There Will Be Spoilers!
Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood deals with epic themes and settings: the emergence of modern American capitalism and religion on the wide-open California oil fields of the early twentieth century. What's remarkable about the film's approach is that these issues are largely pushed to the periphery of the frame. At the center of the frame, for nearly every shot in the this two and a half hour film are Daniel Day-Lewis's piercing, fiery eyes. The film is monomanically focused on the character of oil baron Daniel Plainview.
This is a radical departure for Anderson. His films tend to feature large casts of characters, all struggling to overcome their personal weaknesses and traumatic pasts and forge real connections with each other. There Will Be Blood never takes the focus off of Plainview, and his character arc is one of raging misanthropy and a repeated turning away from human trust and companionship. The viewer gets a long and harrowing view of the rocky outcroppings of Plainview's burning mind. Although larger issues of class, capitalism and culture are kept in the background, the film does offer a critique of capitalism that comes from a unique angle. While a character like Charles Foster Kane begins Citizen Kane as a young idealist who has his humanity sapped from him by his isolating wealth and growing power, Plainview starts out the film as an isolated, vengeful misanthrope, and it becomes apparent throughout the course of the film that he has sought out wealth and power explicitly to allow him to dominate those around him. Also, we see that his world-encompassing mistrust and contempt serve him very well in his frantic grasp for wealth.
The result is one of the most vivid and terrifying depictions of human misanthropy in film history. Jonny Greenwood's dissonant score suggests the demonic, and Anderson's camera captures stark shots of desolate California brush and an oil fire belching forth from the earth like a portal to hell with a grace and restraint his previous films have lacked. In the end, though, the film is mesmerizing because Day-Lewis is mesmerizing: it might be the most sustained, powerful performance I've ever seen. He is in almost every shot, and your eyes are drawn inexorably towards him, but at the same time the character is so closed off that he seems almost alien: his bizarre, mid-Atlantic accent certainly adds to that perception. What sense of the character the viewer does come away from is to be found in Plainview's relationship with his adopted son H.W. and his long-lost brother Henry. In these relationships, we see the constant battle within Plainview between his accumulated hatred of humanity and his real yearning for human connection. Now, whether that yearning is born out of an authentic desire for compansionship or a need to conform to the expectations of civil society is never made clear. It's just one of the many quandaries of the character that are left unanswered. After all, Daniel Plainview is a man who "doesn't care to explain" himself.
For all of Day-Lewis's bravura mastery of his role and Anderson's elegant set piece direction the film would not be nearly as haunting or powerful were it not for the brilliant, audacious and perfectly over-the-top final scene, in which the full flower of Plainview's rage and hatred come to bloom. In this scene, the damage that he has carelessly wrought on those around him, until now only hinted at, is made chillingly manifest. Plainview, rich and old and retired from the field of capitalist combat, has just disowned the son who provides him with his only tether to the human family. He is lying unconscious before a half eaten meal on the beautiful parquet floor of his mansion's personal bowling alley. He is in every respect a broken, deracinated husk of his former leonine self. Then, Eli Sunday, his old nemesis, comes into the room with a business proposition. What follows is a cinematic transformation as vivid, riveting and illuminating as any I've ever witnessed. As Plainview reveals himself to be the master of the situation and Eli realizesthe vulnerability of his position, Plainview grows monstrous before us, filling with vigor, rage and sadistic joy as the will to live drains out of Eli. Here we find Plainview in his moment of ultimate triumph: destroying another human being emotionally, spiritually and, in a act that is surely the happiest moment of Plainview's life, physically. This is where we find the only real use that Plainview has for the human race: they are his fuel. To vanquish people, to destroy them, to grind them beneath his heel is what sustains Daniel Plainview. It's the real reason behind his obsession with accumulating wealth and power: the better to eat you with, my dear. And, as befits a gentlemen of leasure, he calls for his butler to take away the remants of his meal when he's finished.
Score: 9.9
Sunday, January 13, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
Some say that the source material betrays PT Anderson here. I kind of agree, and here's why: Obviously, PTA had no interest in taking Sinclair straight-up for an adaptation. There's too much going on here to think that Anderson wanted to make a socialist/Sinclair-esque diatribe.
I'm glad--I think a polemic film (one that doesn't push that stuff to the side of the frame, as you say) would have soured this project in a big way and sort of silenced Anderson's obvious gifts. But at the same time, the weird tension between Dano and DDL didn't really pan out for me. I felt strangely drawn to DDL because the religious posturing by Dano's character was so obvious and offensive to me from the beginning-- I smelled Sinclair's politics throughout, and it seemed like Anderson wanted to move away from politics too, per se.
Care to comment on any of this?
Also, the father/son dynamic. "bastard in a basket!?" Ouch. And given the director's penchant for the nuances of family, I don't think you can talk about this movie without breaching their relationship.
One of my favorite scenes? Oddly, the first strike of oil at the very beginning. A baby cries, the camera pans over to the men, one of them puts an oily finger to the sky. It feels momentous and terrible all at once. I think he captured a slice of what the new century meant in that scene.
Also really loved the poignancy of the son and DDL talking about how the girl in the Sunday family "gets beat" by her dad. DDL looks as the boy and says something like "she the little one?" and the boy answers "yes." It seems powerful and yet somewhat random after two viewings. Also suggstive of a completely different kind of the director could have made.
I see this gets a lower rating than "No Country." Obviously this means something because everyone sees a potential death match between the two for for best picture of the year? Are you taking sides? Or could you care less?
But I really liked reading this, as always. Thanks for tying all your thoughts together--this is an enjoyable format you've built.
You know Johnny Greenwood's "day job" band has an ongoing motif with cannibals and "eating people" and "sucking blood" and whatnot. The director loves this "day job" band. I see a strong environmental critique of capitalism here as well through the soundtrack that both evokes the machinery "chugging" and "screeching" below the land and in the "blood" that brings chaos and crisis to the places the movie occupies.
"I've abandoned my boy!" holy shit. I thought his face would melt the screen and the world would erupt in flames. It's an unbelievable performance. "Give me the blood, Eli." I love how this film feels so intensely awkward at sometimes. The theatre feels weird when people laugh.
I'll offer my top five movies of 2007 here now that you've posted your review. Attack as you will.
1. No Country For Old Men
2. There Will Be Blood
3. The Assassination of Jesse James
4. Manufactured Landscapes
5. Grindhouse
(6) The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Worst (To be honest, I've not seen all of these. Is that fair? Sometimes a concept seems so terrible that it actually offends me and this is my attempt to get vengeance.)
1. Alien vs. Predator
2. Norbit
3. I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
4.The Bucket List
5. 300
(6) Pirates of the Caribbean
I have no qualms with your list: I haven't seen Manufactured Landscapes or Jesse James, I loved Grindhouse, and No Country and There Will Be Blood are my top two as well. I pick No Country (barely) because every single scene is a perfect constuction, while There Will Be Blood is efficient, but I will say that no single scene in No Country packed to gut-punch of the last scene of There Will Be Blood: right now I'd say it's my favorite scene ever.
As for the tension between Sinclair's agenda and Anderson's, I think that, by focusing so completely on Plainview, he becomes sort of an arch-avatar of capitalism itself, rather than a person working insde the machinery of capitalism. That astonishing final scene captures the essential vampirism of the capitalist enterprise. "I drink your milkshake! I am the third revelation!" I think Sinclair would have dug that. It's just that Sinclair was much less interested in art than in agitprop, so I don't think it would have satisfied him, either. To be clear, that's a good thing: art is political, but it isn't JUST political.
I drink your milkshake! I am a false prophet.
and the way he laughs after the murder?
the creepiest shit ever.
Jesse James comes out on DVD Feb. 5, I think. I think all three films--NCFOM, TWBB, AJJBCRF-- should be put on a rotation one day with you, me, Baumann. Word to oceans of oil under there!
That would be awesome. Let's do that shit.
Also: way to go, Mitt Romney! Win that shit, you lantern-jawed douchebag!
Matt, I realize that a number rating system is somewhat arbitrary, but can you say what made you give this film 9.9? What makes that 0.1 difference?
Also, perhaps Daniel Plainview had Asberger's Syndrome.
It's really just a way to signify that I liked No Country for Old Men slightly more than There Will Be Blood, .01% more, to be exact. I just can't get over the seamlessness of No Country.
Also, there's a new web forum for discussing There Will Be Blood. the name? www.idrinkyourmilkshake.com, of course. I persued it, and it seems like the users aren't generally that interesting, but they're better than imdb.com posters.
Someone said they should weld two oscars together and give best picture to "There Will Be No Country for Old Blood"
Whoever suggested that must be like a genius or something.
Standing outside the theater I still wasn't sure if I liked it, and I wished my expectations had not affected my initial perception of the movie so much. By the next day I was pretty sure that it was great, but I still can't get over the fact that I just wasn't very impressed with Paul Dano in this film. I don't know if it's his performance itself, or just a matter of him being miscast, but for some reason or another he rubs me the wrong way here. The camera is focused on DDL so much that it's hard for any other character to pull your eyes away from him, but when my eyes were pulled to Paul Dano they didn't like what they saw. Maybe anyone's performance would look bad standing in contrast to DDL's.
I found Paul Dano totally revolting, but in a good way. He was unctous and vain and simpering and vile, but I totally believed it. There was something about his tiny little eyes stuck in that weird mushroom-like head of his that sold him as a venal, passive aggressive fraud.
Oscar nominations are out, TWBB and NCFOM (tied with 8 total nominations each) are head to head for best picture, best director, best adapted screenplay, best cinematography, best editing, and biggest Matthew J Christman antici-boner.
Also a few nods for Jesse James.
This is frankly weirding me out. My two favorite films of the year cannot be tied for most Oscar nominations. If the hide-bound fossils of the Academy are digging on this shit, am I missing something.
Cush, Just saw "There Will be Blood" today . . . and I'm not sure what to think of it. Daniel Plainview was an asshole from the get-go (though an awesome one at that), so was the purpose of the movie just to show that all people (minus the adult H.W. Plainview) are corrupt egotistical maniacs vying for control (Daniel Plainview, Eli) or hapless sheep following the former(s) around?
Senior Plainview finally got to take out the human he hated most at the end - someone who embodied everything he despised about humanity (someone willing to sell out their faith and values for a chance at making it big or just saving their own skin - values that he expound upon so vehemently in public.) Senior Plainview did not concern himself with such morals, so he had no scruples to push aside in his pursuit of success. His lack of scruples also made it so easy for him to "have his dessert" in the final scene.
I didn't feel that the movie did a good job explaining why Plainview "hated almost all people." Is the film asserting that some people are just born “bad?” I think most people believe that one's environment (or at least their perceived environment) leads to such misanthropy. If people are born “bad,” then capitalism isn’t to blame for their condition. Though one could argue that capitalism provides the vehicle for which such “bad” people can come to power.
Your thoughts?
Yet, Plainview was an awesome villain. Almost found myself cheering for him. Though I still think that the “awesome-nova - radical - nifty” villain of the year still goes to Anton Chigurh:
Anton Chigurh: [indicating bag of cashews] How much?
Gas Station Proprietor: Sixty-nine cent.
Anton Chigurh: This. And the gas.
Gas Station Proprietor: Y'all gettin' any rain up your way?
Anton Chigurh: What way would that be?
Gas Station Proprietor: I seen you was from Dallas.
Anton Chigurh: What business is it of yours where I'm from, friendo?
Gas Station Proprietor: I didn't mean nothin' by it.
Anton Chigurh: Didn't mean nothin'.
Gas Station Proprietor: I was just passin' the time.
Anton Chigurh: Just passin' the time.
Gas Station Proprietor: Well sir I apologize. If you don't wanna accept that I don't know what else to do for you. Will there be something else?
Anton Chigurh: I don't know. Will there?
Gas Station Proprietor: Is somethin' wrong?
Anton Chigurh: With what?
Gas Station Proprietor: With anything?
Anton Chigurh: Is that what you're asking me? Is there something wrong with anything?
Gas Station Proprietor: Will there be anything else?
Anton Chigurh: You already asked me that.
Gas Station Proprietor: Well... I need to see about closin'.
Anton Chigurh: See about closing.
Gas Station Proprietor: Yessir.
Anton Chigurh: What time do you close?
Gas Station Proprietor: Now. We close now.
Anton Chigurh: Now is not a time. What time do you close?
Post a Comment