Advertisement
I confess: Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood has pretty much slain me. In three weeks of trying to nail down what makes this film tick, I haven’t been able to mold my thoughts into anything resembling a traditional movie review. I feel like the first step to defining what this film is, and why it’s had such an impact on me, is to figure out what it isn’t. So, I’ll now proceed to blatantly rip off Filmbrain, and review TWBB in more-or-less list form. What follows is my analysis of five common misconceptions about this film. We’ll have more on There Will Be Blood on next week’s podcast.
Misconception 1: “There Will Be Blood is a Monster Movie, and Daniel Plainview is the Monster.”
Espoused by: Peter Martin at Twitch, Richard Schickel at TIME, Fred Schurers at PORTFOLIO, among others.
We’ll begin with a misconception that I can sort of understand–in fact, I think it’s less a misconception than a missing of the point. Daniel Day Lewis’ presence in TWBB is terrifying, not least because of the booming sing-song in which he speaks. But if this voice calls to mind any sort of known movie villain at all, it’s the type of villains seen mainly in cartoons–he’s essentially a Snidely Whiplash that could kill you with his bare hands. But PTA never lets the characterization have the final word on the character. One of the most intriguing things about this film is its unwillingness to completely vilify anyone: both protagonists (Plainview as well as Paul Dano’s young preacher, Eli Sunday) are equally good and evil, antagonistic and sympathetic. Both are wrong and both are right. Plainview may behave monstrously, but with the final scene excepted, the victim of his terror is mostly himself.
It’s easy to see Plainview as the “bad” guy, if for no other reason because he spends so much time apparently antagonizing the “good” guys. But to do so is to misread. Plainview comes to Little Boston (the nothing Western town that serves as the site of the film’s main action; it might as well be called Manifest Destiny-ville) promising that the oil he excavates will pay the way towards The Future: schools, roads, freedom from hunger and virtually any other brand of want. He’s offering this promise to God-fearing people who may still be grappling with the present and the past, but it’s more than just a struggle between old and new, or even religion and blasphemy. Plainview’s real “gift” to the community is his introduction of cynicism, mistrust, and doubt. His presence represents the literal loss of faith. Scary, sure, but the horror movie dynamics are reductive, and they’ve been way overblown.
Misconception #2: Plainview is a take-off from John Huston’s character in Chinatown.
Espoused by: Among others, [John Huston's] “rich voice seeps into the character-isation, as if Plainview were a prototype for the sociopath Huston played in Polanski’s Chinatown.”
This is probably the easiest misconception to refute. Though Day-Lewis admits to having studied Huston’s voice as an inspiration to crafting the character, to draw a distinct line between Daniel Plainview and Noah Cross is incredibly misguided. The plot of Chinatown evebtually turns on the revelation that Cross is a serial pervert who not only raped his daughter, but is essentially trying to kidnap the child who resulted in that incestuous union. When confronted regarding his misdeeds late in the film, Cross tries to paint himself as the more evolved man: “You see, Mr. Gittes, most people never have to face the fact that, at the right time and the right place, they’re capable of…anything!”
Plainview would never buy into any kind of psychology that attempted to unite all men along the lines of base desire. The film’s last scene might suggest to some that the oilman could indeed go to any lengths if pressed, but in fact, the entire film shows him struggling to behave in accordance with a private moral code. Plainview’s ultimate divergence from the Noah Cross model of early capitalist monomaniac arrives via a scene set in a brothel: while Plainview’s “brother” squanders their bankroll on whores, Plainview shows himself to be wholly uninterested in sex. In fact, his observation of the other man’s weakness in the face of pay-for-play paramours seems to offer the punctuation to the open question of their relation. Not only is Plainview asexual where Cross is perverse, but he’d never allow a corporeal indulgence of any sort to distract him from business.
Misconception #3: There’s not enough blood in There Will Be Blood
Espoused by: Entertainment Weekly’s Marc Bernadin, John DeFore at The Hollywood Reporter.
There is nothing BUT blood in There Will be Blood. Blood is oil, blood is family (and family is at worst a scam and at best an Achilles heel), but blood is also blood. If nothing else, the title is a spoiler for the final scene.
Misconception #4: “Paul Thomas Anderson has never made a movie like this before.”
Espousers: Glenn Kenny, Scott Weinberg
This is correct only in that Day-Lewis has replaced Luis Guzman, John C. Reilly, Philip Seymour Hoffman and the rest of Anderson’s traditional rep company. Manohla Dargis and the Times‘ Goodwin spot what really matters: just like Anderson’s previous four features, this is ultimately a story about being a son. In many ways, it’s Boogie Nights in radically different clothing.
Many critics have referenced that film’s “Jessie’s Girl”-scored drug deal gone awry scene as shorthand to excuse TWBB’s late-inning excesses, but there’s a better, closer parallel. In TWBB, there’s a scene in which a prospective business partner implies that Plainview’s professional success has cost him a happy and healthy family life. At the very suggestion, Plainview becomes enraged. Before storming out, he shouts, “You’ll see what I can do!” Not only is this on the same emotional and thematic wavelength as a scene from Boogie Nights, in which the future Dirk Diggler responds to his mother’s put downs with the cry, “You don’t know what I can do! I’m gonna be something!”, but the dialogue is so close that it seems as though PTA has made a deliberate attempt to unite the oilman with the porn star across a century.
Misconception #5: “Plainview/the film goes off the rails in the final reel.” Or, “Why did it suddenly get funny?”
Espoused by: Michael Tully, Mary Bronstein, Kurt Loder (suddenly demoted to movie critic by MTV’s refusal to play music––and yes, I am aware that he is lucky to still have a job, but I’ll weep for my childhood heroes on my own schedule, thank you very much), The Playlist.
Admittedly, this is a bit of a two-parter, but the two gripes are deeply connected. For the record, I’m probably what Todd McCarthy referred to, in his review, as a “partisan viewer”––I’m personally of the opinion that if you can’t roll with the final reel of this film, then your love just is not real. But bias aside…
Plainview simply does not move from “in control” to “off the rails.” It seems very clear that an injury suffered by his adopted son at the film’s halfway point essentially lays waste to Plainview’s self-preservation instinct, ie: his ability to keep the his true, extremely volatile nature bottled up long enough to get along. Among major critics, David Ansen is one of few to see this for what it is. Son H.W. is clearly Plainview’s normalizing influence, and after the little boy’s accident, “Daniel loses his lifeline to the world. It severs not just their relationship, but his increasingly shaky hold on sanity.”
As for the comedy issue: Anyone who thinks there’s been an abrupt tonal change in the final reel has simply not picked up the crumbs PTA has dropped all along. What is the baptism sequence, if not an homage to two-man silent comedy? That said, the film is not overtly comic at the expense of its tragedy; rather, it’s a comedy of humiliation, along the lines of Curb Your Enthusiasm, but even dryer. You may be supposed to laugh out loud, but never without a consciousness, or even fear. It’s a laughter of nervous recognition. And unlike No Country For Old Men, a film I’ve somewhat infamously bashed for its use of comedy, PTA is never laughing at his protagonists—he’s laughing with them, because laughter is the only appropriate response to something this unsettling.
This may be the most contentious issue surrounding the film right now, and better debaters than me have given up, have allowed it to lay open-ended, have decided that without incontrovertible proof, that the conversation wasn’t really worth having. Well, I don’t know from incontrovertible, but a couple of nights before Christmas, I was flipping channels, and I cam across PTA and DDl on Charlie Rose. All three men were, as I came in, laughing hysterically. Soon Charlie broke into the cacophony to ask DDL a question: “You can’t let this character go. Why can’t you let him go?” Day-Lewis recovered a bit, and then offered this response: “He makes me laugh.”
Kevin Buist
FLAME + CITRON Review
Christopher Campbell
Happy Halloween Links. Today in Film...
Brandon Harris
5 80s Literary Adaptations Worse Than...
Kevin Kelly
John Krasinski, Brief Interviews With...
Karina Longworth
SpoutBlog, Now Available in Book Form
Paul Moore
October 31, Karina’s Last Day
Lauren Wissot
Sasha Grey Interview
We’ve had a bit of trouble getting this episode to go through the iTunes feed, so we hope this re-post will fix the problem. The original post, with episode description and embedded player, is here.
filmcouch-114
#1. Agreed. DP is monstrous, but not a monster. Does it make me a bad person that I was sort of rooting for the li’l fella at the end?
#2. That’s as crazy as the notion that DDL is simply replaying Bill The Butcher. Madness I tell you.
#3. How much more blood does one need?
#4. I’d say the movie is different, in that it seems more focused and more mature…but otherwise it’s very much Paul Thomas Anderson
#5. First of all, it you watch the baptism scene without being alternately moved, frightened and highly amused…well you’re dead inside. As for the final scene flying off the rails, all I can say is that the ending makes a very good movie brilliant. I admit the chasing around the room business is boderline slapstick, but I think this is a very clever diversion that makes the final result even more shocking. It’s like a guy doing a happy little puppet show with one hand and then he suddenly punches you in the balls with the other. Good times.
#6: TWBB is the year’s best comedy next to I Am Legend and Control.
Reason why: The “Milkshake” monologue and DDL’s final, scene-stealing, end-of-film quote.
Not so fast, KL. What I actually wrote was, “This movie isn’t anything like Anderson’s previous films (Boogie Nights, Magnolia), at least not superficially.” We’re actually pretty much on the same page… As for Plainview’s “going off the rails,” not being a sudden thing, I’m also with you…there’s a scene relatively early on wherein Plainview has to be roused from sleep and he’s on the floor of his cabin, his sleep a drunken stupor. His frequent alcoholic insistence on passing out on floors suggests a certain nostalgie pour la boue in Plainview…something worth going into as bloggers and critics and such go deeper into the picture…
I can sympathize with all your points on an intellectual level, but emotionally, the over the topness of Day Lewis’s performance at the end took me right out of the film. Where the firecracker craziness in Boogie Nights had me genuinely fearful for the characters, the bowling pin scene reached the point where I was looking at Day Lewis, the actor, not the character, and thinking tone it down a notch, man. While there may be some big acting in Anderson’s other films, it serves to immerse you in the film, this performance, particularly those closing moments, took me right out of the film, and I don’t think that was the intention. It’s by far the weakest of Anderson’s four films.
#1. Paul commented on this aspect in Fantastic Fest Q&A. There is some clear intent on molding Daniel as a Dracula type character. Beyond that for those curious on the real life character behind the Daniel Planview character should Google “Edward Doheny” and his Greystone Castle.
http://texasgeektv.vox.com/library/post/tgtv005-paul-thomas-anderson.html
There Will Be Blood (and Wine and Discussion)…
Still haven’t seen There Will Be Blood? Can’t convince your friend/partner/lover/spouse/dumb co-worker/roommate/priest/mother to sit through a 158 minute move? Well, if you’re in the vicinity of NYC, there’s a happening this Saturday evening (5 Jan…
#3- I was convinced near the end of the film that there would actually be no literal blood (though we see people getting killed and we see H.W.’s injury, I don’t explicitly recall seeing any blood in any of those instances).
You’re right about oil and family, but I saw the title as most prominently being a sly reference to the baptism scene. Filmbrain pointed out the hymn “There is Power in the Blood,” which is also featured in my favorite of the film’s trailers ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYW2ltW5SPo ), being sung while the title appears on screen. The baptismal water is referred to as the blood, complete with Plainview having to scream “I want the blood!”
In the otherwise bad Slate article about the film (”I haven’t read Sinclair but yet I’ll discuss why the film doesn’t equal the novel anyway”) the writer says that the title is taken from Exodus 7:19 ( http://bible.cc/exodus/7-19.htm ), the Lord saying what will happen to the water in Egypt. If that’s true it certainly reveals in Anderson a fondness with that section of Exodus. Though we don’t see a surreal scene like that of the raining frogs, perhaps the plague of the black blood-like liquid polluting the land and our society to this day is more horrible because it is believable and true.
Of course, though, we have the movie’s ending, with the literal blood, followed by the abrupt cut to black and then the film’s title in its big gothic letters. Not that it renders all the previous symbolism meaningless..
alot of good discussion here, gonna have to reread it before i post my thoughts. One thing stuck out though: you are mistaken about plainviews sexuality. Find the script and read it, also read the book, then rewatch the film. He is impotent, and there is more going on than asexuality.
[...] that — at least in part — the film’s all-or-nothing champions (like Karina Longworth, who claims “if you can’t roll with the final reel of this film, then your love just is not [...]
Here’s something to think about:
1-DP is the devil; look at the depiction of him with oil on his face and the buring well as hell on earth.
2-DP’s son is Jesus; he marries “Mary” Magdalene, and his intials are “H.W.” (His Word); and H.W becomes “deaf” to the ills of the world. H.W. also drinks goat milk; the “lamb of God.”
3-The Church is also “a lie on Sunday” (i.e.-Eli Sunday).
4-Oil is, as DP says, “the blood of the earth,” and the Devil and the Church both drink at the same well.
THIS MOVIE IS A COMPLETE RIP OFF. NOTHING ORIGINAL!!! JESUS HAVEN’T ANY OF YOU INCLUDING DARGIS SEEN ” DAYS OF HEAVEN” OR 2001. WHY DID IT GET FUNNY AT THE END? WATCH DR. STRANGELOVE. BECAUSE PTA DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO END A FILM, IE FROG FALLING FROM THE SKY. DIGLER TAKING OUT HIS PENIS ( SEEN RAGING BULL) OH, HOW IRONIC .. OH AM I SUPPOSE TO GET IT? LOOK AT THE OPENING SHOT OF BLOOD AND THEN WATCH 2001. I’M SO TIRED OF FILM MAKERS CLAIMING THEIR GENIUS. THIS MOVIE AT BEST WAS TERRENCE MALICK WITH NO! POETRY!
Interesting way to review a movie. I couldn’t stand the movie. There Will Be Blood suffers from the same problems of all of the other Paul Thomas Anderson films: too pretentious and self-indulgent. Also, let’s not forget his propensity to not develop stories and characters and instead focus on pretty pictures and tracking shots.
To read a differing review, check out:
http://cinemoose.com/review-there-will-be-snores
I just saw the movie last night and I had heard all this blabber from friends and media about how it got really crazy in the last 20 minutes and you know what? When the movie ended, I was waiting for the crazy 20 minutes. The ending was so logical (in its own perverse world), it was perfect. It’s not like Plainview hadn’t killed before (his fake brother), so he’d already kinda crossed that line. I couldn’t agree more that it starts with the injury to his son, although I think it’s more when he decides to send the boy away. I felt like the conflict of his clear love for the boy mixed in with the guilt and hatred of sending him away just made him begin to really lose it. All in all, great movie, maybe the best of my lifetime (I’m 27).
I agree with the fact that H.W. is the normalizing influence in Plainviews life. But, another important influence that shouldn’t be overlooked is that of Eli’s as the pesky symbol of morality. Both occasions on which Plainview physically attacks Eli are preceded by the scenes in which Plainview turns his back on H.W. The first time being when he sends him away for school and the second being after he tells him off at the end of the film. H.W. is a symbol of the little bit of humanity that Plainview left behind, and Eli is the pest that has to remind him of that if only through his presence and suggested moral authority.
I think that the apparent physical comedy of Plainview at the end is what probably jolts people out of the dark mood they were in from the previous scene (and heck, the rest of the movie). But i think it helps to keep in mind: how incredibly drunk plainview is at the time; how much glee he is getting out of bringing down his main foil (reference the ‘competition in me’ scene) as well as the fact that this is the last bit of joy left to him in the world (son gone, lonely and wasting); and finally that he’s so far gone as an alcoholic and physically decrepit from that as well as the coal mine fall that moving fast enough to enact his gleeful rage on Eli is just going to look awkward.
And for fun, I like to think his final internal dialogue is ‘oh crap did i just knock him out? i think i did. maybe i should . . . actually i think i like where this is going.’ *thwack*
If you missed the fact that HW wasn’t his son, then you’re completely clueless (real father dies early and Plainview parades him around for sympathy). Let’s face it: the movie was pointless. It was unoriginal and self-indulgent. Pretty to look at, good acting, but I guess that’s enough nowadays in Hollywood. No substance. It this movie is the best in your lifetime (as stated above), then you need a new life! Save the 10 bucks: the Emporer has no clothes.
So final scene thought - Did anyone notice the pause between the first hit with the bowling pin and the 2nd. For me it seems as if it was an accidental end result - in that time of pause I think he saw what the remainder of his life would be - crushing his competitor (adopted son) - and a chance to not have to subcome to his baser self. So the 2nd and 3rd hit - leaving NO doubt that this was intentional - and accountable to the full extent of the law - hence his being finished (finsished being a slave to his competitiveness).
Just a thought…
Saw the movie a second time. Completely different experience. It seems to me Thomas’s main artistic theme is the unholy alliance between capitalism and fundamentalism in the republican party, which is coming to a head right now in 2008. Didn’t anybody catch the H. W. as in G. H. W. Bush, the first oilman president. Thomas is also clearly a fan of Faulkner in using religious themes and names to contrast the good or evil actions and thought that occur in parallel biblical stories. The whole final bowling alley scene is where the theme of the republican schism plays out, where Plainview’s exposes the fundamentalist as a fraud and swindler, only interested in money and self aggrandizement, the same as Plainview, only Plainview beat him to the punch by sucking the oil (blood) first. It was no coincidence that Eli said he was on the radio, as in right wing talk radio. It was no coincidence that Plainview’s final words after killing the fundamentalist nearly replicated the final words of Jesus on the cross. It was clearly intentional that Plainview said that Paul was the true prophet (new testament) and Eli was the false prophet (old testament). Thomas has made a literary masterpiece on film.
While watching TWBB, did anyone think that Paul and Eli might be the same person instead of simply twin brothers? (I do realize both characters were played by the same actor.) I thought Eli may have employed the persona of Paul as a means to “bargain with the devil”.
During the bowling alley scene, I also thought Daniel’s reference to Paul’s successful oil derricks could be a metaphor for Eli’s church. Afterall, Eli was sucking the sanctity out of religion with his church of the 3rd Revelation, much like Paul was sucking the oil from the ground with his 3 derricks.
The layers of this movie are as deep as an oil well.
If, after seeing TWBB, you don’t recognize the ambiguity in the above statement, you can’t begin to comprehend the genius of this movie.
For the haters:
PTA openly tips his hat to his influences (i.e. Scorsese and the like). Besides, what artist doesn’t strive for greatness equal to (if not surpassing) that of his masters, and, whether subconsciously or consciously, what artist doesn’t emulate that greatness in his own work?
Next - unoriginal?!? This movie is one of the most original interpretations of Sinclair’s Oil! imaginable. The book and the movie are often as different as night and day. Though many of the central themes remain, the characters, imagery and story found in the film belong to DDL/Dano and PTA alone.
“Plainview may behave monstrously, but with the final scene excepted, the victim of his terror is mostly himself.”
Wha??? Huh???
1. He murders his fake brother. Was Plainview the real victim in that encounter?
2. His madness for oil deafens his adoptive son, whom he then cruelly abandons, twice. Poor Plainview!
3. His madness for oil kills, albeit inadvertently, workers, and we can assume more that didn’t make the film.
4. He either literally steals (milkshake!) or virtually steals (”quail prices”) a fortune from plain folk who don’t know any better.
(not to mention the final scene).
I’m sorry, but arguing his terror didn’t have victims is an extremely puzzling mischaracterization of the plot of the film.
Finally, a “review” that gets it. This understanding of the movie will take a while… maybe years… to seep into the critical mainstream, but once it does it will be - like the film - eternal.
I noticed that no-one has mentioned the other Kubrick film that pops up in this. The opening recalls 2001 as mentioned, but to my eyes the physical comedy coupled with psychotic violence at the end recalled Jack Nicholson’s performance in The Shining. Watch the ‘All work and no play’ scene and you’ll get what I mean.
Great review by the way.
I’ve looked all over and this is the best review I’ve seen.
As for comedy aspect, I think the best thing about PTA has been his ability to mix dramatic and comic tones skilfully. It’s like there’s a central tension in Plainview that holds him and the film together and when that snaps his character disintegrates and the film floats away into farce. I must say I think most reviews I’ve read haven’t gotten to grips with this movie in any way beyond a few bland platitudes about greed. The tone is unlike any movie I’ve seen in my life. Using comedy and bordering on farce it touched on an element of real tragedy - that a person whose life falls apart can often become a messy and exaggerated version of themselves. Maybe the will that kept plainview together has suddenly gone and after it disappears, his character falls out of coherence and becomes flabby. It feels like there’s always been a tension between the seriousness of american epics and the farce and comedy usually happens unintentionally. But PTA seems to have taken the mixing of these tones as a main aim, and the tragedy of plainview is his descent into a farce. And the performance immerses you in this decline. Looking back now what I’ve written all seems pretentious, but simply put, well done on an astute review.
re # 1
You’re wrong, this is totally a monster movie! But Instead of Godzilla vs King Kong, it’s Oilman vs Preacher Boy!
As one writer here says, blood is oil, blood is family. Regarding the latter, Daniel the loner rejects humanity (or so he says) yet desperately seeks familial connections and loses them all: the false brother, whom he too willingly trusts and must kill on learning the truth; the real brother who dies, unknown to Daniel; the father whose death he hears of from the stranger/brother; H.W., an adoptive son, with whom he does make a connection, but one which weakens after the hearing loss… Doesn’t it seem that Daniel’s towering rage in the final scene is stoked by the much-hated Eli addressing him as “brother”?
I really enjoyed the movie and i thought it was very original but it was so SLOW moving. It took 1/2 an hour for anyone to get a sentence out.
The film was brilliant. Reading everybodies comments will probably prompt me to watch the film again this week. For some reason, for me, the film gives off a similar vibe to the novel Atlas Shrugged. Maybe its the absolute symbolism of all the characters. Any thoughts?
You know, I sympathize and agree with people who walk out of this movie and say something vague like, “This movie sucked.” This movie wasn’t really about anything in particular. The only way the film’s thematic material can be consistent is on an ironic level. Meaning it’s actually an attack on this type of filmmaking. But, at this point, PTA can’t make clear if it’s intentional or incompetence.
The movie is an admittedly effective effort at attacking two things Anderson seems to hate most; the rugged individualism which built this nation, and the religious faithful which kept it morally on the straight and narrow, each crucially contributing towards making America the most giving nation in the history of nations. Anderson portrayed the independent, driven and self-made man as monstrously greedy, psychopathically hateful and murderously evil. He then portrayed a country pastor as not only a bit of a loon, but a hypocrite who would sell his faith for the promise of a few lousy bucks. Obviously, Anderson hates who built America and those who pray in and for it. Disgustingly insidious in its execution, it is hard not to imagine Anderson will one day have to answer for it, and he’ll likely be speechless while he tries vainly to beg for mercy.
Acting was good, plot was dragging, message was lost in dryness. I don’t care about any characterization of oilmen being cynical. Who would have thought that a businessman could be so impersonal, ambitious and cold; really!!! Show me a film with a statement that doesn’t take 3 hrs. to convey the stereotypically obvious. I’m also sick of the avant-believer-hypocrite roll. Break the mold and present a Christian in a positive perspective. Jesus!
Uninspired yawns.
Out of all these comments, and some of them were quite good, I noticed that no one mentioned that the ‘bad guy’ kills the ‘good guy’ of the film. If it is like the Shining, I would suggest that the ending of the Shining be changed to allow Jack Nicholson to hack up his wife and kid and then sit down gleefully beside their mutilated bodies.
That is what’s wrong with the ending. There was no comeuppance. I don’t understand this absence of morality. The holy man declares ‘I am a false prophet and God is a superstition’ and is beaten to death. Why does this make me think of Abu Ghraib?
The writer had a choice towards the end on how to deal with these two characters and favored the man with the wooden club and the bad temper. Very cave-man-ish.
For showing us mankind’s darkness and then letting it win, this movie as well as ‘No Country for Old Men’ are in the same league as B-movie slasher films, plain and simple.
i agree entirely. except i believe plainview has decayed into a physical and psychological ‘monster’ of sorts in the bowling alley scene. hell of a movie.
#30: he’s lost his mind and his humanity and admits he is “finished” severing himself from mankind. for nothing. with nothing. he has no brothers, no family. no soul, if you wish to assume fireflies in our wintry night.
last one: anyone else notice plainview commits all seven deadly sins?
http://buysomethingawesome.com/posters-signs/there-will-be-blood-monopoly-style/prod_775.php
This “art piece” was designed and illustrated after I watching There Will Be Blood in theaters for the third time. A huge amount of thought and time into it, so that it made sense both as a monopoly game, and as a themed adaptation of the film.
The creator, known as numeric_atrophy, is a huge fans of both the film and the game of Monopoly. “I thought, why not combine the two? I had a single board printed up for $50 (laminated to 1/8 inch plastic). I purchased little silver charms off of ebay for the game pieces. A model-t, an oil derrick, and so on. The whole project turned out so well that I was offered $100 for the board. Well, I decided to take it to ebay and find out how much I could get for it. It ended up selling at $202 with the pieces. I was very excited, and had a second one printed (again at $50). It sold at $165 (no pieces).”
It turns out that the second board was given as a gift to Hans Howes (who played William Bandy Senior). He was apparently very excited to receive it, and had very nice things to say about it, which pretty much made my day. Apparently the cast received a belt with the film’s title on it as their wrap present, and he would have preferred the board :-).
Daniel Day lewis’s performance was stunning and fantastic. I loved this film. Dark, Creepy, Unsettling and Beautiful. One mans painfully slow dissent into insanity and madness. One amazing film.
I remember about this thing about a middle aged man running a scam on oil and later finding oil on the land. And knocking up every woman he comes across. There is an old man by the name of Dave Thompson SR constently repeating the story about a person that is a decendent of this “oil barron in california and he was running around knocking up every woman he came across. He clams that Mike J Fox is one of his kids and Bill Gates (co-owner of microsoft) and Tom Cruse and name a few on TV. He is a devouted jehovah witness he clams how one of this persons decendets killed the black dayia.