nmurtagh88
Posts: 4
Joined: 2/9/2008
|
[/quote] QUOTE gooner_no1 There is no plot, no character development, the dialogue at times is cringeworthy and would be rejected by an Eastenders script writer - what keeps the attention in spite of all this is Day-Lewis' performance, which is exceptional. The direction is all over the place, the artistic and narrative decision-making deliberately precious and obtuse; the best possible word to describe this film is pretentious. It pretends to depths it most certainly does not achieve. The subject matter alone has set a lot of people off on the head staggers, willing themselves to like it before they've seen a single frame: America, Oil and Religion. If that doesn't spell Geroge W Bush and current disdain for the US regime, then I don't know what does. Audiences are willing to sit bored rigid watching a pantomime for the chattering classes (on both sides of the pond) because they somehow think this is all rather profound. . [/quote] UNQUOTE I agree some audiences do watch films, even though they're bored, and all because someone said they were meaningful. That's fair enough. However, I totally disagree with the rest of your comments. Firstly, your whole anti Bush criticism is ridiculous. A film that explores the oil business in the early 20th century is going to involve oil and America, honestly, at what point in the movie did you think about the Bush admin? Moving on, the direction was excellent. PTA used alot of long, one shot one camera scenes to good effect. They gave Daniel-Day and Paul Dano loads of room for good improvisation, that worked brilliantly. Furthermore, they gave the film a raw feel to it, that resonates with the rawness of the oil business at that time. [Spoiler Alert!]. My favourite scene was when the derrick set on fire. PTA shot that scene in a way you don't see alot in films, one shot, following Plainview to and from the flames. I'm sorry, but that was artistic. I was overwhelmed when I first saw the scene in the theatre. In awe, I felt I had experienced pure class in modern film making, and I was reminded of the power of good direction. With all that said, this film isn't to everyone's taste, you're right there. But it is wrong to say it pretends to be profound. It is profound, well it is in my opinion, just in a very subtle way. [Spoiler Alert!]. The essence of the story lies in Plainview's disintegration into becoming, totally, the monster that was always within him. His own stubborness and ruthlessness is how he became this monster. That is why his feelings of depression, isolation and self disgust at the end are so profound. He alienated himself his whole life and only has himself to blame. He utters in his final dialogoue, "I'm finished", meaning that in it's total literal sense. For me, both Daniel-Day's performance and PTA's direction were excellent, and also the fable is profound and deep. However, the screenplay wasn't so excellent, making some parts exhausting and a bit boring, but hey, those parts were small, so I give it ****. Sorry don't understand how to quote only what you want to quote yet.
< Message edited by nmurtagh88 -- 3/9/2008 8:46:46 PM >
|