Print this post Print this post

There Will Be Blood (2007) & The Departed (2006)

2,198 words

There Will Be Blood

I’m not an eager consumer of pop culture—rock music, television, video games, sports. My disinterest is natural, not something I work at. Pop culture just doesn’t “speak” to me. 

I’ve probably seen more movies than anything else, because I became an old-movie buff when I was quite young. But, as movies have devolved, my interest in them has declined in sync.

Large-scale, computer-generated (CG) special effects such as explosions, crashes, etc., are uninteresting in themselves.

Martial arts films, except for those by Chinese actor-director-stunt man Jackie Chan, also don’t interest me, particularly those in which gravity-defying actors float or freeze-frame in mid-air. Even white actors like Chuck Norris or Jean-Claude Van Damme could not stimulate my interest in that genre.

Van Damme, by the way, recently made an atypical film that some critics deem above-average called JCVD (2008-Belgian-Luxembourgian-French).

Of course, the biggest problem with recent movies is their values, their permeation by heavy-handed, hostile racist/feminist/ideological propaganda. If you have a sense of morality or awareness, most contemporary Hollywood fare is simply unwatchable.

I rely upon reviewers such as Edmund Connelly for information about these movies so that I even know what Hollywood is doing; I don’t watch them myself. Another critic who was very good at conveying information about workaday mass media manipulation was Victor Wolzek in VNN’s early days.

Without exception, I completely ignore portrayals of Numinous Negroes, Jews-as-noble-suffering-Divine beings, Evil or Stupid White Men, and feminist films and TV shows. If they happen to turn up, they immediately go off.

So I never see Denzel Washington or Morgan Freeman. And movies like Roman Polanski’s The Pianist (2002) never cross my radar screen.

You can see how much is instantly removed from consideration—the vast majority of what is done in the media realm.

Of course, these negative features leech over into ordinary entertainment. I recently watched Casino Royale (2006) starring Daniel Craig, the first Bond movie I’ve seen since Roger Moore played the part, and it exhibited almost all of the negative qualities you’d expect in a contemporary film.

Apart from feminism and interracialism, the series is too loud, too fast, and too implausible. Bond is even more the superhero caricature today than he was in the past. And, of course, there is talk of a black James Bond.

Consequently, the movies I typically view are “whiter” than average (of course, nothing truly white can come out of Hollywood) because otherwise I turn them off—not out of principle, but out of complete and utter alienation. I’m just not interested.

As this process has evolved, I find myself less and less tolerant of Hollywood fare, less charitable, less willing (or able) to suspend disbelief or remain interested in or engaged with the story.

I now divide movies into “watchable” and “unwatchable” categories. Most Hollywood output, obviously, is unwatchable.

And “watchable” only means that I don’t shut something off—not that it’s particularly good.

There Will Be Blood is an example of an unwatchable (bad) movie and The Departed an example of a watchable, but not-very-good movie.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

This belongs to the unwatchable category, with the likes of Chinese director John Woo’s Hard-Boiled (1992-Hong Kong) (and, I assume, his other works), Croupier (1999-British-German), Holes (2003), and Elf (2003).

Greek American director John Cassavetes used to make unwatchable films, like The Killing of a Chinese Bookie (1976).

Years ago if I paid for a movie I’d sit through it no matter what. So you know the only two movies I walked out on were unwatchable: director Blake Edwards’ 10 (1979) starring Bo Derek, and a terrible black and white Cuban propaganda film about the historical oppression of sugar cane workers. Communist movies can be mind-numbingly awful.

There Will Be Blood, the story of an early California oil entrepreneur played (as white) by Jewish actor Daniel Day-Lewis, was written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, who enjoys a reputation as a serious director.

For a long time I had Anderson confused with a porn actor/director named Paul Thomas, probably because Anderson wrote and directed Boogie Nights (1997), a movie about the porn industry.

Paul Thomas had acted “legitimately” in Hair on Broadway and starred (under his real name, Philip Toubus) as Peter in Jesus Christ Superstar (1973) before helping himself to an endless supply of shiksas in the San Fernando Valley. (Is there anything whites won’t worshipfully offer in loving tribute to the Jew? Of course not.)

I thought “Paul Thomas” might have been Paul Thomas Anderson’s porn pseudonym, and that he’d moved into mainstream directing.

But it turns out that porn actor Paul Thomas is a Jew from a wealthy Chicago family; the Sara Lee food company is named after his aunt, Sara Lee Lubin.

Paul Thomas Anderson, by contrast, is (apparently) white, from a show business family. His “partner” is Saturday Night Live‘s half-Jew/half-Negro actress-comedienne Maya Rudolph; they have three hybrid white-Jewish-Negro children together. You can bet that many, perhaps all, of them will be able to pass as white in the future.

I’d read that There Will Be Blood was exceptionally good. The only previous Anderson film I’d seen, Hard Eight (1997), his first, was watchable, but that’s all.

There isn’t much to say about There Will Be Blood except that it was absurdly over-hyped, overrated, too long, and  . . . unwatchable.

It lost in most Academy Award categories to the Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men (2007), which, though also not-good (it falls apart in the second half and the great promise inherent in fictional characters played by Tommy Lee Jones, Woody Harrelson, and Josh Brolin is completely squandered), was at least highly watchable and, before you suspended your disbelief, almost unbearably tense.

There Will Be Blood is profoundly anti-Christian, anti-capitalist, and anti-white. Day-Lewis’s oilman is utterly without redeeming value, a self-centered, evil man.

Neither Anderson nor any other filmmaker would ever make a movie depicting Jews or non-whites the way whites and Christians are shown here, despite having an abundance of untapped, real-life material to work with. Figuratively speaking, their throats would be cut if they did. But they aren’t even interested.Hollywood is stuffed with racists, frauds, and moral hypocrites like Anderson.

Reportedly Anderson was influenced by The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) when writing his script. If so, he flubbed badly. Treasure is a legitimate classic.

The dialogue in most movies is passable at best. It really doesn’t matter because artificiality is the norm, one is accustomed to it, and it’s probably unavoidable.

Anderson’s screenplay attains the norm in that regard, though the preacher’s lines are noticeably unnatural and below par.

Dialogue in films jumps out at you only if it’s really, really bad or, more rarely, has a disconcertingly authentic ring.

Woody Allen accomplishes the latter in portions of some of his films, such as the show biz diner discussions in Broadway Danny Rose (1984), or the Allen-Keaton scene with a neighbor couple in an apartment house in Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993).

Another example of uncannily realistic movie dialogue is the job interview scene in director Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980) between Overlook Hotel manager Barry Nelson and writer-job applicant Jack Nicholson.

The Departed (2006)

This Martin Scorsese yarn about Irish crime bosses and cops in Boston is an example of a watchable though not-great film. It’s entertaining enough that you don’t turn it off, but not so good you’d rate it above average.

Yes, I know it won Best Picture and several other Academy Awards. And I know that 10 and Elf made lots of money. So what?

Danish director Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive (2011) belongs to this category as well, with its intrusive racial element (the girlfriend, not the Jews—though Ron Perlman is shockingly ugly) and superhero implausibility. Also, “cool” and laconic are pushed far too far. But Drive nevertheless remains watchable.

Scorsese has made unwatchable movies such as The King of Comedy (1983) and (I suspect) Taxi Driver (1976).

Indeed, of the limited number of Scorsese films I’ve seen, the only one that was exceptionally good was GoodFellas (1990).

Really good films are rare. Off the top of my head I can think of Hoosiers (1986), Home Alone (1990), Get Shorty (1995), The Bourne Identity (2002) and Road to Perdition (2002) as examples. There are many others, of course.

Oddly, I did not see Hoosiers or Home Alone until years and years after they were made. I harbored an irrational resentment against them because they were so popular and I was convinced I wouldn’t like them!

Apart from their lack of overly-intrusive racial, feminist, or other propaganda, these films succeed by somehow overcoming the viewer’s reluctance to suspend disbelief.

It is not always clear why or how they accomplish this. Obviously, individuals have different thresholds of acceptance in this regard. It is also true that the mere fact that something is professionally presented in films to some extent causes us to uncritically “believe” whatever we are seeing.

Home Alone is a good example of a movie that overcame an extremely difficult plot dilemma at the outset.

Namely, how does one persuade an audience to unconsciously accept that loving parents—and especially such a loving mother—would ever leave a young child home alone while they flew all the way to Paris in the first place?

The series of plausible devices director Chris Columbus and writer John Hughes invented to accomplish this were ingenious: a big family (many kids), middle-class-chaotic in a way everyone’s familiar with (a type depicted also in Spielberg’s Poltergeist), banishing Macaulay Culkin to the bed in the attic for “being such a jerk,” a Christmastime ice storm that downs electrical and phone lines overnight causing everyone to sleep in late and have to rush to the airport in the morning, the talkative neighbor kid who accidentally gets counted in Culkin’s place, the parents flying first class while sticking the kids in coach (out of immediate sight), and so forth.

Despite its watchability (entertaining enough not to turn off or walk out on), The Departed does not sustain the requisite suspension of disbelief to be really top-notch.

Part of The Departed‘s problem is that, despite being scripted by an Irish American and ostensibly being about Irish organized crime, the story is actually derived from a Chinese film, Infernal Affairs (2002-Hong Kong), and its prequel and sequel.

Scorsese also repeats some Shakespearean errors, notably the ridiculous piling on of multiple murders of major characters at the end. (Screenwriter William Monahan studied Elizabethan and Jacobean drama in college; perhaps that’s the problem.)

Nor does Jack Nicholson make a convincing Irishman. His real-life ethnicity is thoroughly mixed-up-American (even he doesn’t know what it is), and it shows, ethnically.

Naming his “Irish” mob boss Frank Costello (akin to the Latin names given to Scandinavian characters in Hamlet) just compounds the error, particularly given the fact that the story features a rival Italian mob.

The police department psychiatrist and dual love interest of Matt Damon (the bad cop) and Leonardo DiCaprio (the good cop) played by Ukrainian American actress Vera Farmiga also is not convincing, either as a character or in her casual violation of numerous professional ethics rules.

Another big problem faced by all contemporary suspense movies and novels is the convincing portrayal of organized opposition to the System.

You can’t ignore surveillance in such tales, because everybody knows it’s ubiquitous, from surveillance cameras everywhere to the constant tracking of cell phones.

More sophisticated surveillance, which is equally pervasive, is so secretive, unrestrained by law, technologically advanced, thorough, and invisible—its ever-evolving techniques known and understood by virtually no one outside the secret police—that any organized group the state genuinely wants to take down or prevent from coalescing in the first place is hard to convincingly depict.

True, privileged groups such as Jews (e.g., Israeli operatives, Jewish terrorists, mercenaries, assassins, bombers, organized criminals, etc.) do exist and operate completely outside of formal System rules, but they are off-limits to mainstream authors and filmmakers.

So it is extremely difficult to integrate into a contemporary story anything approximating or mimicking real-life surveillance and double-dealing.

It would be easier to set suspense fiction in the past, since society was less Orwellian then, and what was Orwellian can be learned more or less accurately through research. The Coen brothers, for example, plausibly avoid most pitfalls such as this by situating many of their crime stories sometime in the past, even the comparatively recent past.

These are some of the reasons why The Departed is ultimately unsatisfying. I never quite bought into it in terms of the suspension of disbelief. But it is still an entertaining, watchable movie.

This failure is somewhat puzzling.

For example, The Bourne Identity—a very good movie—has basically the same flaws, plus an unconvincing comic book superhero to boot. (Bourne is essentially an indestructible android.) And yet, the movie works. I’m not sure why.

A final amusing twist to The Departed is in the closing credits, where the producers thank various government agencies in Massachusetts, Boston, etc., for their help in making the film. One can hardly imagine worse PR for government than The Departed, yet there it is, subsidizing Hollywood’s giving it the middle finger before the entire world.

I sympathize with the portrayal of police corruption. Cops are not good guys.

But, even so, you can only shake your head.


This entry was posted in North American New Right and tagged , , , , . Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  1. Posted November 5, 2012 at 7:40 am | Permalink

    I’m glad to see someone else noticing how modern technology in general, not just police tech, is making it harder to create believable film plots. I sometimes try to figure out how Dial M for Murder would work today, and haven’t done it. Someone ahead of Ray Milland using the phone, untraceable calls to his home phone, “the street door is never locked”, “all these latch keys look the same, don’t they” etc. Oddly enough, even then they were quite able to trace his paper money, imagine trying to pay someone today with ‘digits’.

    The episode of Seinfeld [which I am sure you would never watch, it being “too Jewish” as Harvey Korman says in Blazing Saddles, but which is for that reason an excellent source of material revealing the Jew vs. WASP dynamic] where Susan’s father’s cabin is burned down [see what I mean?] makes no sense from scene one as one problem after another arises that would be easily solved if SOMEONE HAD A CELL PHONE which of course no one does.

    The Poirot TV series made some, I think conscious, fun with the idea of a 1920 detective “racing” around; “Quickly Hastings! [note the name] We must get to the velocipede! We have but 3 hours to reach the boat to Argentina and apprehend the suspect before Christmas! Alors!”

    An additional problem is that newer generations find the films ‘unwatchable’ to use your term, just like they find the “primitive” special effects hokey and laughable, which is the flip side of your aversion to CGI. Same with black and white, or 78s or even [gasp!] LPs. Ultimately, it’s all fake, right? As they say, ‘it’s only a movie.’

    Look at the car chase in North by Northwest; Cary Grant is clearly in a car in the studio in Hollywood, maybe not even a whole car, why bother, just seat and a steering wheel, with a back projection. All this was done because 1. it costs money to fly him out to NY and set up a film set on a highway in Long Island and 2. He’s Cary Grant, you don’t put him in a car and speed down a highway, if he’s killed or injured the film loses money. Same reason the shots of cars speeding along, though “real” are undercranked and hence look almost Keystone Cop-like; it’s dangerous to race around like that, especially on public roads. How’s all that more “real” than CGI, which is just taking the whole cost/safety thing to the limit?

    I think it’s just as problematic to find CGI ‘too fake’ as to find earlier effects ‘too primitive.’ It’s all about suspension of disbelief.

    I think White Heat was the first film to incorporate the plot idea that between informants and technology, the old time “public enemy” [played by Cagney himself here] could no longer operate.

    As for Nicholson, he may be a mutt playing a character named Costello, but as I pointed out in my essay on Bogart in my new book, The Homo and the Negro, he is the only lead actor with, like Bogart, a real face; the others, including you Damon, have a smooth, youthful creaminess that makes them, to me, indistinguishable, so that I still haven’t figured out the plot. But then, maybe that’s why they were cast.

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 4:46 pm | Permalink

      I agree with you about the difficulty posed to plots by technology and other modern developments in terms of the suspension of disbelief. It really is a conundrum.

      As for CGI: to clarify, I am not opposed to it in principle. As far as I am concerned it is a perfectly legitimate and effective film technique if properly employed.

      I had actually never thought about the philosophical implications you raise re the issue of “primitive” special effects in older films. I think you’re right that CGI is not inherently inferior from any point of view to older techniques, which, after all, were also artificial.

      I would insert a limited qualification. One of the things that makes Jackie Chan’s films so interesting is that he does his own (quite incredible) stunts, and typically does not employ “blue screen techniques” (as he puts it). This really does make his films stand out. In one movie he constructed an entire set because the city of Hong Kong wouldn’t let him “destroy a street” in a bus scene. I suppose he could have done it with CGI. So there is that.

      No matter what you hear about Hollywood stars doing their own stunts, it’s just PR hype. It hasn’t happened since the earliest silent movie days, with stars like half-Jew Douglas Fairbanks, Sr., Buster Keaton, and a few others. The producers can’t get coverage from insurance companies for it, and therefore refuse to shoot like that. Hong Kong has (or had) looser rules. Even so, Chan couldn’t get insurance, either, so he shot without it.

      But, as I say, CGI can work perfectly well. What I was specifically referring to is that many movies feature mindless action and CGI special effects as the center of attraction, to the detriment of character or story.

      The special effects in Hitchcock’s The Lady Vanishes and, even more, The 39 Steps, look positively antique today. Most people probably can’t relate to the films as a result of it, though I love them both.

      It’s probably correct to say that younger generations find older movies unwatchable. Actually, even older whites seem to prefer new movies and TV shows, which is odd.

      You and I probably had a similar experience, coming along at a time when old movies were temporarily in vogue. I really got into them when I was an undergraduate; fortunately, a Jew on campus operated a “University Film Society” that showed old films in classrooms and auditoriums during off-hours.

      He wasn’t formally affiliated with the University, wasn’t a professor, had long since ceased being a student, but somehow was permitted to run his essentially private operation using public facilities and, I suspect, receiving a small university stipend. His little office was located in a campus building. The Society was unquestioningly accepted by the powers that be, as Jewish pursuits invariably are, where no white man would have been permitted to do such a thing. Of course, it is probably the case that no white man would have shown any interest in doing such a thing!

      Anyway, that’s when I developed a deep appreciation for old films, since I attended virtually all of his screenings. He was the guy who showed the Cuban propaganda film.

      I do divide TV shows, like movies, into “watchable” and “unwatchable” categories.

      Seinfeld I classify as “watchable.” In fact, I believe I’ve seen every episode, even the early one with the “different” father. A few episodes are “unwatchable,” notably the one with the BO (body odor), but by and large I find Seinfeld entertaining as TV shows go.

      You’re right in principle about the episode where the cabin burns. That makes many, many things nowadays not work.

      In that specific case, though, I believe it was pre-cell phone. You can actually see the phones change in that series over the years, from the earliest rotary phones ubiquitous when I was a kid to bulky, then less bulky, cordless phones. But cell phones weren’t common when the series ended, I don’t think.

      In mentioning North by Northwest and White Heat you happened to hit upon two of my all-time favorite films. Probably the only movie I’ve watched more times than North by Northwest is Roman Polanski’s Chinatown starring . . . Jack Nicholson.

      I should add in response to Asterion’s point about “Costello” that real-life Italian mobster Frank Costello married a Jewish woman. I find this interesting because many Gentile Communist leaders had Jewish wives, just as many current Gentile political leaders or other power-wielders have Jewish spouses. It’s a pattern.

  2. Asterion
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    “Costello” may sound Italian, but it’s an Irish surname.

    • Andrew Hamilton
      Posted November 5, 2012 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

      Good catch. I did not know that. I grew up among many Irish, but never knew any named Costello.

      I was further misled by the fact that two prominent Italian-Americans were named Costello: Lou Costello, the funnyman of the comedy duo, and high-ranking mobster Frank Costello (identical name of Nicholson’s character—another wrong move by the filmmakers).

      However, it turns out that both men had changed their names.

      Also, per Italian-American Congresswoman Geraldine Ferraro (D.-N.Y.) and the mass media that served as her mouthpiece, I thought anyone whose name “ends in a vowel” automatically suffered oppression by America’s WASP ruling elite.

      (Except for Congressman Martin Olav Sabo, Willis Carto, etc., etc.)

  3. Petronius
    Posted November 5, 2012 at 3:55 pm | Permalink

    I find this a bit pointless. Some random thoughts filled with random digressions about two random movies AH didn’t like so much. So?

    That aside, I do not think that “There will be Blood” was meant to be anti-white or anti-christian. There is an European sensibility about the critical way it looks at the USA: Americans appeared to us always like an odd mix of preachers and salesmen, wo take turns in selling and preaching. But overall the film was quite confusing and pretentious. Daniel Day-Lewis’ character has some fascination about him, and his performance and physical presence is the only reason one can watch this film. Nothing close to Bill the Butcher of course. The preacher was a quite interesting counter-character, but it was frustrating to have no real pay-off and dramatic buildup evolve between these two though it seemed so first. The final showdown was ridiculous and pointless.

    “The Departed” was a highly entertaining experience on screen. The script worked for me all through. The fast and multiple killings in the final reel are hilarious (that is quite common in Hongkong cinema where the film was adapted from). It was a shocking move to have DiCaprio’s suddenly finished off within a blink. The Matt Damon and Mark Wahlberg characters were brilliantly written, played and cast. Compared to the epic masterpiece that is “GoodFellas” it is just a perfect thriller machine, which any other routined director could have made. Scorsese doesn’t probably know much or care about the Irish (I wondered about the “Costello” thing too, and I didn’t buy Nicholson’s Irishness either), contrary to the world of “GoodFellas”, which was shown with a striking, intimate authenticity.

    “Taxi Driver” – I could watch that one over and over again, there is really drive, obsession and intensity in that film, a true noir classic for the Kali-Yuga.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  • Our Titles

    White Identity Politics

    The World in Flames

    The White Nationalist Manifesto

    From Plato to Postmodernism

    The Gizmo

    Return of the Son of Trevor Lynch's CENSORED Guide to the Movies

    Toward a New Nationalism

    The Smut Book

    The Alternative Right

    My Nationalist Pony

    Dark Right: Batman Viewed From the Right

    The Philatelist

    Novel Folklore

    Confessions of an Anti-Feminist

    East and West

    Though We Be Dead, Yet Our Day Will Come

    White Like You

    The Homo and the Negro, Second Edition

    Numinous Machines

    Venus and Her Thugs


    North American New Right, vol. 2

    You Asked For It

    More Artists of the Right

    Extremists: Studies in Metapolitics


    The Importance of James Bond

    In Defense of Prejudice

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater (2nd ed.)

    The Hypocrisies of Heaven

    Waking Up from the American Dream

    Green Nazis in Space!

    Truth, Justice, and a Nice White Country

    Heidegger in Chicago

    The End of an Era

    Sexual Utopia in Power

    What is a Rune? & Other Essays

    Son of Trevor Lynch's White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    The Lightning & the Sun

    The Eldritch Evola

    Western Civilization Bites Back

    New Right vs. Old Right

    Lost Violent Souls

    Journey Late at Night: Poems and Translations

    The Non-Hindu Indians & Indian Unity

    Baader Meinhof ceramic pistol, Charles Kraaft 2013

    Jonathan Bowden as Dirty Harry

    The Lost Philosopher, Second Expanded Edition

    Trevor Lynch's A White Nationalist Guide to the Movies

    And Time Rolls On

    The Homo & the Negro

    Artists of the Right

    North American New Right, Vol. 1

    Some Thoughts on Hitler

    Tikkun Olam and Other Poems

    Under the Nihil

    Summoning the Gods

    Hold Back This Day

    The Columbine Pilgrim

    Confessions of a Reluctant Hater

    Taking Our Own Side

    Toward the White Republic

    Distributed Titles


    The Node

    The New Austerities

    Morning Crafts

    The Passing of a Profit & Other Forgotten Stories

    Gold in the Furnace