Killer of Film, Charles Burnett

I would like to begin this blog by simply stating one fact; if it were not by force of an assignment, I would never on my own write about Charles Burnett’s film Killer of Sheep. The only time I could even fathom having the film creep into my writing is if I was to rant about another horrible film like Two Lane Blacktop and reference it in comparison. With that now being said, let my criticism begin.
When I viewed the film, about half way through I began to question if there was a developed plot yet. The film starts out with a young man being yelled at to grow up and be a man. This behavior did not shock me because of the time period in which the film was made. Many children of the baby boom era were raised that way; not to cry, not to cop out on your personal responsibility, and to just be a man. After this scene, the film then begins to progress and introduce different sets of characters. In all honesty, these characters were not memorable and did not in my opinion have any connection to one another. A handful of scenes in the film just showed children playing around the run down neighborhood, which the film takes place in. To me, these scenes added nothing. From discussions that I have had, some argue that the scenes of the children bring a comparison of behavior of the adults to the children and how their behavior is not much different, but to me, it was just a waste of time because the children did not play specific roles, they were just there, playing. Even the child in the beginning who was slapped and told to be more of a man did not develop into much of a character. To me, a film is not a random collection of scenes that do not relate to each other.
Although I just said that there was nothing memorable about Killer of Sheep, there are three scenes, which I would like to examine a little closer because two of them do attempt to make the film have a purpose. The first scene, which I would like to point out, is the one where Stan’s wife (I honestly cant remember her name, helping to prove my point that these characters aren’t memorable) throws herself at Stan, showing her sexual desire for him. The second memorable scene is when Stan is in the liquor store and the white man and woman running the shop offer Stan a job as if it were a charity case. The third memorable scene to me is just when the motor is loaded into the back of the truck and they agree about whether or not it is secure, but immediately falls out of the truck bed and breaks when they begin to drive away.
The first scene, which I pointed out between Stan and his wife, speaks to the lack of desire and passion present in the entirety of the film. Stan’s impotence helps to create the main metaphor of the film; the people present in Killer of Sheep are part of this small, black, urban community and have no desire to get ahead in life and are just sitting around as they wait to die. The people of this town do not seek out much of anything and even when they do (as Stan’s wife does when she throws herself at him...if only every man could be so lucky), they are not met with encouragement.
As the people of this town sit around and wait, carrying on daily life, they are met with different opportunities and are even denied certain privileges most others may have. In the scene when Stan enters the liquor store, just before he enters a man tries to cash a check. The female shopkeeper denies this man the ability to cash his check because she does not believe it to be a real check. This white woman holds a position of power to the people in this town, as a Shepard does over a herd of sheep. She is portrayed as controlling the flow of cash in the town. The people who try to get ahead, for example the man who wanted to cash the check, is denied. She did not actually know if the check was real, but denied him simply because she is not trustworthy of others and keeps him from obtaining the money which she does not know the purpose of. For all we know, the money was intended to be saved so that the man could move up and get ahead in life. After the man exits the store, Stan is then offered a job working in the back with the woman. Stan declines the offer. Once again, the woman is trying to keep power and control over her sheep.
This film speaks volumes to race relations and truth about the way life was for many black communities. The liquor store reminds me of the pizza shop owners in Spike Lee’s Do the Right Thing. The whites in the black community try to hold the little bit of socioeconomic power over their peers and neighbors. This one plot point in the liquor store does not really for me do anything besides social commentary. This commentary though helps to document the reality of life, making Killer of Sheep in a way, a documentary, one of most commonly boring types of film, although it is pretty much guaranteed that a documentary will have a plot. The way in which the camera is positioned most of the time though, it only offers an inside point of view at certain moments. There are many scenes where the camera seems to be stationary just observing what is happening in the town, i.e. when the children are playing outside. The camera never really dares to enter any of their points of view, and just documents them from a distance. Even when Burnett has scenes with his main man Stan, the camera does not really enter into his point of view. With so much going on in the film, and what seems to be no real substantial plot, it would be hard for any director (including the “genius” Charles Burnett) to use a lot of point of view shots because that would take away time from useless scenes and add more depth to a few characters.
The third scene, which I had previously mentioned but have neglected until now, where the motor falls out of the back of the truck bed, I only mentioned because it was the only point in the film that I was amused by. It was predictable, but the reactions were funny. I just wanted to share that.
Killer of Sheep as you can see is not on my list of greatest films ever made. The lack of plot and development of characters, kept me from connecting with the film. Although the film may have some deeper meaning, I did not feel that deeper meaning in my experience. My last words on Killer of Sheep are this: if you want to sit around, analyze and assume things about Charles Burnett’s film, go right ahead, but for me, I will not be joining the conversation because I did not see the value in the characters or feel that they had any real true meaning.

Contempt and the Lovers Quarrel

The Oxford American Dictionary defines contempt as “the feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn.” This feeling of contempt toward someone could come out in many different ways and could be portrayed in many different ways. In Jean-Luc Godard’s film Contempt, the audience is exposed to how contempt could be portrayed through the characters interactions and through the mise en scene and shot composition.
After the opening narrated credits, the film moves on to establish what seems to be a loving relationship between the films two main characters Paul and Camille. The red tinted scene shows the couple nude after making love. They are discussing what they love about each other. This scene establishes the relationship and the passion that they share for one another.
When Paul goes to his meeting with Jeremy Prokosch he does not continue to compliment and show his passion for Camille. She is upset with his behavior and begins to question his love for her. Paul had instructed her to go alone with Prokosch, although it was clear he was a Hollywood sleaze with no respect for the sanctity of their marriage. This insecurity truly heats up when the two return to their apartment.
From the time Paul and Camille enter their apartment, they begin to quarrel and question the love they have for one another. In the scene, there are many elements that help to create the uneasy feeling that is created and it is at this point in the film that the shot composition is most crucial.
In the apartment, Camille begins to question whether or not Paul loves him. She is never really seen in the same frame as Paul as she is pointing out all of the reasons why she is no longer in love with him, and everything that makes her question his love. Paul responds to her by trying to reassure her, almost chasing her around the apartment as Camille runs away. As the two weave in and out of the rooms, they cross paths in the long shots that focus on either one of them or just empty space that one of them has just occupied or will occupy, the audience is then exposed to an uneasy feeling that Godard wished to create.
The conflict between the two and Paul’s torn feelings over his newly acquired job are highlighted throughout this conflict between the two. Camille calls upon Paul to prove his love by writing the screenplay for her and providing for her. The dialogue goes back and forth when the two question each other’s love. When the two try to convince each other of their love and commitment to the relationship, it begins to seem as though neither of them cares, but they just don’t want to be the one to say they don’t.
This sentiment is then enhanced by the framing then used within the scene. In the long scene where Camille and Paul return to their home after meeting with Jeremy Prokosch, the films producer, Godard and Coutard show the strain on the relationship between Camille and Paul through the shot composition that they orchestrated. In the scene, as the plot develops, the audience begins to question the relationship between the two main characters. Before this point in the film, there was a loving relationship established, although that could be questioned as to how sincere that love is from the previous scene when, Camille is seduced by producer Jeremy Prokosch. In the scene in the apartment, the rest of the film is set up and exemplifies how one may not really be fully welcomed to know the truth in their relationship.
In many of the shots of the fight between Camille and Paul, the camera uses the doorframes to keep the audience out of what is actually happening. Although Godard wants his audience to understand the emotions of what is happening, he keeps the audience at a distance by framing key points through a doorframe. The use of the frame within the frame when the two are arguing about the state of their love shows his desire to keep the audience guessing what will happen. When viewing the couple from an outside view, it gives a voyeur feeling that helps keep the audience interested, and wanting to get further engaged into the relationship.
After this scene in the film, the relationship is never the same, even though the two travel to Capri to work on Prokosch’s film. As the plot advances, the audience sees how the two are no longer in love and how Paul chases Camille. Originally, he did not want to rewrite the film because he is a playwright, but he does it to prove his love, which she throws back in his face.
In the final scene of the film, Camille grants Paul what she thinks to be his original wish when she runs away from Capri with Prokosch. Even though this proves to be a fatal choice for Camille, she still stays true to her dispute with Paul and leaves him as she implied she might.
All of the scenes in the film relate to each other and pivot around one central scene. In the apartment, the dispute between the two solidifies the feelings that were vaguely shown earlier when Paul pushed off Camille to Prokosch. After the apartment, the bitter feelings that developed further and lead to the demise of the relationship. While all of this is happening though, there are interesting visuals that are paired with what is happening.
Through the mis en scene, Godard uses color to help show emotion. There are two main color schemes in the film. The first is earth tones. In the opening scenes on the movie lot, there are a lot of earth tones used in the colors of the buildings and in the scenery around the action. These colors show the raw emotion that is being put out into the open and the pureness of the people who are being brought into this film. Showing them in front of these natural colors shows how raw and natural the feeling that are being provoked can really be.
The other color scheme shown through the film is that of the primary colors. There are many scenes where there are bright red, blue or yellow objects, which attract the eyes attention. From the opening scene after the credits where Paul and Camille were in bed after making love, and there was a red filter used which then was dropped, and natural light was used and there was a bright yellow blanket on the bed, and then another filter appeared, but this time blue, the three colors were all main attractions of the eye. These three colors not only appear on pieces of furniture and filters, but in clothing, and in the natural scenery. When the film begins to show Capri, the vast blue ocean is the backdrop to many of the scenes. These primary colors add to the sense of pure truth that is laid out in the film. Godard wanted a film, which was reflexive of the film industry, and he used colors, which are the most pure and natural to help represent this point.
The primary color scheme used also shows Godard’s appreciation for the abstract. Many elements of his film are abstract and left to interpretation. But there is a clear influence from abstract artist Piet Mondrion. The works of Mondrion use rectangular shapes filled with primary colors to represent abstract ideas. Godard uses these primary colors to represent abstract ideas as well. When scenes from the film are interspersed into the film and we see statues of ancient Greek figures, their eyes are red and blue. The purpose of having these statues in the film at these interspersed points is an abstraction of the film.
The film’s plot, Godard’s use of the camera, and the mis en scene make Contempt a rich film to examine. The importance of framing and the way in which the characters relate to each other, help show the message that the filmmaker is trying to get across in this masterfully crafted film. Godard shows the audience that love is not simple, it is complex and is not always truthful. Color is used to show the purity and nature of his characters. He keeps the audience at a distance so that they do not become emotionally involved and can understand this by the end of the film. Although the film is difficult to understand because of its use of shot composition, the theme and message do clearly come through from the actions of the characters.

Documentary Call to Action…Now!

Michael Moore did something a few years ago that many artists never thought would be possible. He brought positive attention to the documentary film. While I personally cannot stand the man, he has done a good thing for film. From his mainstreaming of documentary, people are now more inclined to sit and listen to hard fiction (not re-enacted based on a true story with a studio twist and big name actor to make it more appealing to audiences fiction) and hear the social message passed across in documentary films. Darfur Now is one of those films that has recently gained a lot of attention because of its social message and call to action.
This mainstream documentary uses many elements to draw in an audience. The film follows six people telling their stories about how they are involved with the crisis in Darfur. These six stories are weaved together to tell of what is happening in Darfur, and show what is being done to help. Darfur Now uses celebrities and everyday people to tell these six stories. Don Cheadle, star of the film Hotel Rwanda, is one of the six people that the film follows. In the film, Don uses his celebrity status, to act as a world mediator and activist to help the crisis in Darfur. Don, accompanied by George Clooney, travels to China and Egypt to talk with different heads of government about how their countries are affecting the crisis in Darfur and asking them to help stop what is happening. Later in the film, Don discusses his book, Not On Out Watch, which he co-authored and promotes in the film.
Aside from Don Cheadle, the film follows activist Adam Sterling. Throughout the film, he is documented soliciting the government of California to divest from Sudan. His efforts in the film show how the efforts to save Darfur are still in the grassroots.
The other four stories are not as memorable, although they add to the message of the film. Ted Braun, director of Darfur Now, tries to use various elements to appeal to audiences’ emotional sense. In the story of the people of Darfur, he shows the resilience of the women and how even though they are victimized, they still carry on every day. When the children of Darfur are shown crying because their parents have been killed, it evokes emotion not only from the people surrounding them on screen, but the audience as well. This hit to the emotional sense is the purpose of a documentary of this caliber and shows the documentary has done its job.
Even though there is a strong sense of emotional appeal in some of the stories told, it is still easy to question how much of what played out in the film was staged like docufiction or was more in the fashion of the unpredictable cinema verite? When Don Cheadle and George Clooney travel to Egypt and China to solicit their governments to stand up against the government of Sudan, it is easy to begin questioning if that was reality, or staged for the film so Braun could make a better documentary.
Adam Sterling shows how he used a grassroots movement to make a larger impact on the state of California. In this effort although some things do seem staged, the effort is more sincere and believable that it would happen without cameras present.
In comparison to other documentaries, which aim at raising awareness and activism, Darfur Now takes a mainstream approach unlike the not so well known film Darfur Diaries. This other film tells just the story of the people of Darfur through subtitled interviews and b-roll. This film is a lot more raw and real compared to the Hollywood portrayal given in Darfur Now. Diaries, only an hour long, does something similar to Darfur Now, though in that it tries to evoke emotion out of its audience so that they start to take action against what is happening.
Over the past few years, there have been more and more reports saying that we are living in a visual generation, where people are best stimulated through visual images. With the visuals given in these two films, the filmmakers evoke emotions that are meant to get an audience riled up to the point where they want to take a stand. So are these films then a form of propaganda? Many people often say that about Michael Moore’s films, seeing as that they speak up against government and try to evoke a change and are very one sided. The point of the films about Darfur though is not trying to make the same sort of social change and is not approaching an issue that divides a nation into political parties. Darfur Diaries and Darfur Now try to evoke change through activism and evoking emotions of sorrow, but do not have a radical call to action besides giving time and money to try and make a difference. Michael Moore, in his films, offers radical solutions and examples to make his point as one sided as possible.
As documentaries become more and more mainstream, they are becoming more versatile in the messages they can portray. Although some filmmakers use them as a tool for propaganda, they can be used to just inform people too. It would be easy to classify either Darfur Now or Darfur Diaries as documentaries that only offer propaganda, because they don’t. The two films offer information about a part of the world that the audience may not know exists, and it offers inspiration for those who want to do something to help those who are in need of help, and that is all one could as for from a good documentary.

In Love With a Man, I Love You, Man

Bromance can be defined as the plutonic love between two men. In recent pop culture, this relationship between men has been explored and has been pushed to new levels. In the traditional romantic comedy, the plot usually follows the relationship of a guy and a girl, but in the recent case of I Love You, Man, both the relationship of the guy and girl and two guys are followed.
The relationship formed in romantic comedy films usually has a certain cycle that it follows. Two people meet or have an already established relationship; they grow closer over something, only to have a small conflict break them apart for a short time. We are then presented with a montage scene which reflects their sorrows over the “break up,” and then a significant point approaches when the two were supposed to be together and they finally reunite for a happily ever after. In I Love You, Man, this format is followed closely by Director John Hamburg (whom also helped author the script).
I Love You, Man stars Paul Rudd (Role Models) in the role of Peter Klaven, a California real estate agent that has recently gotten engaged. When the wedding planning commences, he realizes that he needs to search for someone to be his best man because he does not have many male friends. After seeking advice from his gay brother Robbie, played by Saturday Night Live’s Andy Samberg, he seeks out a series of “man dates” to try and find some male companionship. After some failed attempts at finding some bromance, Peter has all but given up when he meets Sydney Fife (Jason Segel, Forgetting Sarah Marshall). After a few man dates with Sydney, the pair bond and begin to share in some true bromance. Throughout the remainder of the film, it is unclear who Peter is in love with, his beautiful fiancé, or his new best friend Sydney.
With the relationship formed in this film between Peter and Sydney, true bromance is found. At points in the film, it is unclear who Peter is in a relationship with. This portrayal of relationships is what makes the film so interesting. The relationship formed between Sydney and Peter does seem like that of a romantic courtship, but it is a completely plutonic relationship.
I Love You, Man finds comedy in the little things that happen between guys. There is a clear commentary on the relationships of men. When Peter begins to hang out with Sydney, he is given a nickname but Peter is unable to reciprocate the favor and it becomes an on going joke through out the film. Peter’s awkwardness with men is funny, but by the end of the film certain things become repetitive and it subtracts from the comedic effect.
Although there was no spectacular cinematography, the writing was more than able to make up for that. The plot carried this film and the acting helped to enhance the plot. Jason Segel who played Sydney Fife was a main highlight of the acting in the film. At first, you are not sure of his sexual orientation, and because of previous events, you are easily able to call into question his sexuality. After he openly expresses his love of women, he becomes “that guy,” which is the guy that everyone thinks is an ass, but everyone wants to be at the same time. Sydney fills the void in Peter’s life of a male companion. He was able to successfully help show the dynamics of a male relationship.
Sexuality is also something that is explored in the film. At many points in the film, the sexuality of Peter and Sydney is called into question. When Peter starts to meet guys as he is seeking a new friend, he is actually set up on a date. The man takes the date the wrong way, and makes an advance on Peter. Peter is taken aback by this, but it is not surprising from his character that he was perceived this way. Throughout the film he does show signs that say he might be gay. When Peter is relating to other men, he is just not comfortable and this calls into question his sexuality because he just does not know how to act in the presence of other men. In today’s world, homosexuality is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is funny to joke about it and make fun of the stereotypes, but on the other side, a joke can go too far and offend someone. The commentary in this film about it though simply states that it is ok to accept who you are and to not let other people’s opinions effect the person you are and the person you will become.
The bromance genre of film is brand new, but I feel that guy love will be the topic of many more films in the near future. Genre’s like this come and go as popular trends, but have short-lived lives. No one knows how many movies about man love there will be, but seeing as this is one of the first ones, I Love You, Man is a film for the history books.

Finding Peter Pan

No matter what your age, there is always a moment when you feel like a kid again. The feeling is exhilarating, and you try to remember a time when life was simpler. Through the eyes of a child though, life may not seem simple. Things may not be exactly how you may want them, and you may miss out on some of the joys of being young. This may be why rediscovering your youth, as an adult can be such an interesting experience.

This line between adulthood and childhood is explored in Finding Neverland, an adaptation of the play “The Man Who Was Peter Pan”. The story tells about the life of author and playwright, J.M. Barrie and is based on the true events of the writer’s life although creative liberties were taken.

The film follows Barrie who is played by Johnny Depp. Barrie’s journey really starts when he is introduced to the Llewelyn Davies children one afternoon in the park as he was writing. He begins to play with them and in turn, his inner child comes out to play.

As Barrie begins to interact with Jack, George, Michael, and most importantly, Peter Llewelyn Davies, he teaches them to open their imaginations. The camera allows the audience to see how Uncle Jim (Barrie) uses his imagination as he interacts with the children, taking them on wild western adventures, pirate ships, and showing them how to dance with a bear, all in a place called Neverland. When seeing Barrie in Neverland, the audience is juxtaposed from what is actually happening, to the fantasy in which visual representation is given.

The film goes deeper than just child’s play though. Through the time that Barrie spends with the children, he develops an “inappropriate relationship” with their widowed mother, Sylvia, played by academy award winning actress Kate Winslet. Through the looking glass, everyone becomes suspicious of their relationship, including Sylvia’s mother and Barrie’s own wife. Barrie is even told by a friend at the cricket club that it seems his relationship extends further than just with Sylvia, but with the children as well.

Through the development of the relationship with the Llewelyn Davies family, comes the struggle that Barrie faces in his life, does he have to please others or just himself. In essence, I think he does both. Through the relationship that he forms with the family, he finds happiness and pleases himself. Consequently, this brings joy to the mourning Llewelyn Davies family and his fans at the theater with his newly inspired play “Peter Pan.”

Although the film does not have a very happy ending, there is a powerful lesson in the film about happiness. At the climax of the film, when Barrie is premiering his new play, “Peter Pan” he does not care what people think of it as he did in the opening scene of the film, instead he is concerned about what it means to a small group of people, the people who inspired it. He goes as far as having the play reenacted for them, finally showing Sylvia Neverland as he had promised her.

Throughout the film, Marc Foster, the director uses his characters in two worlds, one reality and one fantasy. The blend showing how Barrie perceived reality was a very nice visual effect and also added depth to the character development. The use of these fantasies left you wondering how grown up is J.M. Barrie.

In some parts of the film, you could see that he is clearly an adult. When he encounters Peter, a middle child of Llewelyn Davies family, he steps up to the role of becoming a father figure. Although Peter does resist, Barrie is able to easily grip with it, as he is the adult.

In other instances though, Barrie acts like a child. At a dinner where he and his wife invite the Llewelyn Davies family over because Barrie’s wife wanted to meet Sylvia’s mother, a socialite, Barrie is seen leading the children putting spoons on his nose. His wife responds by yelling at him like he is a child. Later, he states how he believed the evening to be a success. His wife on the other hand did not believe the evening to be successful for their social life at all.

Overall, the film has many layers that help to make this a meaningful film. Although some of the dialogue may be dry at points, Marc Foster had it in there for a reason and I appreciate that. The director though did create a dry film. Telling this story mostly from the perspective of J.M. Barrie, the audience is able to actually see how he is seeing things, welcoming them into his world of Neverland and showing when he is there.

The most interesting character of the film though was not Johnny Depp’s character, but the little boy Peter Llewelyn Davies. Peter, is a bipolar character that acts as a catalyst of the whole story. He takes an interest in Barrie, but also is able to push him away. Through Peter, Barrie realizes how important it is to be a child and how fragile they are, especially when they feel they are lied to or are mourning.

Finding Neverland is a film that we do not see made that much anymore. It shows some true emotions and human interaction. It focuses on the emotion and not the action. Through seeing this it is possible to take a different perspective on life and appreciate the people you have in it. I think that if we were all to be a little more like Barrie, and find our own Neverland, the world would be a much happier and creative place.

Things To Remember When It Comes To Oil

Where there is oil, there is blood. It is said that the United States started a war over oil when the armed forces entered into Iraq. But the larger question is, why is there always blood surrounding light sweet crude? Ever since the discovery of oil in America, we have been an oil hungry nation.

Upton Sinclair, a great American writer once wrote about the early politics of the oil industry in Oil. Drawing from his own experiences of selling his lot to the oil companies, he creates characters that show the greed in which he witnessed. As a part of the story, there is of course blood spilt in the drilling of the California oil.

The greed of this story is exemplified even more throughout the film adaptation There Will Be Blood. The film tells a similar story to the novel, but has many differences. In the screen version, Upton Sinclair’s characters are transformed into hungry characters, hungry for money.

Daniel Plainview, an oilman as he calls himself, depicted by the acting genius Daniel Day-Lewis, finds ways to capitalize on all of the options placed before him. When he starts out, he is not originally hunting for oil, but is mining for silver in California. His early actions establish his character as someone that is in search for riches. How far will he be willing to go though in order to obtain those riches? Will there be blood?

Throughout the film, Daniel Plainview interacts with different characters that act as catalysts, shaping how his greed takes over. Daniel’s son, H.W. Plainview is used as part of an act so that Daniel can manipulate people into leasing their lots. He calls himself a “family man,” saying that he is running a “family business.” In the world of sales, this is a smart move, but there is not much truth to these statements. When H.W. goes deaf from an accident on the oilrig, Daniel abandons his son, only to start doing business with a man who he believes to be his brother. And then there is blood. Not blood from kinship though, blood from greed. When Daniel discovers that Henry Plainview is not in fact the real Henry Plainview, only someone who had known his real brother, and then stole a diary so that he could pose as Henry, Daniel lashes out because of how he was manipulated.

Daniel is not the only self-centered greedy character in the film though. When Daniel ventures out to California in search of the oil he was told is there, he comes into contact with Eli Sunday. Eli, a self-made spiritual leader who believes that his church holds all the answers, consistently pushes his beliefs towards Daniel. As the oil begins to flow from the tracts of land that Daniel leased, Eli begins to pester Daniel for money that he believes he is owed to help his church. This pestering leads to an eventual conflict, which shows that there is blood.

The five hundred plus page book was translated into a two and a half hour film. That means on average, every minute was about three and a half pages in the book. Even though the film is not a pure translation from the book, the main concept still exists and the main characters are reflected in their on screen personas. Director/writer Paul Thomas Anderson took the main ideas from the book and created a larger story from that. His direction was invaluable to the film. Having envisioned the story from its original novel, Anderson was able to fully execute how he wanted to translate the characters from the book into this larger story with its modern social contexts.

In the introduction, the War in Iraq, which is said to be started in part over oil, raises the question of the nature of oil and how blood surrounds it. Having made this film in 2006, and released in 2007, Anderson has grounds for social commentary about oil. He weaves this in while telling a story of the beginnings of the industry. The greed that comes into play when dealing with oil takes over. Oil used to be called black gold, meaning it is dark in nature, but there is money to be made in it. There Will Be Blood shows the darkness of oil and how it leads people to manipulate one another so that only one man can wind up on top.

Looking back on the film, it is easy to understand the recognition that the film received during the 2008 awards ceremonies. The film took two high honors with Oscars for Best Actor, Daniel Day-Lewis, and Best Cinematography, Robert Elswit. The acting was a big part of what carried the film. The portrayal of Daniel Plainview showed a man who only cares about two things, himself and money, and yet he was the protagonist of the film. For such a shitty type person to find a place in the film as a protagonist, Daniel Day-Lewis becomes the oilman, which he is cast to play.

The cinematography of the film was also a part of what placed this film on the American Film Institutes Top 10 Films of 2007. Robert Elswit used the camera in interesting ways that allowed the audience to enter the world of the film. In one sequence, Elswit uses the deep focus long shot to help reestablish the relationship between Daniel and H.W. The use of this long shot does not allow us to completely reenter this tainted relationship and helps to represent the changing dynamic that exists between father and son.

There Will Be Blood left its mark on the world of film in 2007 and still continues to live on. Remembering the context of the film is important and makes for a better viewing experience. Overall though, the film does not just represent the book, but portrays a true aspect of the ever greedy and bloody oil industry. Remember, when it comes to oil, there will be blood.

Welcome

So I just wanted to set this up so that it is ready to go...my first criticism will be up in a few weeks once things get underway...until then.

Matt