There Will Be Blood

There Will Be Blood (2007)

I could marry Daniel Day-Lewis.  He’s the most talented actor I know of. I cannot think of any other male that can match his natural range. He was the sole reason GANGS OF NEW YORK was watchable and seemed better than what it was; take him out and that movie falls apart. His acting here alone could help THERE WILL BE BLOOD rank in the top 5 of most lists (professional or otherwise), but it just so happens that Paul Thomas Anderson crafted one of the most vital films of the decade if not ever. Everything about THERE WILL BE BLOOD: from the oil as root of all evil and bringer of the ugly within men, to the black heart of Daniel Plainview, to the holier than thou posturing of Eli Sunday, to their decades long confrontation, to Daniel’s utter hatred for humans that spilled over even to his relationship with his son–a son he appeared to have had genuine love for when young–to the power of the score (by radiohead’s Jonny Greenwood), to the scope of the film, to the cinematography, to those 15 opening minutes of silent film……. well, this is a monster of an influential film that was deemed a timeless classic, 15 minutes into it.

There Will Be Blood: Kubrickian Nihilism

THERE WILL BE BLOOD is an intense and nihilistic character study in the same vein as Kubrick’s masterpiece THE SHINNING, only without the metaphysics. PT Anderson’s film focuses on the madness of Daniel Plainview; though we see the story from his perspective we are never allowed intimate or empathetic contact with him. We are kept at a distance and experience his story from a cold emotional vantage point…which is a Kubrickian narrative convention. But the parallels to the late great Stanley Kubrick continue.

The film begins in darkness and isolation and as the camera pans upwards to the bleak mountains we hear a piercing whine; this evokes a feeling of dread and horror much like the Overlook...I thought for a moment that Wendy Carlos scored the film! When Anderson shoots in a close-up of Plainview it actually takes us farther away from the character; we feel like we’re next to a rabid animal ready to lash out at any moment. There are a few excellent tracking shots and scenes with long focal lengths keeping the participants as tiny figures amid the scenery….again, keeping the viewer emotionally detached from the drama.

This is not a film that carries a heavy plot; sure there is conflict between characters but there is no driving plot device…only the madness of Daniel Plainview. Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance channels the energy and insanity of Nicholson’s Jack Torrance; from the opening scene which showcases his isolation and obsessive nature to the brutal maddening climax. The final scene reminds me of the murder scene which bookends LOLITA; it’s funny and almost slapstick until the murder…then the seriousness of the event begins to sink in. Not only one of the best of 2007 but maybe one of the greatest American films in the last twenty years. Final Grade: (A+)

(Read Less...)

Recommendations: The Birds, Breathless (Jean-Luc Godard, 1960), Funny Games

All reviews copyright Korova, Ltd. Visit Alex at his Home Theatre Blog, http://korovatheatrepresents.blogspot.com/

There Will Be Blood

Nietzsche doesn’t sit well with movies. Cinema likes happier philosophers. Der Wille zur Mach, or “the will to power” isn’t a popular notion when writing movie heroes. Audiences don’t generally want men of will. We like men of the people, friendly guys. What will distress most people about There Will Be Blood isn’t the violence, it’s the egotism. Daniel Day-Lewis plays an anti-hero like no other (saveScarface); a man driven to succeed not by greed, or ambition, but by will. It is a performance, and a movie, that takes a singular approach to tragedy. Because Daniel Plainview isn’t flawed. He is perfect. He is the apotheosis of godlessness; a man possessed by his self.

At the start of the nineteenth century, an enterprising psychopath named Daniel Plainview is told of a large oil deposit in California. The oil flows beneath a desert town called Little Boston. The people of Little Boston prize God. In order to get at the oil, Plainview strikes a deal with the Sunday family, who hold powerful sway among the townsfolk. Eli Sunday, the eldest son, is told he can use the oil-money to found a church. He takes it that he has Plainview’s blessing. But he is wrong. Each man believes the other’s will can be overcome. Their struggle encompasses the next twenty years; two murders; one marriage; many lies, and the angriest baptism ever put on screen.

Daniel Day-Lewis surpasses and almost parodies himself as Daniel Plainview. He plays him as a man who acts like a human being, but never feels as one. Even his tenderness toward his adopted son is undermined by mercenary instinct. He has only ulterior motives; he never befriends a man he can’t use. There are no women in Plainview’s life, and small wonder: he doesn’t display the slightest interest in sex. His dealings with people are like watching as a zoo keeper tends the animals. He never looks at people; he inspects them. Where in Gangs of New York he was a leader through might and braggadocio (a psycho, yes, but a very human psycho), here he’s a leader because he’s profitable. People come to him for money. And people’s worship of money disgusts him. Day-Lewis has always had a certain Romantic, at-a-remove quality in his best films. Here, it’s as if his idealism burrowed inwards – blighted – leaving only superiority, and ill will.

Paul Dano, quite a way removed from the mute teen he played in Little Miss Sunshine, plays Eli Sunday as a cunning hysteric (if that’s not an oxymoron); a man who shares Plainview’s moral superiority, but fatally lacks his inner-strength. Eli is not compelling, he is the man another movie would make a villain out of. Here, he’s not the hero (Blood has no time for heroism); he’s the anti-hero’s antagonist. Dano has a rudimentary quality to his face (something like a medieval portrait of a saint) that it lends itself to religious fervour. Hearing him howl and cackle as he works the congregation feels authentic even when what he says verges on the ridiculous (“…As long as I have teeth, I will bite you!”) He has a lupine, dare-all energy to his performance; lying fires him. You know Daniel Plainview will destroy him ultimately, but you also see in Dano why Eli thinks he has a chance.

A lot of critics will want this movie to be about America. They’ll see oil and think: Iraq. But I’m not convinced There Will Be Blood has any allegory to it. Director Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia) has never been much for politics. I don’t think Daniel Plainview should be read as George Bush. This movie is about gazing into the abyss. Think Nietzsche: “If you gaze long enough into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you.” There lies strength, and emptiness. In the last third of the movie, we watch Daniel Plainview arrive at his only logical end. He doesn’t kill arbitrarily. He kills because his entire life has been about asserting his will, and quashing God.

Emotion, Violence is in Anderson's 'Blood'

/</gispan style="font-size: 3px;"/>/gi//gi<span id="app2558160538_extraReview856484277_770671487More">I'll tell you, this generation sucks. I  hate my generation; everyone hates this generation. During my 15 years  on Earth, we've witnessed the worst economic downturn since the Great  Depression, more political controversy than I can count, record-breaking  amounts of marriages that only end in divorce. Not to mention the fact  that nothing good has erupted from this seemingly endless pit of  nothingness. And to have a single movie, a two-hour spectacle that  obviously doesn't make up for all of this, but that makes our generation  even worth mentioning, that's pretty damn special.
A full-fledged,  all-American monument of violence, religion and yes, oil. There Will Be  Blood manages to tackle nearly every detail of life in the early 1900s  and have it all tie in to its awesome epic of a conclusion. Paul Thomas  Anderson has captured his opus, turning There Will Be Blood into  something more than a farcical career biography, but a brutal dejection  of a destroyed and angry man.
Daniel Plainview is a self-described  oilman who runs his business with his son, H.W. "It's a family  enterprise." But his view of a perfect America is threatened upon  meeting Eli Sunday, a priest at the local church, asking he and his  family to give up their land for $10,000. There Will Be Blood starts off  with this half-baked scenario, though it later divulges into Daniel  facing the "sins" he's committed, as well as his own mortality.
Jonny  Greenwood's score alters the mood of every scene and decision Daniel  makes perfectly, at times making There Will Be Blood a gripping drama  and then suddenly switching to a dark-as-dirt comedy. Anderson's tragedy  explores everything from the lies businessmen tell us to the absurdity  of religion. If for nothing else, catch this simply for Daniel  Day-Lewis's dazzling turn as the oilman Plainview. The easiest five  stars I think I've ever given to a movie of its culture.

RATING: 5/5 STARS</span></span>

(Read Less...)

-Nick

Last updated: 2010-02-16 20:36:06 by NickOndras

THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007)

BOTTOM LINE: An impressive work for those serious filmophiles who want their experience to last well beyond the 150 minutes of screen time. If Dostoyevsky had made a film, this would be it.

THE GOOD: This film is cinema at its most powerful and a real credit to Director Paul Thomas Anderson. I’ve not read the novel on which this film is based (Oil, by Upton Sinclair: 1927), but I would imagine its every bit as good, and that’s testimony to the quality of this production. The first scene immerses you in the rugged and dangerous life of a prospector, introducing you to the character Daniel Plainview, played brilliantly by Daniel Day-Lewis. In risking his life to find gold, Mr Plainview strikes oil and so the story of a driven, determined and ruthless man begins to unfold upon the screen. So potent is his ambition, he exhibits little emotion and appears untouched by human tragedy. When a miner is killed in the shaft beside him, he adopts the orphaned boy as his own, not out of duty, but as an opportunity to improve his business prospects. Mr Plainview and his (adopted) son, H.W. (Dillion Freasier) are soon very wealthy oil men drilling a lucrative new claim in California. The consistency of Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance should win him an Oscar. He appears in almost every scene of the film’s 150 minutes, intensely dominating the screen, imposing his will and drawing visceral emotion from us like oil from the ground. As single-minded as Mr Plainview is, he is not one-dimensional. As a result, changes in pacing and tempo are highly theatrical, as they should be, because this is not your typical filmic narration, it’s the exploration of a man’s mind and motivation. And this is where the brilliance of the script, the cinematography, the direction and the casting all comes together to make one of the best films of the decade. The plot itself doesn’t extend much past what I’ve already outlined but it doesn’t need to, because like a Dostoyevsky novel, this tale is all about the essence of human nature. Enter two more fine performances from Paul Dano who plays the evangelical preacher Eli Sunday and Kevin O’Connor who plays Plainview’s brother Henry. Both these characters have critical roles, not just in driving the story, but in the way they reveal Daniel Plainview’s existential crisis. His relentless search for oil may well be a metaphor of his own search for spirituality while those around him are symbolic of his life’s long lonely journey. All in all, if you’re really into film, you’ll remember ‘There Will Be Blood’ as an all time classic. It takes a real commitment to sit all the way through it, but you’ll be able to discuss its merits and meanings with other fans for years to come.

THE BAD: This is an extremely intense film and definitely not to be considered as light entertainment. For some it will be very difficult to enjoy, particularly as it is a very long drawn out affair. They could have easily cut 30 minutes from the film without diminishing its overall effect, and that alone would have made the final scene far more edifying for the audience. I suspect most of us were just relieved it was over.

RATING: 8.5/10

Todd Murphy <br />
http://www.allaboutmovies.net