« Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Round 14, Week 11 | Main | Filmbrain's Screen Capture Quiz: Round 14, Week 12 »
There Will Be Blood: Sketches, Fragments, and Other Half-Baked Ideas
| I'll admit it – I've become obsessed with Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood, easily the best film of the year. It's been burning inside my brain for weeks now, and I've spent countless hours dissecting Anderson's stylistic, thematic and directorial nuances, for I believe this to be that rarest of things – a perfect film. There isn't a wrong note, or single unnecessary moment, shot, or line of dialogue throughout. I've made several attempts at writing a proper review of the film, but just couldn't come up with anything sufficiently cohesive (or coherent, for that matter.) Though I've seen the film twice already, and have had some wonderful discussions with several other fans of the film, there are a handful of disparate threads regarding influences, allusions and allegories that I've not been able to tie-up. Rather than remain silent, I've decided to post some of these miscellaneous thoughts in the hopes of encouraging discussion. What follows are notes I've jotted down at various moments, thoughts that occurred to me while in the shower, or connections I thought of on the subway. I'd love to hear your thoughts and comments, even if it is to tell me I'm completely insane about any of this. I'm treating this as a work in progress, and I may add or remove sections over the next few days. [Note: Spoilers follow!] BUSH / POLITICAL ALLEGORY What almost convinces me of a political agenda is Anderson's inclusion of There is Power in the Blood, the Protestant hymn which George W. Bush stealthily quoted in his 2003 State of the Union Address, a wink and a nod to his fundamentalist base. Bush's line, "there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people" is an unquestionable twist on the hymn's repeated refrain, "There is power, power, wonder-working power/In the precious blood of the lamb." At the same time, however, There Will Be Blood speaks of the triumph of business over religion, which is certainly contradictory to the current state of affairs in Bush's America, where the two have become increasingly intertwined. When Plainview first speaks to the people of Little Boston, he employs standard political rhetoric ("the children are the future") and then unsurprisingly fails to follow through on his promises. After successfully obtaining the land from the pious Sunday (natch) family and cheating them out of a fortune, Plainview becomes something of an authority figure over the community, having power such that he can put an end to the beatings that patriarch Abel Sunday inflicts on his youngest daughter Mary for not praying enough – the first of his triumphs over faith, which will continue for years until he announces "I'm finished" after snuffing out the final vestige. But what are we to make of this ultimate triumph, nearly twenty years in the making? Anderson doesn't play favorites – there's equal corruption on both sides, and neither Daniel nor Eli are particularly worthy of our sympathy. Daniel's contempt for Eli's church is palpable, but he'll play the game, which includes public humiliation, in order to achieve his goals. Eli will in turn do the same thing. Is the final confrontation simply one man versus another, or do they represent something greater? Eli is a charlatan, and a self-confessed sinner. Is Daniel's destruction of the false prophet merely fulfillment of biblical prophecy? And where's the political allegory in this? (Sigh.) KUBRICK MUSIC Ligeti - Overture-Atmospheres STRUCTURE TONE/THEME (Unfortunately, I don't have a screener of TWBB, so I can't properly illustrate as I'd like.) The final sequence in TWBB is the only one not set on the plains, in a wooden shack, or in a hole in the ground, and the difference is as severe as the post-Jupiter scenes in 2001. There are two establishing shots of Plainview's mansion: |
 The first is vaguely reminiscent of the grand lobby of The Overlook hotel in The Shining. The second, of a bowling alley, calls to mind the room that Dave Bowman finds himself in after the Jupiter sequence. Speaking of that scene... |
 ...here we find Dave Bowman who, like Plainview, is now an old man, alone in what appears to be a stately home. True, his meal is a bit more dignified than a steak on a bowling lane, but the similarities are interesting. Then there's the final scene of There Will Be Blood, which takes us right back to the opening of 2001: |
 Daniel Plainview dealing with his adversary. |
| A reminder once again that the title of this post does refer to half-baked ideas. Please feel free to contribute your thoughts below, or the number of a good psychiatric hospital. |
December 20, 2007 in Film | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/18690/24358528
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference There Will Be Blood: Sketches, Fragments, and Other Half-Baked Ideas:
Comments
I can't read this until I see the movie (grr).
But, you realize my friend, you are making a major auteurist political move by posting that shot from The Shining in that aspect ratio? Sides have been chosen!
Posted by: Daniel | Dec 20, 2007 1:38:30 PM
why do you think the theme of TWBB isn't Kubrickian? This film dissects the 20th century capitalist value system in a way similar to how BARRY LYNDON dissected the 18th century aristocratic value system.
Along those lines I think the Kubrick resonances can be spread through a number of films. Sure the skull bashing recalls 2001; note also how the way he is sprawled out on the floor at the end, shouting "I'm finished!" feels similar to Malcolm McDowell on his back saying "I was cured all right" in CLOCKWORK ORANGE.
On the other hand, what I like most about this film is the sense of energy and momentum given to a lot of the scenes - that is something that you don't see in Kubrick. More needs to be said about what makes this film and Anderson unique. A lot of blogs and reviews have been linking his work to Kubrick, Altman, etc. We can play that game all we like but the bigger fish to fry is honing in on describing what exactly is groundbreaking about this work.
anyhow i think it's a great film too but i have some reservations, which i discuss briefly in my blog.
Posted by: alsolikelife | Dec 20, 2007 1:40:36 PM
Ha! I thought about that Danny -- but that's the ratio used in the new Kubrick box set, so I figured, why not...
Posted by: Filmbrain | Dec 20, 2007 1:51:08 PM
I posted a little rant on Slant (ah, look at me, practically Sondheim) in the blog section about TWBB. 'Splains some of my thoughts on the film: http://www.slantmagazine.com/blog/default.asp?display=158#comments
26th comment. I'm the crazy religious fetishist down on my knees (a favorite position). :-)
Posted by: Keith Uhlich | Dec 20, 2007 8:00:36 PM
oh filmbrainy, here i was thinking that there will be paul thomas fucking anderson genius was the most unique film i'd seen in like a decade and then you go and throw up all this kubrick shit which, by the way, i think you are dead write about
plainview is that ape, grunts growls and all
Posted by: NastasjaBlueEyes | Dec 20, 2007 9:00:20 PM
Hey Andrew--
you're definitely on to something there. I caught on to the 2001 vibe, and I'm sure there's going to be a healthy discussion about There Will Be Blood as political allegory (seems to me it's larger than just Bush and we're all implicated) -- but man, the movie isn't even out yet! There'll be time for in-depth analysis later; for now, I think I'll hold it with alsolikelife and celebrate Blood qua Blood for a little while longer. It's one hell of a movie.
Posted by: Jürgen | Dec 20, 2007 11:48:24 PM
I too picked up on the Kubrick vibe, but you've got a good deal more evidence laid out here. Interesting.
As for the political allegory, I'm inclined to think Jürgen is right and it's not just about Bush, but I also think the allegory can work for Bush's America as well; the triumph of capitalism over religion after a period of unholy alliance could be intended as a premonition; we just happen to still be in the unholy alliance stage right now.
Posted by: Brian | Dec 22, 2007 12:32:05 AM
All I can say is I thought it was near perfect movie making from story, to the acting, to the art direction to the cinematography. I like that slow burn analogy in comparison to The Shining. That's exactly what I thought. And I did feel that feeling of impending doom looming around each corner. And with the oil well accident, you knew something like that was coming, you could just feel it. I liked No Country For Old Men very much, but I think TWBB has it by a tad. Near perfect film making and story telling, with a iconic monster at the head of it all.
Posted by: Mike Anderson | Dec 23, 2007 2:40:05 AM
I have only seen the trailers, but is Daniel Day Lewis imitating John Huston as an homage to Chinatown?
Posted by: Peter | Dec 24, 2007 2:21:39 PM
I haven't yet seen TWBB but does it excuse the utter dreck he's thrown up onto screens previously? never been able to stand the fellow and his faux-monumental constructions composed of fate and "coincidence" and heavy handed metaphors and all that he thinks signifies grand meaning. P.U.
Posted by: greg | Dec 29, 2007 2:17:07 AM
Filmbrain, No need to send you off to the nut house. Excellent post, hope you follow up on the sketches and fragments. Why no mention of Strauss (Richard or Johan) and Brahms? Also Sprach Zarathustra and the Blue Danube Waltz are synonymous with 2001, just as the Brahms Violin Concerto now belongs to TWBB. Greatest use of classical music in a film since Malick borrowed Wagner's Rheingold theme and a Mozart piano concerto for the New World.
Have you looked at the screenplay for TWBB on the Paramount Vantage site?
Anyway, a happy new year. Congrats on the launch of Benten in 07, looking forward to more Filmbrain activity in 2008.
Posted by: r | Dec 31, 2007 8:49:58 PM
"I have a competition in me; I want no one else to succeed." -- Daniel Day Lewis as Daniel Plainview
Paul Thomas Anderson's latest story, that some of us have been waiting five years for, There Will Be Blood is a dazzling film that reassures trust in the future of this complete storyteller. First, what's never failed to impress me, four--now five--films deep, is Anderson's ability to grow and dive deeper into humanity with each time up at bat. As Punch-Drunk Love confirmed our hopes that the young writer/director hadn't just been on a lucky streak with multi-character Los Angeles stories, Blood proves to be Anderson's boldest project.
Determined to rise out of a hole in the ground with his much sought after fortune, we follow Mr. Plainview from underground, spouting black gold out onto the dirt, then finally to the marble floors that shine under his feet. Set in the late eighteen hundreds. A grim journey of self destruction. The rise and fall of an opportunist. While his robust aggression toward his craft, oil digging, made him a sought after middle-weight institution the ruthless intimidation tactics exposed the underbelly, sweat, lies, and blood that inevitably follows a man with power and success.
Plainview is a conqueror. When met by a young faithful boy, a challenge to posses something he had yet to own was of high importance. Sinking his teeth into a slice of American pie, he conquered his little goal. Until the next challenge was placed in his path, he met it face on, eager to conquer that, the next thing, and whatever was lying just beneath the surface on the other side of the grassy knoll. A self proclaimed family man. An oil man. A wealthy man. A man looking for his place in the world. A world which is a wide open range with millions of acres still untamed with endless possibility.
Watching the dry and crackling light in every scene brings back memories of The Searchers, El Topo, or even a rich smoothness from Westworld. Anderson's camera and scenic design makes the dirt, dust, and oil seem appetizing The wide open space shot through anamorphic lenses gives you a sense of longing for a time when prospecting was still a job and land, real life land, was able to be tamed if you had the hands to reach out and claim it. The 158min. running time blinks past you in a rush of anticipation. Anderson's tale is lined with a delicate mix of musical tone and heart beating rhythmic score lending itself to the very soul of the film. A good tap on the shoulder to the Coen Bros. "No Country For Old Men" which featured no music score or accompaniment--also proving to be an affective tool. Both films share a fresh breath of silence melting us even deeper into the mise-en-scène.
The story, though absolutely and respectfully Anderson's creation, does shadow such great films as Barry Lyndon, Citizen Kane, and to a further stretch Sweet Smell of Success. Where, as in all good stories, the line is clear, straight, and able to grab hold of you and take us along with it, There Will Be Blood doesn't pass judgment, doesn't tell us right from wrong, it simply presents us with options. If it's Barry Lyndon, Charles Foster Kane, or J.J. Hunsecker the objective is crystal clear. This is what I want and I will do anything to get it.
Please see this film. You'll most likely see me there, again, hopefully in a packed theater.
-- Jon Dambacher
Posted by: Jon Dambacher | Jan 3, 2008 1:43:36 AM
Jon --
I apologize for not responding to this sooner, but thanks for sharing that wonderful take on the film. Anderson's refusal to judge, as you point out, is one of the film's great strengths, especially considering how the film deals with issues (capitalism, religion) that are usually highly divisive.
Posted by: Filmbrain | Jan 3, 2008 10:46:52 PM
UPDATE: Apparently Day-Lewis got Plainview's voice from wax cylinder recordings of similar historical personages. However, when interviewed by Henry Rollins, Anderson did admit listening to Penderecki while writing the screenplay.
Posted by: Peter | Jan 4, 2008 11:16:22 AM
Really great post, FB. Not sure I can get behind idea #1 as the Bush family are failures, especially Jr. and Jr. especially in terms of the oil business. For all his shortcomings, Plainview is the anti-Bush in that everything he sets out to do, he does and does it on his own. Plus I just don't think there's that much allegorical subtext as Anderson has said he wanted the story to be straight forward and simple. Obviously, oil is the hot topic and looking at TWBB from that angle is inevitable, it's almost like a rope-a-dope and I'd even go so far as to say focusing on that angle does the film a disservice.
I LOVE the Kubrick ideas from you and the other here. Damn it, now I have to go back, watch all the Kubricks again and go see TWBB again right after. However, I can't tell if the film is really paying homage to Kubrick or if Anderson, frankly, has finally got sober...or quit doing drugs. His other films and their frenetic energy and adherence to doing every damned word PT wrote, while great for the most part, fit with PT's skittish personality. In interviews now, he's much more mellow. It's like a reverse Peckinpah...the further he spiraled into drug and alcohol abuse, the more frenetic and whacked out his films got (see: Alfredo Garcia, Bring me the Head of).
All great food for thought....(what you and others said I mean)...
Posted by: don lewis | Jan 7, 2008 1:55:10 AM
After reading a few critical responses on various sites, I was just wondering if there was in fact a doubt as to whether Eli Sunday and Paul Sunday were two separate people? I know it was played out slightly ambigiously at times in what ended up on screen in the final cut, but I thought it was pretty clear in the end that they were two separate people....or am I missing something?
Posted by: hspencer | Jan 7, 2008 2:47:12 PM
I really dig the connection with 2001
but I feel like the ending was also possibly influenced by McDonagh's play
The Skulls of Connemara. I saw the play a while back, but I remember the ending being most surprising because the main character, and old man, begins smashing skulls on stage. Man against nature, old conquering death. I also think Anderson is merely proving that underneath it all, Daniel is a savage which by the end of "Oil", Upton Sinclair did not make him out to be, but instead glorified him in a way, as a captain of industry (or so I've read and heard).
Posted by: Larisa | Jan 9, 2008 12:59:47 PM
Does anyone know of the specific classical pieces that are used in Blood?
Posted by: Adrian Correia | Jan 9, 2008 2:03:23 PM
Adrian -- Other than the Brahms piece, Arvo Part's Fratres is (I believe) the only other piece of music not composed by Greenwood.
Posted by: Filmbrain | Jan 9, 2008 2:12:30 PM
I enjoyed your analysis. I've only seen the film once, but stumbled on this post by googling "there will be blood" and 2001. I, too, felt that there were strong 2001 references. In addition to the ones you mentioned, I also noticed that there's no dialogue until the second reel of the film. This dialogue occurs after time has passed and happens during a scene on a train. In 2001 it's on the spaceship.
Also, the whole bowling alley scene reeked of Clockwork Orange to me.
Posted by: Andrea | Jan 10, 2008 3:42:36 PM
In addition to Mr. Krubick I think that Mr. Malick's "Days of Heaven" plays with simular: pacing, shoting, and sustains of violent tension; this seems to be an influence, if it is, that has yet to be hit upon, but seems to TWBB's nearest cousin.
Posted by: drbue | Jan 15, 2008 11:25:16 PM
The fact that the last scene takes place in a bowling alley seems like a very distinctively Kubrickian conceit, incongruous but somehow oddly apt. Kubrick ( a very good chess-player himself) liked to structure confrontations between characters as games--Clare Quilty putting on boxing gloves to face Humbert in Lolita, the chess game with HAL, the card games and duelling in Barry Lyndon, the long verbal fencing match around the pool table in Eyes Wide Shut, etc. It also reminds me strongly of the bathroom conversation in The Shining, what with the striking symmetrical compositions and stark white-and-blood-red color scheme.
Posted by: Tim | Jan 16, 2008 10:59:26 AM
What a great discussion. I, too, have not been able to wrestle THERE WILL BE BLOOD out of my mind after two viewings. It's strange how many have been afraid to tackle the political allegory aspect, but I think it's quite obvious and worthy of further discussion. One commenter mentioned maybe it related to Bush but also served as a premonition as we are still in that unholy alliance stage of religion and capitalism right now. I allude to this in my review of the film, but it only scratches the surface.
http://davethenovelist.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/a-review-of-paul-thomas-andersons-there-will-be-blood/
Again, thanks for discussing this film from that angle, and I think all of your Kubrick comparisons are apt.
-DHS
Posted by: David H. Schleicher | Jan 17, 2008 12:39:10 AM
I have to completely agree with the 2001 connection. The instant I saw the opening landscape and heard the score I felt a serious connection. I did not think of the last portion of the film being connected to the 'captivity' portion of 2001 but I am sure they are connected.
Also the first 15 minutes or so of 2001 contains no dialog just like the opening 10 minutes or so of TWBB. I think you can also make a serious connection between the blackness of the monolith and that of the oil.
Lastly on a slightly different note I believe a lot of the film is supposed to be a parallel to the history of the American movie industry.
The movie starts off silent (the silent era), we even get a moment where we see a bit of oil on the camera lens, perhaps this suggests the immaturity of early filmmakers.
As well when Daniel and son arrive to the town where the Sundays live, we watch as the camera uses the town's train tracks as a dolly track while panning through the entire town. The town looks like an early Hollywood set, reminiscent of Buster Keaton or something.
As well much of the imagery of the actual Oil derricks and the tripod Daniel uses for surveying the geology reminds me of a camera/camera operator.
I am anxious to view the movie again so I can see if there are other parallels or if I am just nuts and this is coming from nowhere.
Feel free to shoot me an email if anyone has their own view on this (disagree or agree).
Thanks,
Phil
Posted by: Phil | Jan 17, 2008 1:19:51 PM
An adopted son, recast with an older actor, returns to confront his broken father after years of mistreatment toward the end of the film.
I totally got the feeling that Blood had more parallels with Barry Lyndon than any other Kubrick film. The final freeze frame on the crippled Lyndon seems to pack the same punch as Plainview lying in the gutter.
Posted by: Nicholas G | Jan 18, 2008 12:49:11 PM
Anderson also uses the music of Arvo Pärt in this movie (The Piano + Soloist version of Fratres is front and centre during the 'deaf' scenes).
Posted by: Chris LaRoche | Jan 20, 2008 4:53:40 AM
Dar All: i am really anxious to know which of Arvo Part's compositions was included was on the soundtrack. One writer( on another link) said it was Fratres but i recall seeing Sonata for Cello and Piano when the music credits rolled. Was it one or both or...? any reply would be welcome.thanks.susan
Posted by: susan lesser | Jan 22, 2008 9:10:15 PM
Geysey = Monolyth (penis in this movie, vagina in 2001)...
Plainview (nice name...and he has no apology about who he is...he has a plain view of humanity because he's truly authentic) is human nature manifest (Strangelove, 2001, Orange, Full metal, etc) and his obsession is innate. He doesn't speak much because he's too busy with self-talk striving to fulfill that obsession.
As Kubrick stuff, the desire to protect/survive/fulfill ironically turns to violence and as Kubrick he's trying to expose the truth about humanity.
Geyser blows (orgasm)...that gets celebration....draws blood from his 'brother' and Eli...that gets relief (bowling pin is a penis).
Posted by: Randy | Jan 24, 2008 12:53:45 AM
For me, the film plays tonally in much the same way as The Shining. As I took it all in, that Shining comparison just kept creeping back into my mind. I'll have to see There Will be Blood again to see if it all sticks.
Posted by: Ben | Jan 26, 2008 2:25:35 PM
2001?? I mean all good filmmakers have absorbed Kubrick as much as possible. But the film itself is totally unlike 2001.
2001 is an abstract work about human spiritual evolution.
This film is much more like Citizen Kane in that it 'shows how the sausage is made'. The kind of people that pull strings , and how twisted they have become and how they got there.
Posted by: Dude | Feb 1, 2008 3:55:29 PM
It would be hard to compare Paul Thomas Anderson with Kubrick. After all, Kubrick was a very meticulous director with a lot to say while Paul Thomas Anderson is barely competent filmmaker with nothing to say. As much as he would like, just imitating shots and camera angles of other famous directors will not give his film any resonance. That you have to earn the old fashion way, through hard work and good storytelling. I've written a rant about how a lot of people have gotten caught up by the hype of There Will Be Blood without really thinking it through themselves. Read it here: http://cinemoose.com/there-will-be-blood-and-the-emperors-new-clothes/
Posted by: cinemoose | Feb 8, 2008 9:40:50 AM
Wow. What a brilliant film. And I'm so pleased I ran across this site.
The whole way home from the theatre all I could think about was the similarities to some of Kubrick's best work. It's clearly evident that PT Anderson was paying homage in full form with this film, drawing strong parallels from a stylistic and cinemagraphic standpoint. Elements of 2001 and The Shining were most evident in my opinion. From Kubrick's trademark compositional symmetry, to the forced perspectives, to the first person point of view, to the use of vacuous landscapes and interior environments, to the musical scores. The still camera filming the opening sequence, the scene where Daniel is centered in the foreground watching the drilling tower burn in the distance, and the final scenes that take place in the bowling alley were all vintage Kubrick. Amazingly I'm not even sure that in my opinion Kubrick's finest film Clockwork Orange, Kubrick was able to capture the tension and internal turmoil of the protagonist as well as Anderson does with Daniel in There Will Be Blood. That speaks volumes about the power of this work.
PT Anderson always pays homage to his sources of inspiration and in many ways in an overt way. See a direct pastiche of famed German photographer Andreas Gursky's supermarket images in Punch Drunk Love.
At the end of the day, Anderson delivering his own uniquely remarkable film and again proving his stature as one of the relevant filmmakers working today.
Posted by: brian | Feb 14, 2008 1:07:10 AM
Did anyone else pick up on the Odd Nerdrum imagery, specifically when Plainview and son are lying down together covered in oil and mud and Plainview sits up and gazes skyward?
http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd47/awk9876/art2.jpg
http://casoual.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/odd-nerdrum-dying_couple.jpg
Posted by: lance | Feb 16, 2008 6:33:10 AM
"An adopted son, recast with an older actor, returns to confront his broken father after years of mistreatment toward the end of the film."
I'd just like to point out that, Kubrick aside, the above statement, with a few words rearranged or taken out, describes every one of PTA's films (except maybe Punch-Drunk Love).
It's hard to differentiate the new from the old;
I'm of the opinion that PTA is a great filmmaker simply because all these influences seep into his work in a way that the audience can interact with them, whether he intended them or not. He is creating something new from lots of separate, old elements (I believe that is what some people define as "postmodern").
You know how some people call Quentin Tarantino an 'idiot savant' of cinema? PTA might be kind of like the same thing without the 'idiot' part.
Posted by: Brandon | Feb 16, 2008 11:21:38 PM
I just got back from seeing it, typed "there will be blood kubrick" into google and your review was at the top of the list. 2001 and The Shining indeed.
Posted by: markw | Feb 17, 2008 4:51:01 AM
One of the best movies of all time and appreciate all the comments on this site.
Could you please tell me the title & composer of the classical music that was played in this
movie, especially at the very end.
Many thanks
Posted by: yolande welch | Mar 1, 2008 9:43:28 AM
Anybody noted the "quail hunting" reference: Plainview's excuse to secretly prospect the Sunday ranch for oil? Later on, Plainview "shoots in the face" his "brother". Dick Cheney anyone? This can't be a coincidence...
Posted by: HarryTuttle | Mar 4, 2008 10:18:46 AM
Your comments are interesting. I disagree with your labeling of Plainview as a monster however. I think the character is complicated and it's slightly dismissive to attribute the motives for his actions to him being a monster.
Posted by: Chuck | Mar 14, 2008 3:19:14 PM
I just saw the movie on DVD and I'm a bit late to the party, but I'd like to pick up on the Kubrick theme. The first thing I typed into google after seeing the film was "there will be blood kubrick" and this page came up.
After reading your analysis and the comments posted I have concerns over the extent to which Anderson 'borrowed' from Kubrick. At what point does paying hommage to a great director go to far? Is this film an original? To me, it felt like new and exciting material packaged in an old box.
Greenwood's exhuberant, energetic score that closes the film was the last straw for me. Kubrick put his signature on this technique in "A Clockwork Orange." The ending felt too familar and really dulled the impact of the movie as a complete, independent work of art.
I still believe that this is a magnificent film. One that is easily called great. But, like Roger Ebert, I am not so sure of it's greatness.
Posted by: Hurley | Apr 13, 2008 2:17:33 AM
Great blog! How can one person know sooo much about film? Looking forward to learning more.
Posted by: Angel | Apr 16, 2008 2:44:26 AM
I too felt that 2001 vibe as soon as i heard the music. But the part that really felt like 2001 was the part where the workers raised the the steel thing that broke through the oil releasing the oil. When the steel thing raised to the top one of the workers put one of his palms on the oil covered steel.I immediatley thought of the scene in 2001 where the 1st ape/man laid his upon the monolith for the first time.
Posted by: Manny | May 13, 2008 2:22:06 AM
