Joe Leydon points to the above promo widget for the Telluride Film Festival. If you’re going to Telluride, you’ll eventually be able to use the widget to customize your schedule. If you’re not going to Telluride––and, considering the geographic and financial inaccessibility of the Festival, which is incidentally one of my favorites, I assume that’s most of you––the widget is nonetheless surprisingly packed with interesting content.
There are videos from last year’s festival, including documentation of the tribute to Daniel Day-Lewis; there’s also a short on the festival’s 35 year history, featuring founding director Tom Luddy. You should be able to get your own widget by clicking the “customize and embed” code above. You’ll have to give your email address––be careful not to sign yourself up for Dell bacn.
Variety says Steven Spielberg and co. are strenuously aiming to avoid what we’re apparently calling “The Da Vinci Scenario” –– so named because a “jet-lagged, overtired, cynical mob of critics and executives decimated The Da Vinci Code when it debuted [at Cannes] two years ago”––with this weekend’s debut of Indiana Jones vs. King Shia LaBeouf. Some of their defense tactics: journalists will only be allowed to interview the cast and filmmakers before the press screening, and they won’t be invited to the film’s after party. Because limited access *always* ensures positive pres coverage!
Daniel Day-Lewis is in talks to replace Javier Bardem in Rob Marshall’s feature adaptation of Nine, a musical sort of based on Fellini’s 8 1/2. Because men who win Oscars for playing mad men are apparently interchangeable when it comes to casting musicals!
Joe Dante––who we love––has signed on to direct an indie horror flick called Bat Out of Hell, about “a red-eye flight from L.A. to New York during which hijackers confront the monstrous cargo.” Because the last semi-intentional camp thriller set on an airplane did so well!
Before I started this post, I Googled the phrase “guerilla Oscar campaigning,” and the first result was this story about how Mel Gibson vowed to spend no money on his Passion of the Christ Oscar campaign, aside from sending out 8,000 DVD screeners. Oh, how times have changed.
This year, even as the writers strike limits the venues for pre-Oscar awards show appearances and shillery, nominees are making the most of every TV moment, doing stuff that ends up on YouTube, and ensuring that they, their nominations and their movies stay in the public conversation. Here at SpoutBlog, we’re dedicated to handicapping the hype as it happens, so expect us to compare and contrast these media moments semi-regularly (Daily? Probably not. Weekly? Let’s see how it goes.)
First up: Diablo Cody goes looking for Daniel Day-Lewis cred, whilst DDL himself is busy trying to siphon off some of Heath Ledger’s headlines.
Daniel Day-Lewis and Julie Christie continued their winning streaks over the weekend, each picking up the top individual prizes at the Screen Actors Guild Awards. The WGA had issued SAG a waver to allow them to produce a telecast with professional writers, which thus made it cool for stars to show up, which thus created the conditions for this photograph of Angelina Jolie in what appears to be a tie-dyed chiffon sack, thus giving credence to recent rumors that she may be carrying two new doses of Pitt spawn.
Of the many “specialty” films which expanded their theater count in hopes of capitalizing on Oscar nominations, only Atonement failed to see a bump in percentage this weekend, with The Savages gaining 2% even as it shed screens. But the real story of weekend in the indie box office realm––which Variety buries at the very bottom of their writeup––is that Cristian Mungiu’s Cannes-winning, Oscar-ignored drama 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days earned $48,176 across just 2 screens.
Ben Fritz gets off a nice joke about Sylvester Stallone being an “ancient warrior” in his mass-market box office writeup, but it must be little comfort to the team behind Rambo, which opened in second place behind something I had never heard of called Meet the Spartans. Cloverfield dropped almost 70% in its second weekend, which makes sense considering the film’s hype peaked six months ago.
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.
There Will Be Blood opens Dec 26 and there’s so much to say about it. Too much, really, so we narrow it down to our favorite moments. For the holidays, the five most misguided ideas ever inserted into Christmas moviedom.
Go to LittleBostonNews.com and you’ll find an outtake from Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood. “Here’s a good scene that we didn’t need,” reads the copy on the site. “It won’t spoil anything.” I suppose that’s technically true, although the scene does pretty much sum up the main conflict of the film, so beware, I guess. I’ve been going around town basically doing a frame-by-frame reenactment of The Napkin Scene, so obviously I’m not working too hard to protect anyone from spoilers.
When you hear that title, the moniker given to Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest, what images spring to mind? Gothic vampires, sure. A revenge film? Serial killer thriller, perhaps? Torture porn?…Would you feel swindled if you showed up to see a movie called There Will Be Blood and got a period piece about crude drilling? Is this a case of smart marketing, or a shifty bait-and-switch?
Take a break to roll your eyes, and then move on to Ted’s smackdown, which focuses on Bernadin’s just plain dumb reasoning:
If you’re telling me we’re at the point where people are waddling up to the ticket booth and making ad hoc selections based solely on film titles, then either a) it’s time to pack it up and shut it down, or b) look out for a big push coming down the pike for big-budgeted features under names like Strong Violence, or for the romantics: Brief Sensuality.
Ted’s right, but having seen the film, I’ll take it a step further: it’s not even a misnomer! There IS blood! Actual, red, product-of-violence blood! In several points across the film, although ultimately, the title could be literally read as a spoiler for the final scene. I also think it refers to a whole lot of thematic stuff about non-literal blood–blood as a synonym for family, genetics as a determinant to who we are, our fates, the way we relate to people, etc. Ted’s right that Bernadin’s argument is insanely literal, but worse than that–it’s literally inaccurate.
Three Variety writers have posted early reviews (in apparent defiance of Paramount’s review embargo, which was to extend until Monday) of There Will Be Blood. All three reviews are, essentially, positive, but they fall on three distinct points in terms of confidence in the film’s ability to reach an audience.
still from There Will Be Blood originally posted by Jeff Wells
Harry Knowles’ Fantastic Fest closed last night with a (badly kept) secret screening of Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood. We weren’t there, so let’s go straight to those who were. I’ll update this post as more folks weigh in. Suffice it to say, at this point, the first negative word will be news.
Mike D’Angelo [via GreenCine Daily, via Twitter]: “Not much more than formal mastery and a ferocious Day-Lewis turn, but hey, that’s plenty.”
Marjorie Baumgarten for Variety: “There Will Be Blood was indeed an unusual choice to close out this year’s Fantastic Fest, as Alamo Drafthouse Cinema founder and hostTim League was the first to admit. Though the film hardly belongs to the science fiction, fantasy, animation, and crime genres that attendees had been snacking on all week, League attested in his introduction that the film is undeniably “fantastic.” [...] However, it took Ain’t It Cool News‘ Harry Knowles to point out during the Q&A that Plainview was the “best monster” he had seen all week. Anderson responded that Dracula was in his thoughts as he was writing the screenplay. “There Will Be Blood” indeed.”
An anonymous text messager, also via Variety: “Easily one of the best movies of the year.”
Matt Dentler: “God Bless P.T. Anderson, for making his fifth consecutive slam dunk. I’m just so stunned and impressed and shaken by this film.”
Jeffrey Wells, quoting reader Dan Brown: “‘I know the film won’t be well received by everyone. The two and a half-hour running time might be off-putting for Middle American styrofoams but I was really into the movie right from the start.’ The most interesting sounding aspect, he adds, is that ‘the first 15 to 18 minutes of the film are dialogue-free.’”
Scott Weinberg at Cinematical: “It’s more than a ‘departure’ for the director; it’s a monumental display of ‘evolution’ that’ll wow the established fans and impress a helluva lot more new ones. This is a dark, compelling and effortlessly engrossing film, one bolstered by a lead performance that ranks among the very best of Lewis’ impressive career.”
John DeFore at The Hollywood Reporter: “Director Anderson’s critics might not know what to do with this picture, which has none of the attention-grabbing flourishes of earlier films — no hailstorms of frogs or deus ex machina pianos here. The closest it gets to self-conscious showiness is its closing scene, a confrontation as memorably strange as the fireworks-popping, “Jessie’s Girl”-belting drug deal in Boogie Nights.”
Peter Martin at Twitch: “In several important ways, though, There Will Be Blood was the perfect film to close the festival. First, it is a major stride forward by Anderson. Not only has he left behind the present-day San Fernando Valley suburban milleau of his last three films, he has greatly sharpened his storytelling abilities and broadened his visual palette. Second, this is a tale in which the characters fully embrace their emotions, resulting in sometimes over the top behavior that’s familiar to anyone even mildly acquainted with genre fare. Third, the film features a monstrously entertaining performance by Daniel Day Lewis, embodying a man quietly hellbent on achieving success, and you can never have too many monsters at Fantastic Fest.”
See also our spoileriffic report from the Blood preview at Telluride.
With the Toronto Film Festival beginning tomorrow, we’ve just about concluded our Telluride coverage. Here are some highlights. You’ll find a full guide to our Telluride reportage, minus Friday’s upcoming all-Telluride episode of FilmCouch, after the jump.
“In Superbad, Michael Cera fantasizes about a world in which ‘girls weren’t weirded out by our boners, but actually wanted to look at them.’ Juno takes place in that world.” Karina reviews the Festival’s biggest buzz-getter, and Paul interviews director Jason Reitman.
We love People on Sunday. Paul says the 1929 silent film “contains the most seductive first kiss I’ve ever seen on film. No joke.” Karina looks at the historical context.
“It’s true that I was in a rather fragile, sleep-deprived state at the time, but even now, the morning after, as it were, I still love this film.” Kevin’s talking about I’m Not There. He also talked to that film’s director, Todd Haynes.
“When I was 20 years old, I moved from Chicago to San Francisco, and I did it for George Kuchar.” Karina offers some thoughts on the experimental legend/Telluride honoree.
I’ve already detailed the last (and best) 17 minutes of yesterday’s Daniel Day-Lewis tribute; I’ve been stalling on recapping the previous hour-and-43 because they were somewhat less impressive. I’ve seen four films since yesterday morning, including a very solid Cannes winner and a much-discussed work of warsploitation by an American master, and nothing has excited me as much as that single reel of There Will Be Blood.
Earlier in the day, I wondered how the tribute would approach Day-Lewis’ unique star persona, and keeping an eye on that element kept me entertained even when the discussion between Day-Lewis and moderator Davia Nelson faltered. At one point, Day-Lewis praised a former professor who allegedly taught him to suppress the mechanics of acting by asking him to imagine a hazard sign with the words, “Danger–Actor at Work.” Which is odd, because the excerpts of Day-Lewis filmography shown almost immediately before that anecdote reek of the kind of showiness that makes a viewer (and an Oscar voter) think, “Wow! Now THAT’S Acting!”
I’ll have more on the Daniel Day-Lewis tribute in my diary entry later tonight, but first thing’s first: almost two hours into the tribute, Day-Lewis said, “Oh yeah — let’s invite Paul up here now,” and Paul Thomas Anderson took the stage to introduce 17 minutes of There Will Be Blood.
Anderson called it “the third reel,” but my first impression was that it played more like a product reel, with what felt like an entire second act condensed into less than 20 minutes. But thinking back on PTA’s body of work, this kind of temporal pacing wouldn’t be unprecedented–the guy loves his montages, and what we saw was so impeccably, purposefully edited to a gorgeous score (violin heavy, by turns subtle and scary–it’s so dynamic that it might be an existing piece of music, but if so I’ve never heard it before) that it could conceivably play within the film. And, could very well be amazing.
My full notes on the footage follows after the jump.
In preparation for this morning’s tribute to Daniel Day-Lewis here in Telluride, I took a look at the actor’s Wikipedia entry. It’s full of breathlessly-recounted anecdotes meant to manifest Day-Lewis’ reputation as the eccentric method-acting rebel. He was so wild as a teenager that he got sent to boarding school! He broke two ribs to play Christy Brown! He quit stage acting after being visit by the ghost of his own father while performing Hamlet! He once disappeared into the Italian countryside, where he allegedly learned how to make shoes!
It’ll be interesting to see if the tribute plays up/plays into that persona, or if it attempts to puncture it at all. More later.
Variety says Steven Spielberg and co. are strenuously aiming to avoid what we’re apparently calling “The Da Vinci Scenario” –– so named because a “jet-lagged, overtired, cynical mob of critics and executives decimated The Da Vinci Code when it debuted [at Cannes] two years ago”––with this weekend’s debut of Indiana Jones vs. King Shia LaBeouf. Some of their defense tactics: journalists will only be allowed to interview the cast and filmmakers before the press screening, and they won’t be invited to the film’s after party. Because limited access *always* ensures positive pres coverage!
Daniel Day-Lewis and Julie Christie continued their winning streaks over the weekend, each picking up the top individual prizes 
Go to 
