I think “The Propisition” certainly is beautiful, in that quintessential Western sense. In some ways of further develops the rugged and epicly dangerously look that olden day directors like John Ford (i.e., The Searchers) initially set forth.

I think that the work of Roger Deakins in “Assas. of Jesse James, etc” was gorgeous and metaphorical, and of course you have hi work in “No Country” also. Both are nice re-interpretations of the classic western cinematography.

I think “Blood” is something altogether different. I think it breaks from the mold of Western cinematography. I would suggest that here Roger Elswit and Anderson are attempting to make the land a mirror of the character’s…. personality. Rather than being at odds with him like it would be in a typical western: man vs. land, etc, here the land is but a representation of the inner conflict within the two main characters. On the one hand Plainview is tearing up the land, making it his own, drawing from it his only love - but at the same time there is conflict, much like there is inside of him. He is fighting against beauty or grace existing in him - he chose his path and he knows it and he knows that he must allow nothing to stand in his way, even himself. In that sense, the land is not his enemy, its not representative of the clash between civilization and other….it is representative of the clash of persons and decision in himself, it is him. It is like him and he is like it.

I thought “The Proposition” was arid, lurid, grainy–quintessential Old West, better than “Blood,” which is a close second. “Gerry” was pretty, too. If you call that a film.

And most agree here, “patiently allows the actors to be their characters; he lets the camera watch and listen and instead of forcing the scene upon the audience.”

Personally, I’m more for the terseness of “No Country’s” “and then I woke up” than the experiential sharing of a lack of redemption in “Blood”, but I think each were faultlessly their own in and of themselves.

Thanks again, David, as always.