Initial Reaction: Some combination of "Wow!" "Oh Dear..." and "huh?"You may be led to believe from my initial reaction that I didn't like There Will Be Blood. Sorry to mislead you...I did like it, but there is a caveat: I wouldn't watch it again. I find that there is a growing category of film that is defined as "greatly liked but only watchable once." TWBB neatly falls into this category.
Though the title was a bit off-putting, the fact that I had only seen one other Oscar nominated film motivated me to see this one. And while I was adequately warned that there would be blood, it wasn't overkill. No pun intended.
If anything, TWBB is worth watching for the sheer skill of Daniel Day-Lewis. Even though he is known for his quality acting (and his intense devotion to method acting), I would say that this is the performance of a lifetime. He plays the character of Daniel Plainview, a self-proclaimed oil man in the early 20th century. The film begins with an anonymous miner digging a site by himself. This scene is pretty intense, and perfectly suited to setting us up for the rest of the film. We learn that the man is Daniel, most likely starting out in his mining career.
There Will Be Blood is based on Upton Sinlcair's novel Oil! Overall, the movie is a timeline of Daniel's oil mining business, showing us a glimpse of his past, focusing on a chunk in the middle, and fast-forwarding to later in his life. The chunk in the middle is about an opportunity he gets to drill for oil in Little Boston, California. At this point in his life, he is accompanied by his son H.W. who is 9 years old and learning the trade from his father. Daniel hears about potential oil from a character named Paul Sunday (played by an impressive actor by the name of Paul Dano.) Paul lives on a goat ranch with his parents and siblings (including his twin brother Eli, also played by Dano) where they can't really grow anything. It's a poor family, but Eli isn't stupid, and understands that oil found on their land is a very big deal. Daniel finds out that there is indeed plenty of oil. Conflict ensues.
It doesn't take long to figure out that Daniel is a pretty bad person. The plot follows him as he convinces the people of Little Boston to sell their land to him so he can access whatever oil is there. Sounds pretty straightforward, but there's a twist: Eli is a man of God. He is the preacher at the Church of the Third Revelation and is officially "on fire" for God and filled with the Holy Spirit. Daniel clearly hates religion, but because of the oil is forced to deal with the people he can't stand. (Side note: In my opinion, the best scene of the film is when Daniel agrees to be baptized so that he can buy more land.)
There Will Be Blood is so good because of its effectiveness. I mean, it's about this evil man and his unquenchable thirst for oil. This may not sound very impressive, but I found Plainview fascinating: because you know he's bad, you can't help but sadistically want to see what he's going to do next. Acting-wise, Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano rock. Their characters are opposites--and yet are so similar in so many ways.
It's a very interesting study in human behavior; it's about Daniel and the choices he is forced to make in life, where those choices lead him, and his attitude towards everyone around him because of those choices. The entire experience is intense and affective, which is the reason why I don't think I'll see it again. It's like watching The Passion of the Christ or Hotel Rwanda (though not as disturbing). Not many people who have seen The Passion say to their friends "Hey! I just bought The Passion of the Christ! It's really good, I'm in the mood to watch it again. Want to come over and join me?" No. Once you see it, you admire the quality, appreciate the message and lesson that is present, and move on with your life. That's where TWBB fell for me, though it may not for others.
My one (dare I say?) problem with the movie is the ending. It's not that it's bad or confusing, it's just...sudden. Made me scratch my head a bit and consider what it meant in relation to the rest of the film. But I'd be pleased to discuss said ending with others who have seen it.
Rating: 13
There Will Be Blood is not funny, action-packed, romantic or thrilling. By no means is it a feel-good movie. However, it's an excellent film that is a well-balanced, interesting, meaningful work of art with superb acting. Because of this, it goes beyond entertainment. There Will Be Blood gives us a fascinating view of an evil man's psyche, and by doing this, nudges us to take a look at our own.
Iconic Lines:
"I am a false prophet! God is a superstition!"
"That was one goddamn helluva show."
My one (dare I say?) problem with the movie is the ending. It's not that it's bad or confusing, it's just...sudden. Made me scratch my head a bit and consider what it meant in relation to the rest of the film. But I'd be pleased to discuss said ending with others who have seen it.
Rating: 13
There Will Be Blood is not funny, action-packed, romantic or thrilling. By no means is it a feel-good movie. However, it's an excellent film that is a well-balanced, interesting, meaningful work of art with superb acting. Because of this, it goes beyond entertainment. There Will Be Blood gives us a fascinating view of an evil man's psyche, and by doing this, nudges us to take a look at our own.
Iconic Lines:
"I am a false prophet! God is a superstition!"
"That was one goddamn helluva show."
14 comments:
Nice review, WLC. One of the things I found most interesting about the movie--aside from DDL's captivating performance--is the way Daniel and Eli come to almost stand for business and religion respectively, both their strengths and their excesses. And their interaction, I thought, was indicative of how these two pillars of American society get along (or don't).
just saw the movie last night. for the first hour or so, i actually thought that Daniel Day-Lewis' performance wasn't quite up to snuff, at least not for what i'm used to seeing him play. later, as Plainview's descent into madness became more complete, it became, "now THAT'S the DDL i know!" and while Paul Dano was definitely scary, sinister, and unsettling, i couldn't help but think he didn't portray his character the way that backwater turn-of-the-century preachers actually acted. he was approaching brilliant, but not quite genuine.
it was quite funny last night. during the final scene, people were laughing at Daniel and Eli's antics, (one throwing bowling balls at the other and such), until a certain point (you know the one i mean), when suddenly there was dead silence in the theater. that's Paul Thomas Anderson for ya.
Yeah, it was the exact same reaction to the final scene in the theater where I saw it. Mildly comical for a while, then, suddenly, not so comical.
I also loved DDL's performance and I know the exact moment you are talking about PM. I agree with WLC's critique of the movie, even the initial reactions, b/c I had the same ones. The title also serves as a good warning about many movies, "It's an interesting movie but there will be blood."
WLC, You're saying that DDL's character is evil. With the overuse of the term (as in all the axises and such), I wonder what it is that makes you label the character evil?
Personally, I reserve the E word for things of a truly nasty nature of the Hitler scale.
*This post contains potential spoilers*
I agree, and I don't frequently refer to characters as evil, either. I did hesitate about using the word in reference to the character of Daniel Plainview, and then decided that it would be most fitting.
I'll try not to give too much away. Initially, Plainview is basically just a mean-self absorbed, cut-throat businessman. As he evolves, there are a few opportunities for him to show that he has redeeming qualities, but he consistently passes these opportunities by. Possibly, a more accurate way of describing him is that he becomes evil, rather than is.
Still, maybe it is too strong a word. What are other people's thoughts?
e·vil (ē'vəl) pronunciation
adj., e·vil·er, e·vil·est.
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant.
2. Causing ruin, injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet.
3. Characterized by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens.
4. Bad or blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation.
5. Characterized by anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
He's not as bad as Hitler, no, but I'd say Daniel Plainview fits at least 4 of these definitions.
Still, what makes the movie interesting isn't just the fact that he's evil. It's the fact that following capitalist mantra to its logical extreme is what makes him evil.
I actually had a look at the dictionary before asking the question. I guess the reason why I asked it is this: How do we define what morally wrong is?
If you're a believer in god, evil is simple enough: it's acting against the will of god. For the rest of us, or at least for me, the answer is not that simple.
I'll give you an example: in, say, 200 years time - will we all be considered evil because we drove cars and thus contributed to global warming which thus contributed to many animals dying and much human misery?
I know this has nothing to do with the film; I was just attracted to the word "evil". Besides, with all due respect to the dictionary, the fact the reviewer calls herself "wicked" goes to show the different associations we have for "evil" vs. "wicked": wicked is cool, evil is nasty.
Yes, I suppose that to a degree the concept of evil is subjective; I mean, one person's "wrong" may not coincide with another's. I wouldn't say that morality depends in religion, though, or even just a belief in God.
When I say that the character of Daniel Plainview is evil, I refer to (IMHO) his lack of morals in that he unflinchingly casts his fellow man aside and even seeks to harm him. I don't think that this is stretching the definition of evil too much.
Moshe, you warmed the cockles of this wordsmith's heart with your response. It's so true that words have connotations beyond their dictionary definition. ("Wicked" is probably less harsh-sounding than "evil" because wicked is often used as a synonym for "very," as in "wicked awesome." (Thus Wicked Little Critta might actually be Very Little Critta, which I can confirm from experience to be true.))
I also dug your point about our descendants thinking us evil for our cavalier attitude toward our environment (the same way we think our ancestors "evil" for their slave-owning or religious-war-waging tendencies).
But getting back to Daniel Plainview: His motivations aren't necessarily evil, they're just wholly self-interested. And while I'm not sure he starts out there, by the time the movie is over I think he's crossed over the line where I'd place evil, which, with all due respect to the dictionary, I'd define as: "intentionally, unnecessarily, and remorselessly inflicting harm on another being."
Feel free to pick that apart as you like...
what you said, DW, about "following capitalist mantra to its logical extreme is what makes [Plainview] evil," pricked my ears up with interest. since you earlier posited that Plainview stood for business and Eli stood for religion, do you also think that Eli represents following religion to its logical extreme, and does it make him evil?
WLC:
I'm the last person to say that morality is based on religion; I was just expressing the philosophical view of the addicted religious.
In my opinion morality comes from a set of tools bestowed on us by evolution because humans lived in small groups and survival was much more likely if one was nice to the other. However, as far as I know there is no "behind reasonable doubt" proof to support this theory.
DW:
By explaining how DDL has evolved from what I agree to fall under "selfish" into what I agree to fall under "evil" you've answered my question. Thanks!
Now go and answer PM's question.
Thanks Moshe, here I go...
I guess it's hard to answer "following religion to its logical extreme," because that could mean about a million different things depending on the religion. But even so, I wouldn't classify Paul Dano as "following religion to its logical extreme," though. (I'd say that description more applies to super-ascetic monks or this guy: http://www.flickr.com/photos/coolnewspics/361128543/)
Paul Dano, I'd say, is an example of a person addicted to the power granted to him by his congregation. Maybe taking religious-leaderness to its logical extreme?
more like it's illogical
extreme. Eli represents a path that religious leaders can take, and take pretty easily. but that's not the path they are meant to go down, and is indeed not the path that most of them go down. Eli was more or less using his religious leadership as a means to and end, though perhaps subconsciously.
Post a Comment