If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Daniel Day Lewis was the most unlikeable character I've seen in a film since Chad Piercewell in In the Company of Men (who I actually DID like...he was at least funny, whereas Lewis' character in TWBB had no redeeming qualities besides capitalist greed, and I'd hardly call that a redeeming quality). The scene very near the end where he's sitting at his desk talking to his son has to be about the most unpleasant scene (unpleasant in the sense that figurative bile was rising up in me for having to endure watching it) I've seen in a movie since the father-son talk near the end of Happiness.
See it again. The dude loves his "son" and he sets him free at the end.
Daniel Plainview is the Father of the Year.
And my god, Pavilion, you need a serious Cinema Enema.
If he loved his ****ing son so god damn much, why did he not give him encouragement to go out on his own and make his own way in the world, instead of making him feel like complete and utter ****? I mean, seriously, he basically disowned him at the end.
And yeah, I can see your point to some extent. The kid (a grown man by this point) already knew his father was a selfish, greedy bastard, but he had already told Daniel that he was going to leave, so why did he need to degrade him like that? To me, it was to cling to the last vestige of lording his power and influence over everyone's life, because once his son left, there would be no one left to manipulate, insult, and make feel like a lesser human being. Knowing this, he sorta went out on an ill-conceived blaze of glory (well, a blaze of glory in his own eyes, anyway).
Although, I DID love his last act of lording his power over someone, as it was basically the sme thing he had to do earlier in the film, but reversed.
And Magus, of course I'm not saying I didn't enjoy the hell out of the film, because I did. It was just ALMOST too unrelentingly dark. Then again, Requiem for a Dream I ALMOST consider semi-light viewing.
*** SPOILERS ***
Daniel realized what a selfish ruthless son of a ***** he was. His son was probably the only thing he cared about. I think it shows in his rush to save his son from the oil explosion, and the fact that both times he commits murder are when he was away from his son. I think his such cold disowning stems from the fact he's just an asshole and it's probably the only way to completely drive him away.
*** END SPOILERS ***
As I previously stated, yes, I do see your point, as if he disowned him, there would be no lingering doubts or insecurities on the son's part in leaving to make a life on his own.
However, my point still stands...I really think he did not need to be so harsh. I mean, I would put that scene in my top five most brutal dialogue scenes I've seen in film, along with Chad's revelation in the hotel room near the end of In The Company of Men, Chad and the black intern in his office in In The Company of Men, pretty much any scene (but especially the verbal rape scene) in Bad Lieutenant, and...well, I can't think of any others offhand.
EDIT to partially respond to Caciss:
*** SPOILERS ***
I dunno. I CAN see that. It's just that after realizing his son was more of a burden than he was worth (due to now having a "common man" in his "brother" that he could exploit the way he exploited his son's youth and innocence to make himself look like a better person in everyone's eyes) and sending him away, and then reclaiming him after he killed his link to the common man....I dunno. The only thing he displayed in the entire film in terms of any feelings toward his son was one of exploitation and manipulation.
*** END SPOILERS ***
So, yeah. I completely see what you and Magus are saying. I've only seen the film once, and that was the overwhelming impression that stuck with me after it ended. It's honestly been QUITE some time since a film made me feel legitimately angry, and this film managed to do so. Which is one reason I feel the need to talk about it. Because it made me feel SOMETHING, which has been fairly rare for me in a film as of late.
Fast Food Nation and The Newton Boys are the only Richard Linklater films I've yet to see. Well, the only two I've yet to own, as well. Unless I'm missing one. Or two. Actually, yeah. I do not own, nor did I see the Bad News Bears remake, and I saw but have yet to purchase School of Rock.
I'll put them in order from favorite to least favorite...
Before Sunrise
Slacker
Waking Life
Suburbia
Tape
A Scanner Darkly
Before Sunset
School of Rock
Dazed and Confused
Not to say that the films lower on the list are in the least bit bad. I just prefer them less. Linklater IS my favorite director, so it's kinda hard to put movies on the bottom of the list.
I recently saw The Assassination of Jessie James by the Coward Robert Ford. It's secretly the best western ever and no one even saw it.
I saw it and loved it and wished I'd followed my gut and seen it in theaters.
Oh, and while I like Blade Runner and recognize it as an important influence on films that came after, I can't make myself love it. There are certain parts of the movie that just don't hold up to logical scrutiny.
Finished watching Requiem for a dream for the first time last night. It was like watching music in physical form. I liked it overall and got grossed out by the guys arm. It also had me go "It's Keith David!"
Also anytime David Goldfarb talked. it made me think of the scout from TF2 :3
Finished watching Requiem for a dream for the first time last night. It was like watching music in physical form. I liked it overall and got grossed out by the guys arm. It also had me go "It's Keith David!"
Keith David and Jennifer Connelly... ruining my childhood in one scene. :[
Comment