Comments on: Review: There Will Be Blood

By: brangan

brangan — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:59:48 +0000

wannabemoviemaven: Actually, I wouldn’t pick any of these as “gore fests.” The violence in these films is shocking because there are such unexpected spurts of it. I think the Saw films, for instance, are more likely candidates for “gore fests.”

By: wannabemoviemaven

wannabemoviemaven — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:41:23 +0000

“And yet, by the end, we see that Plainview and Eli may not be all that different. It’s just that Eli’s currency is faith; he’s just a capitalist of a different kind.”

So glad you wrote that..thats exactly how I saw the film. The capitalism vs the Church dichotomy was clearly secondary and underdeveloped as a theme.

On a different note, have you watched ‘Eastern Promises’ yet? Did you enjoy Cronenberg’s earlier film ‘History of Violence’? As the title suggests its nnother movie that oozes blood and gore in nearly every frame. For that matter even ‘No country for old men’…Which would you pick as the best gore fest?

By: Vijay

Vijay — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:56:47 +0000

I said I dont have time to ponder about all those things only while watching the film. I do think about it afterwards if I want to, but in no way it enhances my viewing experience, because the viewing has already been done at that point and is in the past. Its just academic dissection at that point. I might be surprised that I missed something or maybe find a new angle that I might not have thought of but if it didnt hit me while watching the film it didnt serve the purpose(of getting a full-fledged experience while waching it). Of course as a reviewer you have to do it all the time. But for me who is just another movie fan, I feel the “depth” aspect is overrated as a contributing factor to a movie’s impact on me. I wouldnt sit thru 2001 space odyssey for example( even though it might have a lot of philosophical, scientific ideas buried beneath the surface which are open to debate and although I might appreciate the thought the director put into it) because the experience itself was boring(just like how I would’nt bother analyzing what raga every Ilayaraja or Rahman song is in, like how some of their diehard fans do, if the song itself didnt make any impact). The movie is cold and distant . I would rather watch a Carl Sagan Cosmos episode on my flatscreen TV, maybe with some choice western classical music in the background to boot That could make me think/get entertained/engaged as much as 2001 did if not more. The experience is probably more or less the same. Of course all this is just my opinion.

By: brangan

brangan — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 06:34:41 +0000

Gaipajama: “PTA sets up several moments to underscore the subtext of religion (and milk)” – yeah, isn’t it funny? Like when Plainview and son first walk up to the Sunday ranch, Eli’s father offers them goat’s milk, and during the dinner scenes, glasses of milk are kept prominently in the frame. I’m glad you mentioned it. I was wondering whether to talk about this in the review, but I guess I was afraid of — cough, cough — “reading too much into it”

By: Gaipajama

Gaipajama — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 05:04:13 +0000

“… a visibly discomfited Plainview pulls away.”

Your eye for detail is what makes your reviews so good to read. PTA sets up several moments to underscore the subtext of religion (and milk) in the movie. But none of those moments really call attention to themselves.

I think Daniel Plainview has beaten Alonzo Harris to become the loudest hero to win an Oscar.

I haven’t watched No Country For Old Men yet, but It better be drink-your-milkshake-good to deserve that Oscar.

By: brangan

brangan — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:28:55 +0000

Vijay: Actually I never ever watch/read previews, interviews, whatever because they give away things that spoil the film. For instance, the director could say X is what he was going for, and that gets stuck in your mind, but while seeing the film (and in my opinion) he could be going for Y. The previews etc. of Indian films are especially horrible because they give away plot and bits of dialogue as well. Almost always, the first question asked is “What is your film about?” In this particular case, I read this bit long after I saw the film and it stuck in my mind while beginning to write the review.

Regarding “a whole lot of us dont even have time to ponder over all the metaphorical or symbolic implications,” well, a review is written AFTER a film, right? Not while actually watching it. So when you’re running the film through your mind’s projector, you could say, “Ah, maybe that’s what this means.” Some of us like to do this. From your comment, I guess you don’t. It’s really just different levels of engagement with a film, or any piece of art really.

And regarding “It might be just the reviewer trying to read a bit too much into a film that he liked while watching it,” OF COURSE this is the case. That’s what makes a good review so valuable. If I (or any other reviewer) didn’t try to filter the film through *my* life experiences and *my* analytical processes, why would you even be interested in my take? I could then just write about the plot and the performances and be done, right? What use is that, then?

By: Vijay

Vijay — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 18:03:22 +0000

Do you make it a point to read up on all previews, interviews, the original book on which the film is based, other reviews of the film and so on before you decide to view a Oscar-nominated Hollywood film for watching(like the connection between Shining and this film and so on)? Dont you think that robs the spontaneity off your natural response to the film a bit? Not to mention it might also skew your own analysis/reading of the film.

Another thing, regarding “depth” – It is my opinion that depth is overrated quite a bit. I mean a whole lot of us dont even have time to ponder over all the metaphorical or symbolic implications while a scene is being played out on the big screen. What matters more is the visceral impact and an engagement with the audience at a certain level. Subtexts and layers might be interesting material for academic dissection after the screening, but they dont necessarily enhance your movie-watching experience.

Also sometimes the perceived depth is attributed to the director’s insight by the reviewer, when it might not be the case. It might be just the reviewer trying to read a bit too much into a film that he liked while watching it.

The depth factor could be an icing at best, in my opinion. What matters is the cake itself.

By: brangan

brangan — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 12:16:38 +0000

“Visu Perippa”: You big fart

By: Visu Perippa

Visu Perippa — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 09:47:27 +0000

A masterful review of a masterful film!! keep ‘em coming, my dear buddhist monk!!

By: brangan

brangan — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:08:48 +0000

BTW, recent search terms leading to Blogical Conclusion include “animated insects” and “Mandakini’s nipple.” I so glad my blog attracts readers with such a diverse range of interests