Ted at BigScreenLittleScreen alerts us to this stupid post about There Will Be Blood by Marc Bernadin at EW:
When you hear that title, the moniker given to Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest, what images spring to mind? Gothic vampires, sure. A revenge film? Serial killer thriller, perhaps? Torture porn?…Would you feel swindled if you showed up to see a movie called There Will Be Blood and got a period piece about crude drilling? Is this a case of smart marketing, or a shifty bait-and-switch?
Take a break to roll your eyes, and then move on to Ted’s smackdown, which focuses on Bernadin’s just plain dumb reasoning:
If you???re telling me we???re at the point where people are waddling up to the ticket booth and making ad hoc selections based solely on film titles, then either a) it???s time to pack it up and shut it down, or b) look out for a big push coming down the pike for big-budgeted features under names like Strong Violence, or for the romantics: Brief Sensuality.
Ted’s right, but having seen the film, I’ll take it a step further: it’s not even a misnomer! There IS blood! Actual, red, product-of-violence blood! In several points across the film, although ultimately, the title could be literally read as a spoiler for the final scene. I also think it refers to a whole lot of thematic stuff about non-literal blood–blood as a synonym for family, genetics as a determinant to who we are, our fates, the way we relate to people, etc. Ted’s right that Bernadin’s argument is insanely literal, but worse than that–it’s literally inaccurate.
Originally posted on:
SpoutBlog