention as it is a type of ambitiousness, which dances all the steps but doesn't come up with the goods. DDL' performance is strange and magnetic, makes the film worth watching, I think; I liked the music too, better than the movie, actually but...As for the thing you said, that if the movie isn't all you claim it is then how come a main stream audience got it? Setting aside the speciousness of this argument, I'm glad you brought it up. When listening to your show in podcast (which I do every week)--maybe you should do so as well--I noticed that just about a hundred percent of the calls you got on this film were, in paraphrase, "I love it, but I have no idea what the heck it's about. I guess I'll just have to watch it again until I understand." This is not getting it; aside from the fascination of the main performance, this is telling oneself to find what one never will, other than the obvious stuff about how the oil industry and religious zealotry are similarly evil. Obscurity as we well know, lovers of David Lynch both of us, has been around throughout almost the entire history of the cinema, so...Is all the gusty portentousness poetry? Personally I think it doesn't rhyme.

'When you look at the world you don't see cuts every two or three seconds.'



I've always thought you kind of do. As there's clearly a bit of John Huston in Plainview, here's a quote from the great man:



'You pan from one object to another in order to establish a spatial relationship; thereafter you cut. We are forever cutting in real life. Look from one object to another across the room. Notice how you involuntarily blink. That's a cut.'



In truth I think the way we see the world is closer in resemblance to a choppier style of editing than the elegance of Kubrick or Scorsese (or Anderson - whose biggest influence so far seems to be Robert Altman, though Altman couldn't have made TWBB). In real life we never really do a smooth pan with our eyes.



This has almost nothing to do with the point being made in the video blog, but one should never resist the urge to quote someone like John Huston.

Thanks Mark. I always sort-of knew what you meant by "redefines the grammar of cinema", but this is a brilliant explanation.



If you're up for it, I wonder could you tell us in a bit more detail your thoughts on "Exorcist III" aka Legion, particularly what was changed from the original version, and how you would like to see it restored if your project succeeds.



Thanks!

Hi Mark. I'd just like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with your take on 'TWBB'. Like you, I knew very little about it before-hand, but I recall turning to my wife after the end credits and saying that it was like nothing I'd ever seen before. I lack the academic vernacular to explain why this was the case, but it was as if my brain had to shift into a different gear to keep pace with the story. I remember by the end feeling both slightly confused and completely invigorated. 'TWBB' is a fine example of cinema at its most challenging and rewarding.

By the way, in a recent comment on the radio you gave a brief mention to Aranofsky's 'The Fountain', stating that you liked the movie. I do recall however, that when you actually reviewed the movie on Five Live you devoted a mere 10 seconds to it and said nothing particularly favourable, just that it was a bit bonkers. I remember being disappointed as I'd just seen it and had been blown away. It was both courageous and visionary, not to mention heartbreakingly poignant, and I feel it will be a cult favourite for years to come. Did you re-watch it and change your mind, or did you feel that it was too much of an acquired taste for the average listener?

I'll use every opportunity I can to praise Exorcist III, despite the last 20 minutes of studio intervention. The 'Hospital Corridor Scene' astounded me when I saw it. Rarely would such a well-paced, simple and effective scene appear in similar films (especially the constant edits in this age of the Monoform - to use Peter Watkins' term). I believe the scene was influential on Kiyoshi Kurosawa's work (one of the best directors around). Sometimes the camera is best left alone. Brilliant!



Going off at a slight tangent, and returning to Exorcist (I) director William Friedkin, I'd like to praise his most recent film 'Bug' too. Saw it last night and it made up for years of total duds. What did you think of it Mark?

And as for 'The Fountain', I despair, I really do.

Lisztomaniac I must agree with; I saw Bug earlier today and it was insane (in a really good way). Great performances, interesting themes dealt with in a really gripping fashion, wonderful climax. Claustrophobic, intense, etc etc. Very impressive.



And The Fountain I really liked too. Intruiging love and death meditation.



Love and Death's good.

Liszt, you are absolutely right about the corridor scene in Ex3, rarely have I seen a simpler or more effective scare-the-everloving-shit-out-of-you-scene.



Haven't seen "Bug" yet, but I will now make a point of doing so.



Oh, and I loved "The Fountain".

HI, DR MARK.



I RECENTLY SAW DEFIANCE, AND I REALLY ENJOYED IT. ONE THING THAT SURPRISED ME WAS THE ACTING OF DANIEL CRAIG.



THE REASON I SAY THAT IS, I THOUGHT HE WAS TERRIBLE IN QOS.



WOODEN, ROBOTIC, NO CHARISMA, NO PRECENCE AND HE JUST LOOKED DEAD BORED.

JUST AWFUL.



HE IS NOT THE BEST BOND SINCE CONNERY, AT LEAST CONNERY COULD ACT.



I JUST HOPE HE GETS BETTER IN THE NEXT ONE, BECAUSE HE WAS REALLY GOOD IN CASINO ROYALE.



BUT THEN, IN DEFIANCE, HE WAS REALLY GOOD.



WHY GOOD IN TWO FILMS, AND SO WOODEN AND BLANK IN ANOTHER?

Thanks Mark,



I might not agree with you all the time, but you're my favourite critic.



I absolutely love this film.

I went to see it in the cinema three times.



As you've said, P.T. Anderson seems to have created something entirely new although there are echoes of other great directors' work, primarily Kubrick, but also Malick.



Daniel Day Lewis is just incredible, THE great actor of our generation.



But returning to the film itself, the way it had elicited new emotions as I watched it, the amazing acting, the unconventional music , while at the same time not having a clue where the story was going, immediately sets this film apart from all films for god knows when.



It just seems to hit you at a deep primal level.



It will contune to be a film that will divide people, but I'm happy with that. Films that are immediately universally praised tend not to endure, while masterpices that elicit strong opinions tend to stand the test of time, for whatever reason.

Dear Mark,



I was wondering, what are the coming 2009 releases you are most looking forward too?

"I can't keep doing this on my own - with these... people."



Is this really how you feel Mark?! Give us a break mate. Some of us take a little time to crack the Kermode Code, For example :



"It is what it is"

"It's just a bunch of stuff"

"Noodly"

"It's not like saying the 'Best British Film' is a subset of 'Film' - it's a different beast"



All of the above are head-scratchers. And, assuming I actually do understand it, I definitely take issue with the last of those.

The only PTA movie I've ever seen is Magnolia and boy was i bored. Seriously I think I'm missing soemthing. Just what the hell is it with this guy. I keep hearing good things about him, and apparantly magnolia's supposted to his masterpiece. I can only say my experience waching that film was that of pure aggony and frustration. The whole movie plays on one note. its overlong, its soap opera melo dramatic and worst of all pretencious. The film was so bad that I that I vowed to never watch another PTA film again.

I know this is an old post but I couldn't help commenting. I watched There Will be Blood twice and after the second viewing I decided I didn't like it. I was actually quite enthusiastic after the first viewing, the hype maybe, but after sitting through it again with a friend I thought it was interesting but ultimately overblown. I agree that not knowing where the film was going was well done and I went with it gladly but here are my problems.



The character of the priest didn't have to be so creepy and weird. It was too much. It gave the impression of being a cheap shot at religion instead of a well considered shot at religion.



Daniel Day Lewis's acting was very intense but a bit too much glowering to take for that length of time. It started to feel a bit unnatural to me with the voice and so on. Was it a believable character really? Just about maybe.



These two problems lead me to my biggest gripe, the final scene. I thought it was a travesty, very poorly acted and wasn't coherent with the film. I think we were supposed to laugh at the killing of the pathetic priest and I'm not sure why. Didn't work for me. I think it, and the rest of the film, was supposed to be a kind of Citizen Kane thing but I left the cinema feeling irritated, even the first time.



Finally the soundtrack which was interesting but again overblown in places. Especially one scene (was it the rig fire? Can't remember). It took away and distracted me from the visuals which were by far the best part of the film. It looked stunning. It reminded me of one of the Lord of The Ring films I saw, where the constant dramatic soundtrack that never let up in the background started to make me emotionally tired.



So I thought the guy badly overcooked a great idea and probably miscast the priest.



That's my two pence. I'm not a film critic so I don't have the language to really describe what I mean exactly. I'm also aware I could be missing something. I watched In Bruges the other day and thought Colin Farrell clowned around in it, spoiling the tone of the film and he won a Golden Globe. What do I know....

Mark - I'd be interested in your response to this.



I went to Robert McKee's Story Seminar last year, and he dismissed TWBB as a 'dumb movie', because he said it gave you no idea of what Daniel wanted, and that he didn't change throughout the picture.



I thought it was terrific, but this comment gave me pause. What *does* Daniel want? Does he change (beyond perhaps becoming a more extreme version of what he was to start with)? I certainly don't agree the movie is dumb, it's highly intelligent. But I'd be interested to hear what you'd say to McKee?

The film deserved the Oscar

Great blog Doc mark! I love the soundtrack to There Will Be Blood. I was initially confused about the film, and like the average joe would, I steered around the film until it's DVD release, from what I heard it was 'a new direction in movie-making' but that it was a 'neo-western'. That the film had Daniel Day Lewis unrecognisable as a rather lairy-hard character taht combined Nicholson, John Huston and Jack Palance!? But the name of the film told me it was a horror?

Looking back at this film I love the film for so many reasons, and it's fast becoming one of my all time favorite films.