No sports today… just bloggin’ on a Saturday about movies, critics, and my own sanity. …
This was the week where I try and catch up on the Oscar buzz. I finally saw "No Country for Old Men". I thought that it was simply a decent movie, but nothing worth the standard salivation that has been going around. I would go into it, but this sentiment was trumped 1000 times over by the second movie: "There Will Be Blood".
Let’s be perfectly clear: This movie was horrible. Okay, maybe that’s too harsh. Daniel Day Lewis’ acting performance was undeniably great and certainly Oscar-worthy. The depiction of the early 1900′s rural scenery and time-period seemed worthwhile if cinematography and camerawork is high on your moviegoing criteria. But the script was awful, the evolution of the film characters lacked any cohesion and the ending only made matters worse. There will be no further analytical dissection. But what to do about the gap between my own eyes and all of these critics far and wide labeling "There Will Be Blood" as "a masterpiece". Here are my best theories:
1) The Adaptation of a Novel Theory: The movie was loosely based on Upton Sinclair’s novel "Oil". Doesn’t it seem that if you make a movie adaptation of a famous novel, then your Oscar nomination is halfway home. Good example: Any Jane Austen novel
2) The Epic Wanna-Be Theory: These are those movies that set out to be an epic but fall woefully short. It is usually a "time-period" depiction piece, the acting is good, the cinematography is decent, and it must be at least 2 and a half hours long. But somewhere along the way they forgot the script. But based on all the other stuff, critics convince themselves that the script was a good one because of the film’s other epic qualities. Good Example: The inexplicable Oscar given to "Out-of-Africa".
3) The Convoluted Script Theory: This is related to #2. Viewer sees movie and has no idea what the hell exactly happened, but is afraid to publicly admit this for fear of appearing stupid to others. Some of their friends have already anointed the Director as "brilliant" and the movie "a masterpiece". What to do next? Perpetuate the movie charade or risk being viewed as an uneducated, uncultured, and unsophisticated moron. People keep choosing the former. Good example: "Syriana". Some people wanted it to be good because of the topic, and others wanted it to succeed because the directors’ previous effort ("Traffic") was a great movie. The reality was the movie missed, and it happens to the best of ‘em.
4) The "I Got it All Wrong" Theory: Did I miss the deeper symbolism about the movies’ depiction of American capitalism’s impact on the human soul… or the struggle between god, greed, and man… or something like that. If so, one of these movie critics needs to hold me by the hand, talk to me like I am five years old, and tell me exactly why this film is up for an Oscar nomination.
“I have a competition with myself. I want no one else to succeed.”
I want to see it just because I think Daniel Day Lewis is a genius. But I’ve never been a fan of Paul Thomas Anderson. I thought Boogie Nights and Magnolia were vastly overrated. Hard Eight was good, but the ending sucked.
Gangsta, if you are a Daniel Day Lewis fan and acting is important to you, then on those grounds it is worth the pice of admission. I’ll be interested in your take.
i saw the trailer for TWBB when i was waiting for NCFOM to start. i was curious but not too much excited. it was one of them things i would wait to hear the buzz first before making up my mind. i was thinkin recently that since it garnered some oscar buzz it prolly wasn’t TURRIBLE, might be worth going to see. but your review gives me pause. then again you weren’t much impressed with NCFOM and i absolutely LOVED that flick (can’t wait to see it again. for me it’s worth buyin)
Mody – you may have lost it here. No doubt the movie garnered out-sized hype, but still a classy, well-crafted film. But not one with a very conventional story arc. I agree that “No Country” was at best, decently engaging.
Please take the time to read ‘Oil” and then Sinclair’s other masterwork, “The Jungle” Both shed light on uniquely American issues well before anyone else.
Suggestion: See it again. Certain art can be disturbing and repulsive upon first viewing until it sinks in.
Btw, loved Syriana.
Perhaps I will read “Oil”. However, if you read Oil before actually seeing the movie, then there is no way for you to possibly judge the movie with an objective lens. Too much information was already built in for you. And perhaps THAT is the main issue here. A movie of a book needs to be able to stand on its own without the book. I found the script to be convoluted, choppy, and lacking a cohesice direction. Maybe that would have dissappeared had i read the book…
The other part is what one values in a movie. For me, no amount of acting, cinematography, or musical score can ever make up for a flick’s most important part: the script.
You know that I respect your opinion, but Syriana sucked ass. The worst part about it is that it was such an important topic that could have and should have been done soooo much better. Loved “Traffic” though!
Mody – I hear they are re-releasing American Pie 4. I am sure you’ll like that script.
All Love.
I hope that it’s the uncut version!!!
I finally saw it last week. Daniel Day Lewis was God, as I expected. PT Anderson staged the film almost perfectly. He really knows how to fill the frame. But, I wasn’t impressed. The script wasn’t horrible, but it was weak. There wasn’t a strong narrative to latch on to. And the last reel was silly. It wasn’t a bad film, but I found myself wondering when it was going to be over during the second half.