Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
12/21/2007
Daniel-Day Lewis, Paul Thomas Anderson
A discussion about the film "There Will Be Blood"
Keywords:
A discussion about the film "There Will Be Blood" with director Paul Thomas Anderson and actor Daniel-Day Lewis. The film is loosely adapted by Paul Thomas Anderson from the 1927 novel OIL! by Upton Sinclair. The movie centers on a character Daniel Plainview, played by Daniel Day-Lewis, who starts out as a simple silver miner, that happens upon oil in his silver efforts.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
The movie ended up being far more interesting and rich than I had imagined. I think it is true that they didnt know really what they had made and they certainly didnt do it justice in the interview...though I love them both. If CR had seen the movie before this interview then I understand his frustration. There are several clues to Plainview in the story - things that come up and are never explained and seem to just be thrown out there like liile pieces of a puzzle you never get to finish but you just know would add up to something if just had a little something more. He isnt easily explained, I believe. I dont know if that was intentional. The brilliance of the writing and the performances are that we are left with a fully drawn yet unknowable person of complexity and ambiguity despite his hamfisted brutality and seeming tunnel vision. I love movies that give us conflicting themes to talk about...
Oh, come on people. It's a wonderful interview, with a filmmaker and actor who are clearly enamored of each other, who found each other & managed to be muses for each other. This interview is terrifically interesting because they--PTA and DDL--admit outright they have no idea how things happened, how things worked. You all seem to want--and believe there are--clear answers, RE: process. There aren't. And it's wonderful to see these to admit it outright, struggle for words Charlie wants to hear.
The quiet politeness of PTA + the slowly contemplative DDL + the misunderstanding and underprepared Charlie Rose and hour of airtime = Disaster.
Painfully drawn out. PTA and Daniel Day Lewis were extremely reticent to disagree with Charlie, although it was clear they didn't agree many times, causing him to pursue dead ends repeatedly. On top of that Rose seemingly didn't have much insight or understanding of the movie and ran out of steam shamefully frequently; the other two never seemed keen to help.
This interview was a little odd, wasn't it? The guests kept eyeing one another, as though they were lovers! They behaved rather churlishly, as though they had planned in advance not to answer Charlie's questions head-on. I felt a little uncomfortable watching this but maybe I'm awkward.
When you start thinking about the "bad king" from Lord of the Rings and your own claustrophobia in a huge expanse of geography for purely technical reasons of production, you know you're watching a problem movie. If being hemmed in was the point, it isn't brought out in this interview. I'm not sure about that, however, because I didn't understand their imploding gibberish. Just what is "wolf dust" anyway? Does that refer to activities during recess with some spare dynamite? If so, they meant "coyote dust".
I hoped to enjoy this much hyped "epic". Was a decent movie-not worth $8.50, though. Would appeal to the Elmer Gantry KILLTHEPREACHER crowd. Watch MAGNOLIA, instead!
This wonderful interview lets us glimpse what turns out to be a dry, tedious, and, yes, self-absorbed process of creating a masterpiece. Individuals who create works of art are often perceived and rejected as self-centered; however, to assume the personality of another--which is anti-ego--requires a strenght that often sets people apart. To be asked to deconstruct your art or your talent is a whole different set of talents that many creative people don't possess. It's a privilege to have these two people sit down and discuss their work. It must have been difficult.
This interview is like an hour of three giggling little girls sharing nonsensical gibberish about some inside joke. Wielding a pick axe without breaking a sweat, people walking across the plain going nowhere, more pointless movement at the derrick and along the pipeline, a new church of the same size -- those were a few distractions that don't strike me as adding up to "best direction". This film is too self-absorbed and way too narrow in scope to be considered an "American epic" or anything more than a good film.
this movie is so HC. I found the characters to be extremely realistic, and easily relatable to myself
Wow, what a brilliant film. Talk about two talented people (among the other talents who worked on it).
The movie is stunning.
Are these two completely vapid? They don't know what they are trying to say, Charlie is just trying to make some sense of it. Pitchmen indeed, and INCREDIBLY boring.
What a wonderful interview. For these two, keeping out their way is the best way to understand their process and collaboration. Great questions and little of the Rose style paraphrasing of he thinks they are "trying to say". Anderson and Lewis' mutual respect is really moving, and the efforts of these two artists, at the top of the their craft, to express themselves is really inspirational to anyone groping with creativity and terrific background for appreciating what promises to be a great film. This interview is a real lesson for actors, directors, interviewers, and for the viewing public.
I couldnt figure out why Plainview's voice sounded so familiar in the trailer (one of the best I have seen in a long time bytw) and today the NY Times pointed out it was part John Huston. Having just recently seen the fantastic "Chinatown" again I realized she was right. How fitting. Water and oil.
Charlie Rose is a wonderful show, Paul Thomas Anderson is one of my favorite writer/directors, Daniel Day Lewis is great, and I'm sure "There Will Be Blood" will be a fantastic movie, but this is easily the most boring inteview I've seen in recent memory. The entire conversation was just so vague and unfocused. Maybe it's a case of someone simply not being on their game, because the other Charlie Rose interviews with PTA are at least amusing, if not rather interesting. Either way, I'm still very excited for the film.
Thank you, Charlie for bringing two of the best in the business! This is one of the sole airs to Marty!
It is always a pleasure to spend time listening to Daniel Day-Lewis struggle to express how he creates. It is so hard to articualte something that seems to be instinctive in an artist. I think Charlie needs to be careful of trying to get to a man like Daniel's essense by poking him with forks or he will find himself like the character in "Perfume" - frustrated by the impossibility of recreating what is unique until he causes damage. I loved that both guests felt very comfortable with each other - that they "got" each other and that they were unembarrassed to show affection and bond. It is always a relief when you find someone who really is in tune with you and it should be celebrated. Magnolia is a particular favorite of mine so when other people get it too (and that sisnt everyone) I feel connected to them. I think CR didnt pick up on the reason Paul was saying he shoudnt ask him to judge Daniel: he already callled DDL the "Holy Grail". He loves him. What more is there to say? But I also have to congratulate Charlie on some marvelous showmanship: holding back the first peek at Daniel until After the clip was brilliant. It was so effective in showing how remarkable the transformation was and it really added the visual to Daniel's later decription of how to find the character in the clothes. Thanks so much for my Christmas present everybody. I cant wait to see the movie. I am very happy for all concerned that they made it come to fruition in such a positive way. Many more boys!!!
This is easily one of the most insightful, incisive, and compelling interviews ever conducted by CR. Granted, he doesn't ask what sort of novels PTA and DDL have been reading--but that's only because the things he _does_ ask about leave little room for such generic (albeit potentially illuminating) questions to emerge. The question, "What are you here for?" (interpreted by a previous commentator as a sign of frustration by CR with PTA) was entirely rhetorical, eliciting a hearty belly-laugh from all three men and revealing a symbiosis between them that leaves us wanting more--as all good interviews should do.
I think what most of these negative comments missed is that DDL & PTA are obviously very private people. And I actually thought they were quite candid discussing their work. Because these two men love their craft & collaborators so much they feel the need to keep some things unspoken, protected. Charlie's prodding was great--that's why we love him so. But there's only so much he can do. Instead of frustration, I took delight in the occasional silences & non-answers--sometimes they communicate more. I'm with Lance. Merry Christmas Charlie!
I'm with Deb, and good comment btw. This falls partly on Charlie's fault for asking those questions. I'm sure he isn't the one who actually writes them out, but I'm sure he has final say. You know I'm sure PTA and DDL would have loved to have heard some different questions be thrown their way. Could you imagine been asked these same questions for two months straight? They still have another month to go, flying everyhwere for precursor awards, it has to take it's toll after awhile. I didn't really have a problem with the interview. DDL was pretty insightful for a pretty reticent person. I would have liked to hear who they admire in film, about possible future projects and music. Maybe in the coming month, we'll get lucky and here some new questions.
Say what you will of the interview (and I agree that it was very dull) but the movie is amazing.
very boring interview, no passion, very bored, tired guests. but that happens when you make the rounds, same questions and answers over and over. the film should speak for itself I guess...
For fans of Day-Lewis, this was terrific; however, I do wish interviewers would ask questions regarding other aspects of interviewees' lives. It doesn't even have to get really personal or political. For instance: "What are you reading now?" "What actors do you admire?" "What movies have you seen lately that you like?" "Have you been to any music concerts lately, classical or otherwise?"
Yes, the "what are you here for" question was appropriate. Other than scratching your beard and feigning an Irish accent, why are you here? You're not really discussing the film or the work.
Is it just me, or is Paul putting on a slight Irish accent? I guess you hang around someone like Daniel Day Lewis long enough and you start to sound like him...
A great piece of movie making. All the way around. Great vision and compelling story telling. Day-Lewis once again becomes the character. It's another person. An excellent acting job. Well done to the supporting cast as well, especially the young actor who plays the son. great art direction and cinematography as well. 2nd best film of the year.
Haven't seen this program, just want to wish Charlie Rose and his staff a MERRY CHRISTMAS. Take care.
I found the interview extremely forced. It seemed no fault of Charlie's at all though. It's understandable that some people are quiet by nature, but these were two men who worked together over a two year period. Combined, they are responsible for a large majority of what the movie is. At one point, Charlie even asks Paul what he is here for. Sure, it was presented in a joking way, but the question was real and you could feel Charlie's frustration at how the interview was progressing. Basically, neither of them had anything to say that was worth listening to. The most entertaining aspect of the interview for me was pondering how a seemingly successful writer/director can be at such a loss for words.
It was a maddening interview to watch because Charlie missed the whole subject of the preacher played by Paul Dano. He was on the verge of asking the right questions and then the participants started laughing and the point of the relationship between Plainview and Sunday (at the heart of the movie) was missed -- including the fascinating aspect of an actor being replaced in the middle of a shoot. Charlie can be great but he's also one of the most exasperating hosts to watch/and endure.
(1) The actor, Daniel-Day Lewis, has quiet depth, is a philosopher and poet--he speaks, describes in verse. A good teacher for striving actors and play writers. (2) A gossipy observation about the drama between the director, Paul Thomas Anderson, and the ear ringed actor with his artistically coiffured hair: that the artistically scrubby director hoped for a long term in depth love affair with the tantilizing actor? (3)Charlie, your interviews are a looked forward to late evening treat. Such intelligence shares your table. Thank you.
(1) The actor, Daniel-Day Lewis, has quiet depth, is a philosopher and poet--he speaks, describes in verse. A good teacher for striving actors and play writers. (2) A gossipy observation about the drama between the director, Paul Thomas Anderson, and the ear ringed actor with his artistically coiffured hair: that the artistically scrubby director hoped for a long term in depth love affair with the tantilizing actor? (3)Charlie, your interviews are a looked forward to late evening treat. Such intelligence shares your table. Thank you.
(1) The actor, Daniel-Day Lewis, has quiet depth, is a philosopher and poet--he speaks, describes in verse. A good teacher for striving actors and play writers. (2) A gossipy observation about the drama between the director, Paul Thomas Anderson, and the ear ringed actor with his artistically coiffured hair: that the artistically scrubby director hoped for a long term in depth love affair with the tantilizing actor? (3)Charlie, your interviews are a looked forward to late evening treat. Such intelligence shares your table. Thank you.
(1) The actor, Daniel-Day Lewis, has quiet depth, is a philosopher and poet--he speaks, describes in verse. A good teacher for striving actors and play writers. (2) A gossipy observation about the drama between the director, Paul Thomas Anderson, and the ear ringed actor with his artistically coiffured hair: that the artistically scrubby director hoped for a long term in depth love affair with the tantilizing actor? (3)Charlie, your interviews are a looked forward to late evening treat. Such intelligence shares your table. Thank you.
More Hollywood... I turned the channel before watching more pitchmen for at art of pretending... Hollywood, what a bore!
The movie is incredible.
This movie is going to be incredible...