This is a controversial one. It’s a pragmatic piece of advice, that doesn’t feel very pure to me because it’s based on my personal taste rather than any rules of drama (if there are such things) – and it also flies in the face of the success of one of the biggest movie successes in recent years.
OK.
My basic proposition is that There Will Be Blood, that celebrated look at the dark side of the birth of the oil industry, with that elemental performance from Daniel Day Lewis and that script that boils and fumes with energy, is pretty well unwatchable.
More than that, I think it’s a severe case of Emperor’s New Clothes.
I think the film is BORING…
I think after the fuss dies down, it will quickly slip into being one of those movies that is referenced by film buffs, acquire a small, vehement fan(atic) base, and never again be watched by the vast majority of the world.
And it’s all because of a simple mistake the writer makes.
I started thinking about this because I couldn’t understand why the director and the director of photography had made the lighting choices they did. I’ve never seen such a lack of illumination on screen.
All the time I was in the cinema I felt I was constantly peering into a darkened room, and as the hours passed and the story unrolled, and dimly lit scene after dimly lit scene came by I grew increasingly desperate for someone to just put the electricity back on and let me see what was going on.
But then I realised that this lighting is very true to the emotional character of the film.
Watching the movie is one, long, darkness. Morally, aesthetically, so even physically. There isn’t a single character in the movie that you can like. Admire, maybe. Respect, certainly – but like? Not a chance.
The audience were strange too. The place was packed, as you’d expect with a movie that has had such universally great reviews, but I’ve never seen a more restless group of people. Shifting in their seats, people checking their watches, going in and out to the toilet, even the odd low conversation with no-one complaining. (I watched this in an art house movie theatre – believe me, that place has a solid respect for film, and wouldn’t normally tolerate conversations even for a few seconds.)
Let’s be honest. Watching that movie was duty for a lot of that audience. An awful lot of them came with the hunger to see great movie making – and an awful lot of them were bored stiff by the end.
Emperor’s New Clothes. They won’t admit it, but in ten years time, who’s going to be watching There Will Be Blood?
Don’t make that mistake.
It’s your absolute god given right to write whatever you want, and if that includes writing one long howl of despair, or darkness, or misery, then you go for it. But just consider letting us into what you are saying.
I think Paul Thomas Anderson [the writer/director] got swept away with the undeniable strength, the terrible grandeur of his vision for those characters, and forgot to give us, the audience, a way into the movie.
We viewers are weak, we get tired, we need things to hold onto.
More importantly, and forget this at your peril, we need to like some aspect of the things we are watching.
If you’ve ever seen the British TV serial of Brideshead Revisited from 1980 – or read the
Evelyn Waugh novel it dramatised – you might well remember how that is the perfect example of what I mean.
The series runs for 11 episodes, and as they go by the story gets bleaker and more and more depressing, plunging into the impossibility of love, the impossibility of surviving the Catholic faith, and the way people’s lives can be destroyed by their belief in God, ending with broken hearts and loneliness in the depths of World War 2.
It’s hard to imagine a bleaker tale in some ways – it certainly has a far wider, far more genuinely apocalyptic canvas than There Will Be Blood – yet we stay with it all the way, for more than 11 hours.
I think that’s primarily because of the fantastic power of the first two episodes, which are delightfully warm, sumptuous, and charming, full of open hearted wit, full of and love. All of which seduces us – as it should. (It’s going to be interesting to see whether the upcoming movie works as well.)
If you want your audience to immerse themselves in your story, if you want them to come back in 30 years to enjoy it all again, then I strongly recommend you give us something to like about your world somewhere early on.
Even at the most basic level, even if you really don’t want to do anything charming, then just give us something warm, funny, engaging about the characters up front – just a beat or two – so when you strip that from them and take them to hell and leave them there, then we will have to follow, because you will like the people you are torturing and we will want to see what happens to them.
Your deep, dark, sombre masterpiece movie will have all the more impact in the end.
Compare “There Will Be Blood” and “Brideshead Revisited” yourself from Amazon with these affiliate links:
How To Write A Screenplay
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
More importantly, and forget this at your peril, we need to like some aspect of the things we are watching.
I completely agree. I find if I cannot find some character to relate to in the story, I cannot stay in the story. I end up disengaging and merely watching.
Have you seen There Will Be Blood? Be very interested to know what you thought. It’s clearly a ‘great’ movie – just utterly uninvolving. And personally think that stops it being a GREAT movie.
“More importantly, and forget this at your peril, we need to like some aspect of the things we are watching.”
There was plenty to like in “Blood” — I think maybe some people just get turned off by the dark side of art. That’s too bad. Life is way more than a box of chocolates — there’s milkshakes, too.
Frankly, I fear for a world where a movie has to be charming to be considered great.
Being 100% charming is insipid. That’s not what I’m saying.
But do go on – what did you enjoy about the movie?
Didn’t the milkshake lead us across the line into melodrama?
Maybe it does teeter on the border of melodrama, but it isn’t unwelcome in my view.
Personally, what I enjoyed about the movie — beyond the acting, production design, and cinematography, have a lot to do with what I said before: the dark side of art and truth. The fact that greed is a powerful force in the history of humanity, and California in particular, is a compelling topic (and one we should never forget), exemplified in the character of Daniel Plainview. I don’t think he is stereotypical or melodramatic due in large part to milkshakes, believe it or not.
Why did Mr. Plainview say “milkshake”? It could have been anything else, whisky, beer, even goat’s milk. There, at the very end, was my payoff for investing time and money in this unlikeable man. Somewhere inside him is another story from some distant place in the character’s world. And this back story was not one played out in full-color for my addled brain. No, I have to think about it, later, walking home from the theater. This is my preferred moviegoing experience, and “Blood” paid off for me in numerous ways.
I don’t need to like any characters in a film or a story. I just need to believe in the story being told. There is nothing in “Blood” that isn’t believable, in my opinion.
I thought it was too bad that you say “it fails completely,” hence my response. I felt compelled to argue against that point. It’s great to debate, yet in the end, we like what we like — I’m just glad you didn’t compare it to “Juno.”
Best regards.
I like your thinking about the milkshake moment. It hadn’t occurred to me – you’re absolutely right, and it’s a very nice bit of writing.
But even so, it’s such a tiny tiny glimpse of a heart in such a long movie – I want so much more…
And I still think old Daniel DL went a bit far with the actual acting… Take a look at this for a laugh:
http://whiteboardmarkers.blogspot.com/2008/02/milkshake-brings-all-oscars-to-yard.html
I agree. If I can’t connect emotionally with at least one character in a film, I’m not interested in watching it.
Suzanne Lieurance
The Working Writer’s Coach
http://www.workingwriterscoach.com
“When Your Pen Won’t Budge, Read The Morning Nudge”
I won’t be going to see There Will Be Blood because I felt exactly the same way about Magnolia, and walked out of Punch Drunk Love. PTA’s films are undeniably cerebral, but (or perhaps hence) lacking any empathy whatsoever.
Haha! I watched TWBB this weekend and wondered what you’d make of it. I’d love to disagree with you entirely, but if I’m honest I have to admit that I was fairly unmoved by the whole film, and definitely checked my watch half a dozen times, if not more.
I’ve wrestled with it, but still can’t see why Mark Kermode thinks it “rewrites the grammar of film” (paraphrasing), or, like a Guardian writer said, that it makes you feel like it’s the first film you’ve ever seen.
At least the characters didn’t burst into song at the end causing me to wish I could eat my own head, which is how I felt during Magnolia. There were characters that you rooted for in that, at least . . .
You’re right – it was a chore to watch.
Thanks Phil!
This is excellent advice indeed.
I haven’t seen the film yet but I was really impressed with the clip of Daniel Day Lewis shown during the Oscars. But now, I guess I’ll just wait for the DVD rentals.
I watched The Exorcist on DVD just recently. I’m scared stiff of it and hated the subject of demonic possessions but I still love it – all because of the “Father Karras” character.
He is troubled with all sorts conflicts: self-doubt, guilt, losing faith in God, etc. and yet he is courageous and a caring priest. Brilliant character and played marvellously by Jason Miller.
Oli – weirdly I really liked Magnolia. Cerebral, but a sense of fun saved it.
Hey Jess, glad you’re still around. (But agreeing with me? What’s that about?) And Mark said that? Well, he does have some very strange opinions…
And that’s an uncanny link to the Exorcist there Yew Yee in the circs – Mr Kermode’s long time favorite. I have to say, I’m a Max von Sydow man myself…
Okay Philip,
You are hitting the nail with the hammer. This movie is a big question mark?
Thanks for calling this movie what it really is!
We should all strive to write,direct,produce movies that will live forever in our hearts and shine with a moral premise of hope and uncompromising entertainment….
Regards
Benjamin Ray
You know, that’s not such a bad sentiment, Ben…
Wow for the first time I disagree with you Phil…I think “There Will Be Blood” had some great dialogue. Your right about the lighting, it did suck lol…but I think they made it dark because it was a dark time in history. And there was a character I did like…Daniels son whom he abandoned…this kid overcame alot of trauma, and I respected the writer for showing that you can find a light in a mist of darkness. I also loved how the son overcame is so called fathers wickedness, and showed that he can do the same profession as a good person. I didn’t understand why they made Daniel kill the hypocrite Minister in the end, that was quite brutal, but overall the film was very raw and honest. You can honestly say that Daniel Day Lewis portrayed the greatest villain role in our generation. We need more films like this in the future, films that tell the truth, and don’t give you a Hollywood ending.
Moses
Hey Mosses…
Yes, it is a good movie to some people but..
But, but… history will not remember this film.
Only 3 guys in the theatre when I watched it.
We have to make and write iconic films in the level of Godfather, Annie Hall, Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Wizard of Oz, Titanic, Pulp Fiction, Citizen Cane, Goodfellas, Silence of the Lambs, The Matrix….
Boutique films are not popular. Men and women must like and enjoy the movie together!!…We cannot make a movie just for a “bunch” of guys, in this case three guys in a New York movie theatre when I saw it?
And I did a survey with University graduates — they never saw this movie but they liked No Country for Old Man…
Regards
Benjamin
Hi Phil,
Well, I did disagree with one thing(!): the moral and actual darkness of the film. I was surprised when you mentioned the lighting, because it wasn’t something that struck me at all. If anything, I thought the lighting and cinematography in general was amazing.
Two particular shots stood out: the pitch black, smoky silhouettes of the men as they stood watching the pump ablaze as the fire turned the sky blood-red, and the image of the fake Henry Plainview sat on the beach with his head on his knees, as the soundtrack soared horribly and Daniel moved out of the frame. They held the shot for what seemed like a brilliantly ominous length of time.
I think your criticism does in fact relate to writing rules. McKee is obsessed with scenes, sequences, acts and the entire film arc “turning” values, and that was what was missing from this film. Daniel’s character, to me, seemed no different at the end of the film from the beginning. His “I’m a family man” spiel was obviously a ploy from the start, not borne out of any real affection for “H.W.” (the fact that he has no real name is telling), and by the end, the fact that he’d murdered only two people was somewhat underwhelming!
So, it wasn’t the fact that he was an dark and miserable indictment of the American Dream that bothered me, it was just that nothing happened or changed. Magnolia has that, at least.
PS. My lack of brevity is my chief complaint with myself – apologies!
Hey Jess,
Interesting point of view.
I look forward to watching this movie again one day.
But right now, I still think it’s forgettable.
Regards
Benjamin
Hey Ben,
I understand your ideal of great movies and I agree that those films you mentioned are classics. But my point was that some people enjoy the raw Pulp Fiction/ Black Snake Moan films…also woman aren’t the only ones that are entitled to their own films…where is the “Lifetime” for men? To say that we can not make a movie for a bunch of guys would be cutting out a bond with the men that also enjoy a good film…to make movies for everyone all the time is not logically possible, there must be a balance my friend.
Moses
Valid points Moses –
When I write — I try to strike a balance.
I read that James Cameron wrote Titanic for both men and women — i.e the strike gold at the box-office.
I strongly believe that a good script must have a strong male and female lead in order to become an “instant classic”…
Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill are actually well balanced.
Just my opinion.
Regards,
Benjamin
I agree that if you want to reach a wide audience, creating empathy for your main characters is a must. I agree that Anderson’s screenplay breaks many of the rules and principles I use in my own work. I’d even agree that most of the audience got bored and frustrated with the film.
But I loved it. I loved every minute of it. I loved the visuals. I loved the acting. I loved the story.
Maybe most people will forget the film, but I won’t. In fact, I’ll bet more film historians write about it fifty years from now than they do “No Country for Old Men.”
But challenging films like this one DO bore, frustrate, and annoy the audience. They do come off as cold and intellectual. So I understand the advice to steer clear of unlikeable characters and grim endings. It’s advice that I myself have taken.
But, I can’t help feeling grateful that a few strange and original filmmakers DON’T take that advice.
- Sean Hood
P.S. I also loved “The Thin Red Line.” So maybe it’s just me.
Hi Sean,
Interesting. I loved the Thin Red Line too. But to me that movie dripped with emotion.
In fact I’m very happy for any rule to be broken (in skilled hands) except for one – if a movie fails to produce emotion in me, then, to me, it’s failed.
Blood failed therefore, for me and the audience I saw it with, despite so much that was admirable about it.
I absolutely share your pleasure that some movie makers don’t take that advice – personally I’m desperate for more complex, ambitious movies – and if there’s one thing Blood had it was ambition.
Phil you are making the dumbest mistake a blogger can make by replying to almost every post. You have to allow your readers to have the discussion, otherwise you come off as defensive and insecure.
I disagree, david. I come here to listen to Phil and his responses have been nothing but polite, engaging and insightful.
I hope he never sickens of responding.