So. My CBS "Early Show" gig went down quite nicely, if I might say so myself. How often does one get to go on network television and talk up Gabriel Over The White House, anyway? If you didn't catch it, the program's website has a precis of the proceedings, including a shot of me and my bald head and furry chin and massive damn girth. Won't be too much of a stretch for you to figure out what my New Year's resolutions involve.
At the office later in the morning, the "network" was down, severly inhibiting my ability to get any work done, so I thought, "Well, while the tech guys labor feverishly to get it back up, why don't I go up to Lincoln Square and take in There Will Be Blood again?"
Back in the day, summer of 1980 to be exact, my buddies and I were so taken with The Shining, which had opened in May, that it became our default social function, in the mode of a more suburban version of Marty. "Whaddya wanna do tonight?" "I dunno, whaddya you wanna do?" "How about The Shining?" 'Yeah, that sounds good." Must have seen the picture a dozen times that summer.
I have a feeling that, were I substantially less busy, and substantially more of a ne'er-do-well, I probably would do the same thing this winter with Blood, which is funnier and more terrifying and holds together even better the second time around. (And, you know, the picture does share some interesting affinities with The Shining, which the redoubtable Filmbrain got into a couple weeks back.) One thing about that Plainview character—he sure can hold a grudge. (As a thought experiment, this time I tried to apprehend Plainview as the film's actual hero,rather than any kind of anti-hero. Worked out rather discomfittingly well.) As it happens, My Lovely Wife has yet to see the film, so I've got a legit reason to check it out in a theater at least one more time. Can't wait!
Blood has not been the recipient of unanimous acclaim—heck, Juno does better than Blood's 89 percent on the Tomatometer—but the nature of that acclaim has been rapturous enough that there will be backlash. Not much of it is convincing. That silly fellow N.P. Thompson posted a rant over at The House Next Door, full of sound and fury and spittle but lacking an actual argument. (Well, okay, he seems particularly exercised by the fact that Paul Dano's Eli Sunday didn't wash up for dinner in a particular scene. Posing himself as some kind of hero, he also anticipates the outcries of "jihadists" in the comments section; since he's playing fast and loose with the putative world-historical terminology, I suggest that he ponder the phrase "useful idiot.") I was slightly more perturbed by Joshua Rothkopf's small slam in the Village Voice critic's poll package, wherein the Time Out NY critic yokes together Blood and No Country For Old Men and says, "both movies imply that violence is what we Americans do best. Hard to argue with that. But that's about all they say [...], and the critics who would be satisfied with such political conservatism should be told that they champion empty movies."
Now Joshua is a critic I hold in high regard, and a pal as well, but that last bit in the comment is staggeringly, well, pompous. "Should be told"? Really? By whom? Is Joshua gonna go door to door? If he does, how does he expect the critics to take the news? Shall I have a fainting couch delivered to my apartment this weekend? Okay, I'll stop. But seriously. It's hard to argue that violence is what Americans do best? It isn't, particularly, and particularly if you wanna make a contest out of it...for if, in fact, it is what Americans do best, then they've still got a shitload of catching up to do with Europe. But to then say that to state that violence is what Americans do best constitutes "political conservatism" is pretty incoherent. Also, in the case of Blood, well, Daniel Plainview is many kinds of monster, and one of the kinds of monster he is is a Monster of Capital...and last time I looked, Capital was something that political conservatives looked rather kindly on—often insisting that it creates freedom rather than monsters. (C.f. Milton Friedman.) So I have to say I'm a little disappointed in Mr. R. But then again, his pronouncement was made in the context of a poll...a poll in the Village Voice no less...and I myself have on occasion succumbed to the temptation to get volatile within those parameters. Still. Dude.
UPDATE: Looking at comments, I see cheeseburgers invoked. And below that, I see my CBS Early Show image likened to that of...Sebastian Cabot. Let's do a head-to-head comparison...
I'm the guy at top. Hmm. It appears that the laws of unintended consequences extend to the act of growing a beard. Well, go ahead, laugh it up. Some day, if you're lucky, you'll age and lose hair and gain weight. At least I have my memories of possessing one of the greatest curly mops since Dylan circa Don't Look Back. (Not to mention a vintage Don Mossi baseball card.) Can you say the same thing?
Didn't think so.
Surely there are things we as Americans do better than violence.
Cheeseburgers, for one.
And reality television.
Posted by: Filmbrain | January 03, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Apathy. We've definitely got that covered.
Posted by: Andrew | January 03, 2008 at 11:44 AM
What I got from watching Blood was this: In the early part of the 20th Century, Capitalism began to replace Organized Religion as the Grand American Narrative, and the takeover was fairly quick and brutal, as Capitalism came equipped with a better mechanism for transcending the prison of the flesh, mainly the promise of heaven on earth through the possesion of wealth, which, it turns out, is as empty a promise as the one it replaced. So it's not the movie that's empty, Joshua R., it's America itself that is hollow at the core. That you have a hard time accepting this as the message of the movie leads me to believe that you are the conservative, and that the movie pointed this out to you. In other words, you didn't like the way the movie made you feel about yourself, because self-consciousness forces us to ask ourselves if we are capable of changing, which, obviously, you have no interest in. Sounds to me the very definition of a conservative.
Posted by: Chris Goldstein | January 03, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Re: Early Show appearance. At least now we know who will be the frontrunner if they ever get around to The Sebastian Cabot Story.
Posted by: Herman Scobie | January 04, 2008 at 02:22 PM
Herman: Ouch.
Of course, Cabot WAS the premiere Dylan interpreter of his age, so perchance there's not too much shame in the resemblance.
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | January 04, 2008 at 02:36 PM
Perhaps Mr. Scobie meant this Sebastian Cabot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Cabot_(explorer)
Posted by: Claire K. | January 04, 2008 at 03:46 PM
Is that some sort of hint that you actually want me to grow my beard to Robert Wyatt length?
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | January 05, 2008 at 04:36 PM
I love you Glenn. TWBB is GENIUS. Fourth time soon to be a charm, before it leaves the glorious big screen.
Posted by: Joe | April 02, 2008 at 06:01 PM