I neglected to mention Tuesday that P.T. Anderson's epic There Will Be Blood is now on DVD. That event easily dwarfs the other new releases (awards season non-starters like Reservation Road and Lions for Lambs). Those of you about to fall under its antisocial mesmerizing spell for the first time will certainly want to read about it --if you haven't already spoiled the whole strange thing with a solid 4 months of hype to maneuver yourself around.It sat atop my top ten list and won 7 gold medals at the Film Experience's annual awards jamboree: Picture, Actor, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Original Score and Line Reading.
If you're seeing it for the first time this week, by all means speak up. If you're seeing it again and have something new to work out, feel free...
Posts
14 comments:
(SPOILER ALERT) Great blog, Nathaniel! This was also #1 on my list of films this year, and, although it's a little off-topic to the themes of the movie, my girlfriend insists that Paul and Eli were actually the same person. Despite what we know about the casting (that Dano came in to do one role and ended up doing two), I still can't find a way to prove to her that Paul/Eli were not one person with a split personality. I don't think she's right, partially because Plainview knew he was exacting a terrible revenge at the end by revealing Paul's whereabouts, but I can't definitively say one way or the other. Thoughts?
cheers,
Eric
SPOILER
I've actually argued about this repeatedly with my best friend and we're both finally leaning towards them actually being the same person. As far as I recall Paul is never discussed in the movie by anyone but Eli (and by extension Plainview)... which seems suspect.
I'm not sure if that = split personality but it's definitely a different way of reading the character/s
I'd love to hear from others on this topic. I know a lot of people thought that thread was unintentionally hard to follow but maybe it was meant to obscure and mislead? I'm not sure.
I had originally thought that Paul and Eli were the same person -- and I think I might have preferred it -- but the text doesn't allow for that. If there were no Paul Sunday, Eli's father would have said so -- or at least been confused -- in the dinner conversation in which Eli says that Paul betrayed the family. Furthermore, Daniel reports to Eli at the end of the movie on Paul's business activities.
So either Paul exists separate from Eli, or everybody in the movie is nuts -- a reading I won't argue against too much.
well i'll have to relook at the dinner table scene but Daniel speaking about Paul does not deter from the argument that they're the same... since Plainveiw and Sunday are continually playing mindgames with each other --both using Paul while doing so.
Nathaniel: I agree that the final confrontation by itself can be rationalized as Daniel messing with Eli, but other evidence works against it. More importantly, there's virtually no evidence (aside from the same actor playing both roles, and that was reportedly a late development) that they're the same person. If they were the same person, there would be some confusion at some point, no? Instead, everybody accepts the existence of both Eli and Paul. That dinner conversation is the clincher for me, but I've only seen the movie once.
I really doubt that they're the same person. It's odd how a certain trend in filmmaking has automatically made us question whether or not there's a multiple personality disorder thing going on (I did too at first). It's like we're almost too used to the convolutedness surrounding u s.
But I really don't think Paul Thomas is the kinda guy to lay it on that gimmicky. And yes I'm saying this about a man who made a film in which it rained frogs.
but i thought the dinner table scene erupted into violence mere moments after Eli mentions Paul? The scene is so tense and strange as it is...
must see again.
They're the same person. Eli/Paul's father and family were just buying into his delusions at those table scenes b/c they're afraid of him, and Daniel listening to one talk about the other at the end was just him going on some more with his delusions.
I'm so happy that this conversation is raging. I haven't made up my mind yet, but I lean towards them being different people. It just feels like something that got edited down on purpose as to make it seem so strange and questionable, and make Eli seem just a little more off.
The second time I watched the film the moment I found myself studying the closest was when Eli first meets Daniel (when Daniel and his son come to their land to camp and check for oil) and the way DDL stares down Paul Dano... there's something there, something unspoken, that I think holds the key to this maddening puzzle.
Not that I think there is a key. I think it's left vague on purpose, and I think either answer could be right.
I took Paul as a character who had deserted his family (abandoned, if you will) due to his brother Eli's fanaticalism (which adds another layer to the religious text of the film) and thought he was doing something bad to Eli by selling them out, but then it ended up helping Eli - at least for a while - so he never returned.
Or something something.
SPOILERS
Along with the aforementioned dining room scene, the final scene really convinced me that Eli and Paul were different people. Daniel speaks of how Paul was "the real chosen one" and how he gave him $10,000 for his information regarding Little Boston. Eli is then visibly upset at this notion, leading me to believe that Paul and Eli are definitely different people. Any other interpretation to Eli's reaction wouldn't make much sense to me.
I'm pretty sure it is proven that Paul Dano was originally slated to only play Paul Sunday, but ended up with Eli Sunday after Kel O'Neil was fired. It was too late to re-shoot the only scene with Paul Sunday in it.
This surely does bring up an interesting character comparison, though.
In addition to what anonymous said about the casting, clearly indicating it was never PTA's intention to have them be the same person, they have different haircuts. For all this argument for there not being any "evidence" of them being different people, there is also no "evidence" for them being the same person vs. twins. This movie is theme-wise bigger than "they're the same person" hokeystuffs, and there's no reason to spend time, within the movie, to prove beyond a doubt that they are brothers. There are numerous references to them being brothers. I prefer Plainview's explanation of Eli being more or less the "afterbirth" to Paul being "da smart one."
culture snob-
The scene at the dinner table could be easily explained, like anonymous said: The family knows he has two personalities so they don't raise a fuss cuz it's easier not too. I still think they are two people, though. I agree with Robert that its a little gimmicky for them to be the same. Plus, the way its structured with that encounter when DP and son are "hunting" is too perfect to be ruined by some split personality mess. The key may not be in that scene, but in DP's final victory (in his mind) over Eli. Would he get such great pleasure out of relaying Paul's success if it wasn't true?
I'm hardly the specialist on anything concerning There Will Be Blood - but another possible if not necessarily likely theory:
maybe the Paul in that one scene was Eli pretending to be Paul. Maybe Paul really does exist and is really the 'better' son who's far away. Maybe Eli was just using his identity - to counteract his own guilt and to make Paul seem like the 'bad' son - in that one scene between 'Paul' and Plainviwew.
While I was actually watching the film it never even occurred to me they could be the same person - I hate that 'omg! theyre the same person!' twist as a rule and I'd hope Anderson is above that kind of gimmick. (Digression: Someone recently suggested Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson were 'the same person' in Persona. I wanted to spit at them.) In retrospect the only thing that makes me question whether it really was Paul in that first scene was that weird, loaded exchange of glances between Eli and Plainview when the latter arrives at the farm.
Post a Comment