30 responses to “Tarantino on ‘There Will Be Blood’”
Sound Designer Dan
While he is, at times, annoying. I’d like to hear Quentin do commentaries for other people’s films. Like downloadable commentaries or something to that effect.
Brian
Haha Longview.
It’s great seeing QT so humble and gracious about Anderson.
AmericanRequiem
ha wow, hope he keeps making good movies and stops taking excursions into death proof terain, fun but no pulp, also its time for pta to make a new film
He’s such a distinct personality, I would love to hear do more of these. He has an incredible knowledge of cinema and it’s fascinating to listen to.
Marshall1
I love that he seems to be himself entirely when he talks about films and he is not putting on the Tarantino “persona” to entertain possible talk show hosts. Almost a religious respect when he talks about film…..I wish he would do more of these shows.
BobMcBob
I always enjoyed listening to him talk about films more than I enjoyed his actual films
Is it just me or has he calmed down a little in the last decade? Where before he might fill time between thoughts with “okay” and “you know what I mean?”, he seems more apt to pause and purposefully choose his words.
RichardA
A bit funny on how he compares himself to others. A bit Hollywood.
I really hope PTA doesn’t take another three years for his next film, like the fiver years between Punch-Drunk Love and There Will Be Blood. I haven’t heard any news on him other than some theater work.
PTA is like the singer D’Angelo. If it takes 3, 5, 8 years for a follow up, I’ll wait. The work is just that good.
david
Can anything he’s directed (with the notable exception of Pulp Fiction) really be considered much better then average??
He’s not even in the same class with Paul Thomas Anderson. In my mind, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and There Will Be Blood are all better then anything Tarantino has put on film (including Pulp Fiction).
Sorry, I think he’s just a punk. A legend in his own mind. For one, I’m tired of seeing so many articles about him on In Contention. I mean over the last month he’s been popping up all over the place on this site. Enough of Tarantino already!!
Anthony
PTA is a superior director.
But, do you know what the AVERAGE movie that comes out at the cinema looks like?
He makes good-to-great movies, with only one notable abomination (Death Proof). There are quite a few better working directors out there (PTA, Nolan, Dominik, Scorsese, etc), but he’s still a quality filmmaker.
And his film commentary is really tremendous.
Matt
I disagree with his dig at Paul Dano’s performance. I thought he handed himself wonderfully up against a great like Daniel Day Lewis.
David, “Jackie Brown” is his masterpiece so he has directed something “better than average”.
david
Jackie Brown a masterpiece??
A good solid film (though not as memorable as Pulp Fiction in my mind)…but a masterpiece??
Anyone else agree with that??
How come Tarantino can’t give a short commentary on another filmmakers film without somehow bringing the conversation back around to himself?? He’s a self-conceited punk. Bottom line.
I really don’t need to listen to some filmmaker ramble on about how they feel there in an elite class with other top-tier filmmakers. Especially a gimp like Tarantino.
Brian
I think Tarantino’s a much better director than Nolan (Brian runs, hides, and waits to get raped by Batman).
andrew
You’re not alone Brian. I don’t think Nolan is untalented or average. But only Memento has truly floored me. Although I very much respect TDK and Insomnia, I didn’t care for The Prestige or Batman Begins. Both left me somewhat cold and distant, especially the former, I thought Bale was flat and opaque, and I think Batman Begins has the right atmosphere but no energy.
Although I will admit that Nolan’s worst film, The Prestige imo, is not anywhere near as bad as Tarantino’s worst film, Death Proof.
The show was about him so it’s reasonable for him to tie the film he chose into his own work.
Anthony
Brian: I think Memento, The Dark Knight and the Prestige are wonderful films (and in that order).
It’s a pretty difficult comparison given Tarantino and Nolan’s severely contrasting styles though. I guess I just see Nolan as somewhat more bankable going forward.
Despite IB (which I loved), another Death Proof style outing from QT is always possible.
Scott Ward
I wish he would have elaborated more on the Paul Dano aspect of the film. I actually both completely agree and disagree with him. I agree that Dano’s acting is heavily outweighed by DDL’s, and sometimes he was even clumsy. This quip left me a little puzzled after seeing it the first time. But after seeing it again, it became my opinion that PTA cast Dano, the young and relatively inexperienced actor, against the magnificent titanic powers of DDL to accentuate the discrepancies between not just the characters themselves, but to a greater and larger extent the morals, thoughts, ideals between them.
I’ve always thought that if you had to boil the movie down to one central theme, it would be the rapport (or maybe more appropriately the lack their of) between DDL and Dano. Each embody various aspects of thought such as religion, economics, and forms of kinship with their fellow man, albeit the ultimate forgery of the last aspect.
And while I certainly think that the movie can be taken different ways, and this is just a theory of mine, but it’s certainly always seemed to me that, for lack of better terminology, PTA prefers the DDL character over Dano’s, and the best way he could augment this on screen was to create that strong, yet still rather implicit dichotomy between the two. So in summation, and I realize that I could be giving a little more credit here than what is due, I think that PTA basically hired Paul Dano for the part BECAUSE he new that Dano’s acting would come off as rather weak.
So that’s why I disagree with QT, but maybe time constraints didn’t allow him to delve into that matter too extensively. But I’m interested if anyone has ever thought about this, or if you agree or disagree with me.
Robert Hamer
Hmmm…that’s an interesting theory, Scott. Can you think of any other film where such a casting strategy also applies? I’m not being sarcastic, I just have never heard of such a thing before.
Andrew…It doesn’t really make sense to say that “Memento” floored you, and then you call the director of the movie “untalented” or “average”.
And Brian…what part about watching Quentin Tarantino review “There Will Be Blood” made you think of comparing him to Chris Nolan as a filmmaker?
tony rock
How anyone can think the church “exorcism” scene and Dano’s dinner table outburst are examples of weak acting is beyond me…
Scott Ward
Well Tony, a lot of people think so actually. If you could read between the lines of what I was saying, you would understand how by that logic, that is my own logic, one could argue that Dano’s acting in the film superseded DDL’s. Like I said, it is my THEORY/CONJECTURE/OPINION that Paul/Eli Sunday’s character is intended to come off as weak and diminutive, especially in regards to DDL. And that is what happened in the finished result. Now I’m sure that PTA could have gotten Depp or Ed Norton or at least some other reputable actor for the role, but that would have been some damn fine acting, which in turn would have empowered their character, which in turn would have seriously skewed many of the movie’s theme’s. There is nothing wrong with having to acting giants play opposing characters, but in this case I don’t think it would have worked. Maybe my use of the word strong doesn’t convey my message well enough and is confusing you. “Power” or maybe even a word like “reverence” might work better. Just looking at Paul Dano and hearing him speak, is that menacing or powerful to you? It’s rather subdued and when he needs to show emotion in the film, it comes off as almost comical – like a grown up little kid who can’t express his anger. So all of this could mean that he played exactly what the role called for (unofficially, that is). But I greatly appreciate your one sentence that supports your claims. Look forward to hearing from you again.
And Robert, I can’t think of another film. I’m sure if I had just about every good movie fresh in my mind now, one could possibly see instances, but I definitely agree that it’s a rather far out idea to start with, and even a more far out risk for the director to take. It’s almost like something you could picture Kubrick doing back in the day and PTA is only one of several directors I would give credit to to even suppose this.
Jackie Brown is def a masterpiece, as is Pulp Fiction in my eyes.
I also liked his reviews of Sunshine and Taxi Driver via Sky Movies.
david
Alot of Tarantino fan boys here…
JGibson
“PTA” went up a lot in my eyes after There Will Be Blood. Boogie Nights was very, very good; Punch Drunk Love was just good; and Magnolia was, in my humble opinion, a pretentious overwrought piece of shit, which really sunk Anderson for me until … I saw Blood, which was a total masterpiece.
Though I think on repeat viewing it doesn’t quite hold up to the first viewing — yes you can appreciate nuances in the film making more , but the film isn’t able to play with your expectations in the way it does on the first go through.
Comments
30 responses to “Tarantino on ‘There Will Be Blood’”
While he is, at times, annoying. I’d like to hear Quentin do commentaries for other people’s films. Like downloadable commentaries or something to that effect.
Haha Longview.
It’s great seeing QT so humble and gracious about Anderson.
ha wow, hope he keeps making good movies and stops taking excursions into death proof terain, fun but no pulp, also its time for pta to make a new film
He’s such a distinct personality, I would love to hear do more of these. He has an incredible knowledge of cinema and it’s fascinating to listen to.
I love that he seems to be himself entirely when he talks about films and he is not putting on the Tarantino “persona” to entertain possible talk show hosts. Almost a religious respect when he talks about film…..I wish he would do more of these shows.
I always enjoyed listening to him talk about films more than I enjoyed his actual films
Is it just me or has he calmed down a little in the last decade? Where before he might fill time between thoughts with “okay” and “you know what I mean?”, he seems more apt to pause and purposefully choose his words.
A bit funny on how he compares himself to others. A bit Hollywood.
Yeah, the “okay” stuff used to drive me NUTS.
I really hope PTA doesn’t take another three years for his next film, like the fiver years between Punch-Drunk Love and There Will Be Blood. I haven’t heard any news on him other than some theater work.
PTA is like the singer D’Angelo. If it takes 3, 5, 8 years for a follow up, I’ll wait. The work is just that good.
Can anything he’s directed (with the notable exception of Pulp Fiction) really be considered much better then average??
He’s not even in the same class with Paul Thomas Anderson. In my mind, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and There Will Be Blood are all better then anything Tarantino has put on film (including Pulp Fiction).
Sorry, I think he’s just a punk. A legend in his own mind. For one, I’m tired of seeing so many articles about him on In Contention. I mean over the last month he’s been popping up all over the place on this site. Enough of Tarantino already!!
PTA is a superior director.
But, do you know what the AVERAGE movie that comes out at the cinema looks like?
He makes good-to-great movies, with only one notable abomination (Death Proof). There are quite a few better working directors out there (PTA, Nolan, Dominik, Scorsese, etc), but he’s still a quality filmmaker.
And his film commentary is really tremendous.
I disagree with his dig at Paul Dano’s performance. I thought he handed himself wonderfully up against a great like Daniel Day Lewis.
David, “Jackie Brown” is his masterpiece so he has directed something “better than average”.
Jackie Brown a masterpiece??
A good solid film (though not as memorable as Pulp Fiction in my mind)…but a masterpiece??
Anyone else agree with that??
How come Tarantino can’t give a short commentary on another filmmakers film without somehow bringing the conversation back around to himself?? He’s a self-conceited punk. Bottom line.
I really don’t need to listen to some filmmaker ramble on about how they feel there in an elite class with other top-tier filmmakers. Especially a gimp like Tarantino.
I think Tarantino’s a much better director than Nolan (Brian runs, hides, and waits to get raped by Batman).
You’re not alone Brian. I don’t think Nolan is untalented or average. But only Memento has truly floored me. Although I very much respect TDK and Insomnia, I didn’t care for The Prestige or Batman Begins. Both left me somewhat cold and distant, especially the former, I thought Bale was flat and opaque, and I think Batman Begins has the right atmosphere but no energy.
Although I will admit that Nolan’s worst film, The Prestige imo, is not anywhere near as bad as Tarantino’s worst film, Death Proof.
The show was about him so it’s reasonable for him to tie the film he chose into his own work.
Brian: I think Memento, The Dark Knight and the Prestige are wonderful films (and in that order).
It’s a pretty difficult comparison given Tarantino and Nolan’s severely contrasting styles though. I guess I just see Nolan as somewhat more bankable going forward.
Despite IB (which I loved), another Death Proof style outing from QT is always possible.
I wish he would have elaborated more on the Paul Dano aspect of the film. I actually both completely agree and disagree with him. I agree that Dano’s acting is heavily outweighed by DDL’s, and sometimes he was even clumsy. This quip left me a little puzzled after seeing it the first time. But after seeing it again, it became my opinion that PTA cast Dano, the young and relatively inexperienced actor, against the magnificent titanic powers of DDL to accentuate the discrepancies between not just the characters themselves, but to a greater and larger extent the morals, thoughts, ideals between them.
I’ve always thought that if you had to boil the movie down to one central theme, it would be the rapport (or maybe more appropriately the lack their of) between DDL and Dano. Each embody various aspects of thought such as religion, economics, and forms of kinship with their fellow man, albeit the ultimate forgery of the last aspect.
And while I certainly think that the movie can be taken different ways, and this is just a theory of mine, but it’s certainly always seemed to me that, for lack of better terminology, PTA prefers the DDL character over Dano’s, and the best way he could augment this on screen was to create that strong, yet still rather implicit dichotomy between the two. So in summation, and I realize that I could be giving a little more credit here than what is due, I think that PTA basically hired Paul Dano for the part BECAUSE he new that Dano’s acting would come off as rather weak.
So that’s why I disagree with QT, but maybe time constraints didn’t allow him to delve into that matter too extensively. But I’m interested if anyone has ever thought about this, or if you agree or disagree with me.
Hmmm…that’s an interesting theory, Scott. Can you think of any other film where such a casting strategy also applies? I’m not being sarcastic, I just have never heard of such a thing before.
Andrew…It doesn’t really make sense to say that “Memento” floored you, and then you call the director of the movie “untalented” or “average”.
And Brian…what part about watching Quentin Tarantino review “There Will Be Blood” made you think of comparing him to Chris Nolan as a filmmaker?
How anyone can think the church “exorcism” scene and Dano’s dinner table outburst are examples of weak acting is beyond me…
Well Tony, a lot of people think so actually. If you could read between the lines of what I was saying, you would understand how by that logic, that is my own logic, one could argue that Dano’s acting in the film superseded DDL’s. Like I said, it is my THEORY/CONJECTURE/OPINION that Paul/Eli Sunday’s character is intended to come off as weak and diminutive, especially in regards to DDL. And that is what happened in the finished result. Now I’m sure that PTA could have gotten Depp or Ed Norton or at least some other reputable actor for the role, but that would have been some damn fine acting, which in turn would have empowered their character, which in turn would have seriously skewed many of the movie’s theme’s. There is nothing wrong with having to acting giants play opposing characters, but in this case I don’t think it would have worked. Maybe my use of the word strong doesn’t convey my message well enough and is confusing you. “Power” or maybe even a word like “reverence” might work better. Just looking at Paul Dano and hearing him speak, is that menacing or powerful to you? It’s rather subdued and when he needs to show emotion in the film, it comes off as almost comical – like a grown up little kid who can’t express his anger. So all of this could mean that he played exactly what the role called for (unofficially, that is). But I greatly appreciate your one sentence that supports your claims. Look forward to hearing from you again.
And Robert, I can’t think of another film. I’m sure if I had just about every good movie fresh in my mind now, one could possibly see instances, but I definitely agree that it’s a rather far out idea to start with, and even a more far out risk for the director to take. It’s almost like something you could picture Kubrick doing back in the day and PTA is only one of several directors I would give credit to to even suppose this.
“It doesn’t really make sense to say that “Memento” floored you, and then you call the director of the movie “untalented” or “average”.”
I believe the sentence Andrew wrote was:
“I don’t think Nolan is untalented or average.”
?
Agreed on Jackie Brown being Tarantino’s masterpiece, what a great movie it is.
Jackie Brown is def a masterpiece, as is Pulp Fiction in my eyes.
I also liked his reviews of Sunshine and Taxi Driver via Sky Movies.
Alot of Tarantino fan boys here…
“PTA” went up a lot in my eyes after There Will Be Blood. Boogie Nights was very, very good; Punch Drunk Love was just good; and Magnolia was, in my humble opinion, a pretentious overwrought piece of shit, which really sunk Anderson for me until … I saw Blood, which was a total masterpiece.
Though I think on repeat viewing it doesn’t quite hold up to the first viewing — yes you can appreciate nuances in the film making more , but the film isn’t able to play with your expectations in the way it does on the first go through.