By Nathan Young
Few films defy convention more than 'There Will Be Blood'. It is undoubtedly the most difficult one to critique of all of the films I have screeened for this blog. The conflicting emotions I feel about it make it difficult to formulate a definitive opinion.
I have come to the conclusion that I have to separate my enjoyment of the film from my opinion of it as a piece of art. It is this reasoning that allows me to give it a 'thumbs up' while also saying that I cannot envision myself ever seeing it again.
Screenwriter/director Paul Thomas Anderson has constructed a masterful film that grabs the viewer's attention in a nearly 20 minute opening sequence without dialogue and never lets go. While the film is never boring, it is also unpleasantly bleak and features one of the most despicable villains ever captured on film. It is hard to call such a relentless film entertaining. On the other hand, it is one of the most mesmerizing films I have ever seen.
The film opens in the late 19th century with Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) drilling for oil. He falls down a well and gruesomely breaks his leg. Fittingly for a character that lives a solitary existence, Daniel declines to call for help and slowly claws his way back to the surface alone.
Daniel is busy looking for oil when a young man named Paul (Paul Dano) comes looking for him. Paul lives on a large ranch that has lots of oil under the surface. He offers to tell Daniel where he lives in exchange for monetary compensation. After agreeing to the deal, Daniel sets out with his young son to find the oil Paul spoke of. Once he gets to the farm, he meets Paul's twin brother Eli (also played by Dano).
Eli is a fiery young preacher at the Church of the Third Revalation and he wants $5,000 for his church to allow Daniel to use the land. Daniel shakes on the deal, with no intention of honoring it. Thus begins an adversarial relationship between the two that lasts the entire film. The rest of the film follows the only true pursuit in Daniel's life: accumulating wealth.
Deep down, Daniel is cold and calculating. On the surface, though, he is a good salesman. He uses his son H.W. (Dillon Freasier), to prove to potential customers that his is a family business. H.W. becomes deaf and mute around 10 years of age as the result of an exploding oil rig and Daniel never looks at him the same again. At one point, he goes so far as to abandon the boy on a train, but the two are later reunited. A scene towards the end in which a grownup H.W. (Russell Harvard) finally stands up to his father only to be rejected is the only time in the entire film in which the audience feels genuine empathy for a character.
This film is a study in paradoxes. While it is fascinating to watch and Lewis is amazing, the subject matter is unsettling and the ending is both haunting and abrupt. The music is jarringly off-kilter and brilliant at the same time. The cinematography is wonderful but some of the violent images are disturbing.
Lewis carries the film with his performance. He is fantastic as Daniel, and his portrayal deservedly won the Golden Globe for Best Actor in a Drama earlier this week. Dano, who co-starred in the critically acclaimed 'Little Miss Sunshine', is also very good in his dual performance. He brings the right amount of animation and passion to the role of Eli.
This film is spellbinding, yet I am hesitant to recommend it. While I found it to be a wonderful piece of filmmaking, it is certainly not a feel good popcorn flick. In fact, I walked out of the theater in stunned silence. The thing is, I am still not sure if that is because I liked the film or the fact I was still in shock over what I had just seen.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Hey, Nathan--
Good review. Here are a few points that I think are especially insightful and significant, with a few thoughts from yours truly:
-"Few films defy convention more than 'There Will Be Blood'."
I was able to appreciate this movie more when I asked myself, "What is a movie and what is it supposed to do?" The notion that a film is supposed to have a well established plot is, when you think about it, a little arbitrary. I mean, Who says? Now, most of us--myself included--prefer films with plots, but this one very successfully defies that expectation by presenting itself as a strikingly engaging character study with a "weak" plot. Lots of films defy convention. Most of them don't work. This one does.
-"...the film is never boring..."
I agree. I actually expeted to be board, but wasn't. Like you, I was basically mesmorized throughout, and only looked at my watch because I had to pee like a racehorse about 90 minutes in.
-"...it is also unpleasantly bleak and features one of the most despicable villains ever captured on film."
I agree. Curious that a second of the most dispicable villains ever captured on film was Javier Bardem's character in "No Country for Old Men," another movie released this year. It's not just because these films are fresh in my mind. These 2 performances are two of the best "bad guy" performances ever, ranking right up there with the Anthonys (Hopkins and Perkins, for Hannibal Lector and Norman Bates, respectively). Each actor deserves any award they get. Each actor's performance raised their respective movie from memorable to unforgettable and from gripping to relentless. I personally think that this performance solidifies Daniel Day Lewis's standing as THE best film actor today, and I've never even seen "My Left Foot," for which he won his only Oscar.
-"Deep down, Daniel is cold and calculating. On the surface, though, he is a good salesman."
One of the things I liked was that I wasn't sure what Daniel actually was "deep down." In fact, I think what he was "deep down" changed throughout the movie. He obviously felt anguish at various points and in various ways due to his son's accident and the resulting relational obstacles. He obviously had a least a speck of family loyalty when his brother showed up. But it seemed as though he conditioned himself to bury to such sentimentality because it threatened that which gave him his identity: money and oil. This was the tragedy of the character.
-"The music is jarringly off-kilter and brilliant at the same time."
Totally. It was nice to see such a creative use of music as a means of attacking additional senses of the viewer.
-"This film is a study in paradoxes..."
One of them was the unsettling juxtaposition of the overtly shocking with the subtle nuances of Daniel's spiral downward. His understated and unresolved usurption of Eli's ministerial authority at the dedication of the well was as revealing of the character of Daniel as his glassy--nearly phychotic--oil-stained gaze of the oil erupting from the well, while his son suffered alone in the shack.
All in all, Daniel was an example of a character who was, in more ways than one, self-made. Certainly, he was self-made in his business ventures. But he was also self-made in his prioritization of wealth over everything else. He reaped what he sowed. He ignored his convictions--those whispers of his conscience--to continue in the worship of his idols. And the deranged, hagard, venomous, and paranoid ball of hatred he devolved into was the fruit of his labor. Indeed, he was self-made.
I'm always looking for a film's message. I am one of those old-fashioned, pre-modernists who believe that art, in addition to providing entertainment, transmits the artist's thoughts, feelings, or worldview in a compelling and interesting way. It's not that I dislike post-modern film—I consider Pulp Fiction, the gold standard of pointless movie making, to be one of the 5-10 greatest films ever made—it's just that I always expect that the filmmaker is trying to make a point, and will assume so until the movie proves me wrong.
Like Nathan, I have struggled to comprehend this film and to find its message. Technically, it's stunning. Day-Lewis is from another planet in terms of his ability to fully inhabit his character (I heard an interview on NPR where he said it can take months for him to get out of character after filming ends). Anderson assembles a parade of wonderfully discordant visuals: obnoxious oil derricks in the bucolic California countryside; a worker cradling a infant while dumping a bucket of oil into a holding pond; the aged Plainview's indoor shooting gallery. The soundtrack ranges from eerie silence to screeching violins and pounding drums. The film, as should be expected from Anderson, overflows with dramatic technique and spell binding effects. It is truly riveting to watch.
But what's the point of all this artistic technique? Anderson's short resume of films are all somewhat off-putting and inaccessible (Magnolia, anyone?), but tend to reflect general themes of conflicted characters and awkward relationships. Those are certainly present here. I have read reviews that read this film as an indictment of big business and American greed, but I don't see it as much more than an indictment of Daniel Plainview. (The Standard Oil representative comes off like a nice guy.) Others contend that Plainview is completely evil, with no remorse or regret. I don't buy that either owing to the clear desire of Plainview to connect with his family--shown in his willingness to open up to his brother and the flashbacks to happy times with his son. In all, Anderson seems to be more interested in making the point that some people are beyond hope. Some people are so deeply flawed that no amount of desire for love or acceptance can overcome their self-destructive nature. Anderson shows us two people, Plainview and Eli, who fit this description, and at the same time demonstrates that two of the most popular methods of finding fulfillment in life (money and religion) are no match for the depths of their flaws.
It's not particularly enjoyable to spend two and a half hours in a theater to find out that some people are doomed to lives of depression and pain. Yet, the film's incredible accomplishment is that it keeps you interested and engaged in this story to the end. Only later, leaving the theater feeling exhausted and wrung out, did I wonder, "Why did I like that movie as much as I did?"
Post a Comment