Review: There Will Be Blood (2007) *****
From the start, there’s a primal, biblical, form-out-of-chaos feeling to There Will Be Blood, the new film from Paul Thomas Anderson. It begins with a low synthesized moan on the soundtrack that rises to an eerie wail as the camera tilts up to an otherwise ordinary pair of desolate, rocky hills. It’s an ominous opening that would fit the start of a horror film. Appropriately, toiling beneath these hills with an intense, single-minded devotion is a kind of vampire, a man chipping away at the earth bit by bit, tapping into veins of silver buried deep below the ground.
These first wordless 15 minutes of film condense the events of four dangerous, hard working years as this lone prospector hires a crew of men and moves on from scrabbling for silver to sucking the very blood of the earth itself; great oceans of steaming black oil drawn from huge wounds punched into the ground. He feeds his fortune by feeding the industry of a growing nation. He is Daniel Plainview and before the first word is spoken, he has at last become an oil man.
Though his business is oil, at his core Daniel Plainview is a salesman. He’s a master at intuiting weakness or desire and using it as a wedge to get what he wants. To the small frontier communities he’s gobbling up, he sells whatever people think they need so he can get at the oil beneath their feet. To the parents he promises schools and a family-run business (to which end he’s all too happy to use his adopted son H.W. as a prop), to the greedy he promises quick profits and to the hungry he promises bread. By the time any of them realize they’ve been taken advantage of, the ground is dry and Plainview has moved on to the next hole in the ground.
In this way, Plainview’s holdings increase and his trajectory follows a straight line steadily upward until he’s finally lured west to California by the prospect of cheap land with plenty of oil. Standing in his way he finds local preacher Eli Sunday, but Plainview understands this young man right away. Like Plainview, the preacher is a salesman of sorts, but he delivers a commodity that Plainview cannot promise: he sells salvation to the community of the faithful. As such, Eli is just another dangerous competitor and, with the same single-minded devotion he once dug tunnels in the earth, Plainview sets about tearing him down. It’s a battle of wills between two men who represent the elemental driving forces in the rise of the United States: Greed and God.
In telling this story, Paul Thomas Anderson charts not only the singular tale of one man’s rise and fall but also the epic story of the building of a country. It’s in the blending of this seeming contradiction where the brilliance of There Will Be Blood begins. Anderson has always been a magnificent filmmaker, but since Hard Eight, his style has been marked by a certain unruly, chaotic sprawl. It’s not surprising that the director he’s most often compared to is Robert Altman, to whom There Will Be Blood is dedicated. Anderson’s last film Punch-Drunk Love was more focused than Boogie Nights or Magnolia, but some found it off-puttingly odd and precious. Unlike these earlier films however, There Will Be Blood is a bracingly mature work that drops all pretense and trims away the fat and the clutter. At over two and a half hours, it somehow moves briskly and never gets boring. It’s a spare, relentless machine that doesn’t waste a frame or pause to show off. It’s safe to say that the jump Anderson has made from his earlier work is as startling as the leap the Coens made with No Country for Old Men. It’s shocking and exhilarating like an icy slap to the face.
To set the tone for this oddly personal epic, Anderson turned away from a traditional orchestral score and instead recruited Radiohead guitarist Jonny Greenwood to take a more unusual approach. Fleshed out with classical pieces by Arvo Pärt and Johannes Brahms, Greenwood’s elemental and dissonant score at times put me in the mind of The Rite of Spring, the revolutionary ballet by Igor Stravinsky that caused riots upon its Paris premiere in 1913 (which not coincidentally perhaps is the midpoint of the story of There Will Be Blood). At times creepy and ominous, at others compellingly percussive and urgent, Greenwood’s work somehow unsettles and unifies at the same time and it’s a vital key to the whole thing.
As good as the script and the music are, central to the success of the film is the astounding Daniel Day-Lewis giving easily the performance of the year as Daniel Plainview. All the hype you’ve heard about this actor in this role is earned. He galvanizes your attention with a strangely quiet ferocity. He’s full of power and menace yet he rarely raises his voice or his fist. He’s like a buzz saw that hums along quietly until the spinning blade suddenly contacts a plank of wood and begins to chew it’s way through with a howl of noise and a spray of sawdust. On screen in nearly every scene, at times you might be tempted to turn away, but it’s impossible to take your eyes off of him. There Will Be Blood could easily have fallen flat without Daniel Day-Lewis breathing new life into every scene. He single-handedly drives the film in a performance for the ages.
In fairness to the supporting cast who are all all fine, especially young Dillion Freasier as H.W. and Kevin J. O’Connor as Plainview’s half brother, this film belongs to Day-Lewis. The others don’t exactly wilt in the face of his intensity, but even Paul Dano in the important role of Eli Sunday must be content in orbit around a brightly burning star.
In spite of the powerhouse performance inhabiting him, Daniel Plainview is a rough character with whom to spend an entire film. He’s an antihero in the truest sense. You don’t like him, but you’re almost forced to admire him. You may even find yourself rooting for him. Though he’s a ruthless monster, he’s also hard working, dedicated and energetic. He’s like a nuclear reaction destroying everything around him if allowed to burn out of control, but when he’s contained and focused, he’s the kind of man upon whose back nations are built. You can hate him and fear him, but you also need him.
Making Plainview even harder to warm up to, Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance is so powerful that it’s easy to overlook his character’s subtlety. It’s tempting to see him only as a one-note monster and to miss his essential character arc. While it’s true he uses his adopted son H.W. as a ploy to convince people he’s a family man, it’s also undeniable that there’s a genuine feeling and affection between the two. H.W. grounds Daniel to reality and provides him a connection to humanity. It’s only when an accident robs the boy of his hearing and the two drift apart that things begin to sour and rot for Plainview. He reaches out to others to ground him and to fill the void in him, but they’re not up to the task. Plainview’s essential misanthropy will only increase and his downward spiral will only escalate the farther the boy gets from him.
On the way down, in the most compelling scene in the movie, Plainview submits himself to the ultimate humiliation at the hands of Eli in order to get something he needs. One moment the oil man is nearly speechless with shame as he confesses to his biggest failing as a human being, but just when you think he’s broken, it’s as if his demons are exorcised. He realizes he’s about to get what he thinks he wants and his face suddenly lights up with a frightening expression that says he will repay Eli Sunday tenfold for this very public debasement and what’s more, he’s going to enjoy it.
It’s an awesome scene that is alternately heartrending and chilling and it’s a pattern that repeats itself again and again. Plainview’s greatest triumphs seem to dovetail his greatest failures and vice versa. He’s a man whose rise and fall is happening simultaneously, the very things that drive his success are destroying him from the inside out. All of it builds to a final, brutal confrontation and the result leaves you wondering whether Daniel Plainview has won or if he’s lost. It seems to be the classically tragic story of a man who gets what he most desires only to find he really has nothing at all, but is it? As is so often the case in this marvelous film, the answer might cut both ways. The final moment leaves a cold sneer on your face unlike anything I can remember since A Clockwork Orange. You’re either going to be horrified by what happens, or you’ll find the sick satisfaction of having gotten exactly what you wanted. If you’re like me, you might feel a little of both. The question is: which result is more unsettling?
Either way, Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest film is an invigorating bust in the cinematic chops and a pleasure to watch from start to finish. It’s like watching a slick magic trick. You know you’ve been played and you can’t quite figure out how it was done, but you’re thrilled. Though it’s a late entry in the Movie of the Year Sweepstakes, There Will Be Blood is easily Anderson’s best and it confidently takes it’s place alongside a tiny handful of this year’s perfect films.
There Will Be Blood. USA 2007. Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. Based upon the novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair. Cinematography by Robert Elswit. Production design by Jack Fisk. Edited by Dylan Tichenor and Tatiana S. Riegel. Music score composed by Jonny Greenwood. Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Kevin J. O’Connor, Ciarán Hinds and Dillion Freasier. 2 hours 38 minutes. MPAA Rating: R for some violence. 5 stars (out of 5)
Filed under: Reviews
Related Posts: - London Critics Drop Crumpets, Grab Cattle Guns
- Jonny Greenwood Talks ‘Blood’
- MZS on PTA
- National Society of Film Critics Honors ‘Blood’
- First Impressions: There Will Be Blood
What a great review, it really sounds amazing, and I have spoken to one of the few people who have actually seen There Will Be Blood in South Africa, and what they told me was similar to what you have written here. This world is unfair, because I have yet to see it, as you know, but when I do, we could discuss the film, I mean you gave it 5 Stars, so it has to be great and it sounds as though the film could fuel many discussions.
Thank you Nicholas. Didn’t you say you might have an opportunity to see this with the critics? That would be great. Either way, I hope you like it as much as I did.
If you like Daniel Day-Lewis, I think you will.
I’m still working on that possibility hey! I really like Daniel Day-Lewis in everything I have seen him in, and Paul Thomas Anderson is one of of my favourite directors, so I think I will like it.
The full TWbB review was mined from deep veins of rumination, brought to the surface, refined, and poured out before us. Craig finally stands above it half crazed and nearly spent, still trembling slightly from his determined, passionate, and resolute labor. He looks upon what he wrought and declares ‘I broke you and I beat you’.
We’re the very lucky recipients of your hard won victory.
Magnificent, Craig. This review touches upon so many superb elements of There Will Be Blood with a broad *and* deep analysis, which is what this artsy epic demands.
My reaction to your review is not different from my reaction to the film itself–I need more time to soak it in but for right now I’m just grinning and enjoying myself.
sartre, that was rather funny.
This is the best review of TWBB I’ve read. well done.
it’s an amazing film. one I will revisit again and again.
Thank you guys. The movie pretty much speaks for itself, but damnit, movies like this are why we go to movies in the first place. They deserve any little praise that can be thrown their way.
Nice to see you here Alexander, I’m pleased you stopped by and thanks for chiming in.
Great review, though I only skimmed it since I’m seeing it tonight. 10:30pm. :-)
Good plan to not read too carefully Alison. I think I steered clear of any major spoilers, but a movie like this is best seen completely fresh.
I can’t wait to hear what you think of it.
craig…..glad you the blood experience. :)
but you can you mention perfect films of 2007 without seeing….finishing the game ???
think about it ??? ;)
In complete agreement. Though I still think it might be my # 2 of the year (after “No Country”).
I’ve got No Country at 3 after TWbB and Jesse James. But ranking such fine works of artistry is foolishness. What is it about us guys and lists?
This review stands apart from all the others I’ve read, Craig. It gives me a sense of it, I think (or at least a sense of approach) that didn’t exist before. The ruminating paid off. I hope I can stay up to see the midnite sneak on Saturday.
Ahhhh…lists. I can’t resist them and I’ll be revealing my own very soon.
I think most of you know what my numbe one is going to be, but I’m telling you it’s not an easy choice.
I’m glad the review was worth the wait Pierre. I hope I didn’t say too much in it…does anyone think so?
I think the final scene is both triumphant and soul shattering—the man’s whole life is, actually. I’m still wrapping my brain around it.
Good point about the audience taking pleasure in it as well, like me. What a wicked and amazing film.
I think you stayed away from spoiler territory. The considerable challenge of reviewing a film with quite so much worth talking about was well met in your comprehensive piece, Craig. I second Pierre’s comment that it stands apart from other efforts I’ve read in expertly establishing the films approach, breadth, and things to be alert to.
Pierre, you better get your ass to that screening.
Did you have a big, stupid grin on your face too Geoff when the screen went black and Brahms kicked in?
Goddamn, I love movies!
Thank you Sartre, there’s such a fine line between saying enough to entice but not so much you take the fun out of it. This is NOT a movie I’d want to ruin for anyone.
Actually, my big stupid grin began as the tension started to kick in and the sequence quickly and fiercely started to reveal itself. I wasn’t so shocked as to where it went, but how it went about it. Talk about playing to the back row! I drank it all up. Loved every minute of the final act.
Drank it up like a milkshake.
Holy crap, this movie was fantastic!
I just got back from seeing it, and I was lucky enough to be in a theater packed with people who appreciated it also. That always enriches the experience.
I’m still absorbing the film, but I’ll mention a few impressions. Those first wordless fifteen minutes are breathtaking, the music that accompanies it perfection. The whole score was amazing, as was the cinematography.
From the clips they showed of him in the trailer, I was a bit concerned about Paul Dano being miscast. He actually handled the role very well and I didn’t feel that he was overshadowed by Daniel Day-Lewis in their scenes together. Plainview was just a stronger, more ruthless character to me. And Dillion Freasier was wonderful as H.W.
Daniel Day-Lewis was out of this world. He always completely disappears into his characters, and such was the case with Daniel Plainview. He’s absolutely riveting in this film. Despite the fact that his character is greedy and ruthless, and cruel to those around him, he’s charismatic in an odd way, at least at the beginning, and it’s impossible to look away.
Many people have complained that Plainview is just this cruel, monstrous character. That’s true on the surface, and it may be the reason why those viewers considered this a ‘one-note’ performance. But Plainview struck me as much more complex than that when I watched the film. And that’s the genius of Daniel Day-Lewis. Yes, I felt distaste for the character, but that was mixed with fascination, even admiration at the audacity of some of the things he said and did. And, in a way, I felt pity for him, too. Maybe I’m weird.
Your review is spot on, Craig, and you express what’s wonderful about this film more eloquently than I ever could.
So, my verdict is that I loved it. :-)
I’ve been sitting here wondering how it was going for you Alison and I’m jazzed you loved it! Deep down I think I knew you would, but you just never know about these things.
It sounds like you’re still kind of in that stunned, amazed stage I was in for days afterward.
It’s great you saw it with an appreciative audience too.
You’re so right that Plainview is a deeper character than his detractor’s would have you believe. He’s a bastard, yes, but he’s a friggin’ dynamo. So intense, and admirable in a way. Perhaps he appeals to the budding misanthrope in me.
Dano did the best he could under the circumstances, but his character was just overmatched (to borrow a word from Sheriff Bell in the other perfect movie of the year).
Dillion Freaser did a great job as HW. He was just a local kid too, I don’t think he was even a trained actor and he accomplished so much without words.
On Fresh Air and in one of the Q&A’s,PTA laughed about how Dillion’s mom rented Gangs of New York to find out what Daniel Day-Lewis was like and she was scared so one of the production people ran out and got her Age of Innocence and she felt much better.
I like that story of Dillion’s mom. :-)
I guess Plainview appeals to the misanthrope in all of us. But I see him as a man who didn’t start out that way. And not only because he had to work and sacrifice to get to where he was. Somehow, in his own warped way, he felt let down by people. His cruelty toward his adopted son is outrageous. And yet I also saw this man who couldn’t cope with what had happened; who, in a sick way, felt that the kid had disappointed him.
So much in this film to think about and discuss.
Off-topic: I also saw The Savages again after Christmas dinner yesterday, since my family wanted to see it. Wonderful movie. It’s criminal that both PSH and Laura Linney have been overlooked by everyone.
I don’t think DP began as a monster exactly either. I think there was some kind of emptiness inside him, but I think mostly he learned a single-minded determination working away under the ground alone and when he emerged to deal with other humans, you used the same approach on them…chiseling away at them little by little in an effort to fill the hole inside him.
HW helped until the accident. Plus also I think the hole kept getting bigger. Henry wasn’t enough to fill it and it just grew and grew.
***Massive Spoilers***
I thought the scene where he finally rejects HW as a competitor and as a ‘bastard from a basket’ was heart breaking. Not just for HW, but for DP as well. But then damn…the next scene. It was horrifying and funny and brilliant and just…everything. The way he just unloaded on Eli, even before he beat him to death physically, he completely reduced him to the size of an ant. Total humiliation and total victory. It was scary and squeamishly thrilling at the same time.
Craig, thanks for welcoming here. Your review of this film was certainly an apropos time to make my first appearance here. Again, thanks so much for the kind words and thanks for this powerful review! (It’s probably starting to sound like a broken record here, but this is the best review of There Will Be Blood I’ve read. Just a radiant analysis.)
I just want to chime in again and say I concur with Alison and you about Daniel Plainview. In many ways the closest previous film character to Plainview is James Dean’s Jett Rink in Giant (1956). Both men are cold beasts whose determination and tenacity is an indwelling characteristic that I find admirable. This is made graphically clear in Paul Thomas Anderson’s film, as it opens with Plainview feverishly working.
I also agree that Plainview appeals to the buried misantrhope inside all of us–the side of us who enjoy A Christmas Carol the most when Scrooge is at his nastiest and most callous. He has an ugliness that is ostensibly unseemly but as you and I have discussed at awardsdaily, Craig, unlike his nemesis, Eli, is no hypocrite and he’s a man of his word. He did feel let down by people, like you note, Alison. His scorn towards his adopted son is only a rebuke in his mind, and although it’s not a pretty sight, it’s also understandable given his rocky temperament.
Day-Lewis allows all of the shades of his character to be exposed, piece by piece, and often all at once, throughout the film, enriching it enormously as the tale ensues.
Thank you Alexander. Talking it out with smarties like you over the last month or so helped me crystalize some of what I wanted to say.
DP was a much more likeable character than Eli. He at least had integrity. There was only one real occasion that he lied and that’s when he didn’t give the $10,000 to Eli’s church and the only reason he did that was not because he was cheap, but because he simply didn’t like Eli and knew he was a snake. He enjoyed screwing him over.
Otherwise DP was fairly honest in his dealings. He took advantage offering people less than they probably deserved, but hey, that’s business. He gave them what they wanted.
I like Daniel Plainview. At least I understand the guy.
Eli is an ignoble bastard.
Just imagine: Eli actually sitting down with Daniel early on and just putting it out there like his brother Paul did: “Daniel, I want the money for my Church because this is what I do and what I’m good at. I care about the $10,000 more than God, and I know you know this.” Maybe things could have been different….
***Spoilers****
Exactly, he had to pull that sanctimonious act which Plainview saw through right away. Had it been otherwise, I thnk Plainview still would’ve won, but he wouldn’t have felt the need to drive him into the ground. All the little games played with him, from stealing his thunder in blessing the well, to withholding his $10,000 and they escalate to the brilliant finale where Daniel reduces Eli to his lowest and strips him of even his dignity before finishing him off. It was like watching a boxing match where one guy is just pummeling hell out of the other guy and it’s horrible to watch, but you can’t turn away.
I’m rambling. The movie just makes me want to blab.
Yes, it really comes down to the “ignoble bastard,” as Geoff describes him–huckster, conman, deceiver, bully–against the tunnel-visioned, avaricious Plainview. Plainview is easily the more honorable between the two, and the unctuousness of Eli is only more and more gratingly apparent (not in a *bad* way, though, in terms of the film’s structure, or at least I don’t think so) as the film reaches its climax.
Geoff, that would be an interesting scene to contemplate and its very incongruity perfectly captures the cowardice and dishonesty of Eli.
I had to leave the discussion last night, as it was after three in the morning here in NYC, but I second and third everything that you’ve all said.
As Geoff said, if Eli had been straightforward like his brother Paul, things would have probably been different. DP was straightforward and he respected Paul’s straightforwardedness. At my theater the audience laughed during that first scene at the supper table, just from the looks DP gave Eli every time he opened his mouth.
***Massive Spoilers***
I thought the scene where he finally rejects HW as a competitor and as a ‘bastard from a basket’ was heart breaking. Not just for HW, but for DP as well.
Exactly my point. I have to feel sorry for any man who does that to himself. Besides, DP has really lost it by that point.
I’m still coming to terms with the ending. Many have complained that it’s over the top, and to a degree it is. But I don’t just see it that simply. It’s part of the thread of the story and it makes sense. As you point out, DP lets Eli have it after he’s just rejected HW completely. It’s very complex. Eli told him how to raise his son and he’s enraged by it. This issue came up a couple of times and it was a real sore point for DP. Watching that scene in the restaurant made me laugh, but also made me squrim. His behavior is just insane. And during the meeting he threatened to cut that guy’s throat for telling him that he could spend time with his son. Hot button. So, yeah, then he rejects HW for good and Eli shows up and all that rage has culminated and he takes it out on the guy who told him he was a bastard to his son.
I’ll probably have to see this at least one more time before it leaves the theater.
It’s ok Alison, we kept it on the stove for you. I was shocked you still had the energy to come on last night. A) it was late as hell for you and B) You’d just spent the better part of your evening bowling with a friggin masterpiece. A lesser woman would’ve been incoherent!
Believe it or not Alison, I beileve it gets better each time you see it. The first time I saw it, I was enjoying it for the first couple of hours, but I was still kind of trying to get my mind around it and it wasn’t feeling like a masterpiece. Too much expectation I think. I was even a teeny bit worried.
***general spoilerage***
By the ending I knew it was great, but I still wasn’t sure what to make of it. Plainview was so forceful as to seem one dimensional. The next time through he became a richer character and it made for a much more powerful movie. I focused more on his relationship with H.W. Knowing where the story was going, I paid much more attention to his expressions and reactions when he was dealing with Eli.
That baptism scene, when it’s all over, Eli goes over to shake his hand and Plainview has this evil grin on his face. The first time you see it, it doesn’t really register, but the 2nd time….well you know exactly what it means.
The 3rd time through I was just amazed that it could still be so damn entertaining and interesting. I think I’ve said before I’m not a big repeat movie watcher. I’ll watch the Coen movies every year, but I’ll rarely watch a movie multiple times in the space of a month or so. I’ve done that with both NCfOM and TWBB and I’m already itching to see them again.
As Ebert said about the great movies, they’re like music and they just get better the more familiar they become.
I think it will get better with each viewing. And, again, even watching it the first time I didn’t see Plainview as one dimensional at all. I did watch DP’s interaction with HW and some of his expressions were priceless. In his own limited way, he did love the boy. I did not notice the evil grin when Eli shook his hand, but I did see the look of fear on Eli’s face. In fact, a lot of people laughed at it. Some may have known exactly what was coming. I just knew that Eli had humiliated DP and he was going to do *something* to get back at him.
No Country is another multiple-viewing film, definitely. When we went to see it on Thanksgiving, I was ready to stay and sit through it again. My mother demanded that we leave so that we could get Thanksgiving dinner ready.
Have you seen Sweeney Todd multiple times as well? A lot of people are seeing that one many, many times. I still haven’t seen it once. After the holidays probably.
I’m actually going to see Sweeney Todd a second time later today. I saw Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead a second time yesterday at the local arthouse. (Ah, such holiday classics in the making.) I’m not a big repeat moviegoer (at theatres, anyway) but I saw Zodiac twice, 3:10 to Yuma twice, Michael Clayton twice, The Assassination of Jesse James… twice, American Gangster twice (just hid in the cinema to see the next showing–I had nothing better to do and I enjoyed the film just enough to do it), No Country for Old Men four times (first time I’ve done that with any film since Munich), Before the Devil…twice and I’m going to see Sweeney and There Will Be Blood (eventually) twice as well.
Usually, I do that with perhaps three films a year. I guess this is another piece of evidence for the greatness of ‘07.
Oh, and I remember distinctly thinking, “What does that mean?” followed quickly by, “Oh, brother…” when I saw Plainview’s almost caustically etched, strangely evil grin when shaking Eli’s hand. That moment, along with the first fifteen minutes, was worth the price of admission alone.
I’ve still only seen Sweeney the one time. I’m hearing such mixed reactions to that one, and each new person has a response I wasn’t expecting. There doesn’t seem to be any trend along gender lines or along musical-fan / non-musical-fan lines.
I’d love to catch Before the Devil once more.
I wish I’d caught Jesse James again. It’s hard though, sometimes once I review a movie I just want to be done with it and move on to the next review. That’s kind of what happened to Sweeney and Charlie Wilson and I’m Not There. In all three cases I was intending to come back and write a proper review, but once I wrote the spur-of-the-moment quickie…I was done. Next.
I’m glad you didn’t feel that way about TWBB. I enjoyed your thorough review of it. :-)
I had to review this one fully. I put it off as long as I could, but there was no way around it. This kind of movie is why I want write about movies.
I’m very glad it seems to have come out ok. One day maybe I will have the courage to reread it and I’ll see for myself.
Pardon my ignoring TWBB, I won’t see it until midnight Saturday, but I just caught I’m Not There and Sweeney Todd over Christmas.
Can we say knocked the fuck out?
I’m Not There is a gonzo go for broke masterpiece, tedious in places but so rewarding, and emotionally forceful as to be worth it. Everyone is going on about Blanchett because she’s the most obvious but ALL of the Dylans are extraordinary.
Sweeney Todd, while not as emotionally overwhelming, is just as powerful in a different way, easily Burton’s best since Ed Wood, and probably better than everything else he’s done. I like that he commits to the gothic outrage that’s usually in his films, only without the half-assed tongue in cheek stuff. Act Three is a real wowser.
Sorry to sound like a generic blurb machine, but I haven’t really talked about these movies to anyone yet, and I’m kind of frothing at the mouth over them.
I saw this last night, loved it.
The difference between Plainview and Eli is that DP knows that he’s hollow, that he only wants certain focussed things in life, and Eli doesn’t. Eli is as empty and pathetic as Plainview, a huckster in his own way, but he’s deluded himself into thinking that he’s superior, can condescend to this man without god, and that’s his fatal flaw. For all of Plainview’s manifold faults, he does at least possess a greater degree of self-knowledge, poisoned thought it is.
I think my favorite line in the movie was ‘God did not warn me about our recent financial panic…” or however it went.
Chuck I’m thrilled you were suitably blown away by I’m Not There. It’s an easy movie to have issues with, but if you just kind of let go and let it have its way with you, I think it’s very rewarding.
And yeah, Blanchett is the most obvious, but it’s unfair to overlook the rest of the cast. Even the much maligned Richard Gere.
Sweeney worked for me too and I’m a little disappointed that it’s getting a fairly lukewarm response among the people I know. I was beginning to think I was just out in left field on this one.
Exactly Jeff. Plainview knows his strengths and weaknesses. He’s self aware. He’s also a doer instead of a talker. Eli is all hot air. They’re both masters at promising people what they want, but as Plainview says in his opening speech, only he really delivers at the end of the day. Everyone else is just a middleman. Even Eli ultimately.
Glad you liked the movie. I kinda figured you would.
Craig, I’m surprised to find that people have had a lukewarm response to Sweeney. I figured it would be a movie that people either loved or hated.
Plainview was indeed self-aware. And some of his lines were absolutely priceless, particularly the one in regard to Eli and God.
I meant to say particularly the ones in regard to Eli and God. There were several.
I’m getting loved it and hated it reactions to Sweeney also. They’re all over the place.
I love it when DP refers to one of Eli’s sermons as a “goddamn helluva fine service”. Needling him.
And every time Eli says anything, the expressions that DP regards him with our priceless. In addition to his sharp responses. :-)
This movie was just fantastic. I don’t know what its Oscar potential is. It really could go either way. AMPAS may hate it. Or they could embrace it. I think DDL will get a nomination; not sure about a win. While I thought his performance was out of this world, I don’t know if they will reward that kind of character. Call me crazy but I could see Clooney nabbing this. People seem to love his performance in Michael Clayton and the character is more likable (and certainly has some redemption at the end, which people like to see). But either way, this is a magnificent film. If it doesn’t fare well at the Oscars, in years to come people may talk about it and say “why the hell didn’t this win?”
Also, with Sweeney - Nathaniel at http://www.thefilmexperience.net actually wrote an excellent and indepth review of Sweeney Todd, and several people responded in the comments. It’s worth checking out. There was one thing in particular that stood out for me: the opinion that Sondheim’s show is such a masterpiece that it couldn’t be ruined. The ‘lukewarm’ responders may feel that the movie was bound to be good, and to get great critical response, unless Burton had intentionally tried to screw it up. In other words, they’re giving all the credit to Sondheim and not to Burton. That’s my sense of what they’re saying anyway.
I already sneaked away from the family yesterday to see TWBB (first priority). So I can’t get away with it for Sweeney. I’ll have to catch it after the New Year.
“Call me crazy but I could see Clooney nabbing this”
I agree, though I like to think if they can reward Robert DeNiro for Jake Lamotta they can reward Daniel Day-Lewis for Daniel Plainview.
I’m hopeful for both NCfOM and TWBB, but these movies have transcended any kind of award for me. If they have their share of wins it will feel ‘right’, but I’m not going to lose any sleep over it.
Thanks for the Sweeney link, I’ll check it out (you still made the right choice in prioritizing TWBB!)
So clearly between the two you favored TWBB. ;-)
If Daniel Day-Lewis wins for this I’ll be thrilled. But if he doesn’t, so be it. It won’t change his career. But the comparison to Jake Lamotta is spot on.
Same with No Country. Fantastic film. If the Coens get the deserved acknowledgement, if not…well, all I can say is that I hope that whatever beats it is deserving. :-)
“So clearly between the two you favored TWBB. ;-)”
I don’t hide my passions very well, do I? Suffice it to say, I liked Sweeney a helluva lot. but it won’t be in my top 10 whereas TWBB is jockeying with NCfOM for the number one slot.
“I already sneaked away from the family yesterday to see TWBB (first priority). So I can’t get away with it for Sweeney.”
Never go against the family, Alison :-)
Really pleased you enjoyed TWbB’s many fine qualities. Particularly like the fact you were attuned to DP being a tragic figure whose war with others paralleled the one with himself. And that you loved the amazing score!
You now qualify as a cool club fan girl extraordinaire :-)
Yay! I always wanted to be a cool club fan girl extraordinaire! :-)
She’s so cool, Elvis Costello named a song after her:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpEdCvvQhbg
:-)
That is so cute, Craig. I did always love Elvis Costello.
And that’s a beautiful song.
Gerard Kennedy’s tech articles over at In Contention are always worth checking out. In the latest he presents his top 5 scores. And I can’t help but concur with his choices.
http://www.incontention.com/techsupport/2007/12/tech_support_special_2007_scor.html
I’ve been listening to the Greenwood soundtrack over and over and over. I only wish it also included the Brahms and the Avro Part pieces. I suppose I could track them down and get them individually…
OK, my head is still swimming with the movie but I went straight to this site to finally read Craig’s review and the comments here. Couple things that come to mind…this is a huge departure for PTA. It’s actually somewhat shocking, possibly more shocking than where the Coens went with No Country. It’s a PTA movie in script and major themes only for me and I’m completely happy with that, but technically and stylistically it feels so radically different from his previous films that his direction alone leaves me a little floored.
Did anyone else feel the influence of Kubrick here? That opening swell of music and the landscape clearly brought 2001 to mind and there were some other musical moments and scenes that reminded me of Jack Torrance and the Shining. Daniel Plainview’s entire character arc (and the pacing of the film) reminded me of Barry Lyndon, even though DDL’s amazing performance is far more riveting that Ryan O’Neal’s restrained Barry.
Wow, Daniel Fucking Day Lewis. I knew the guy was something special and I was amazed by him in Gangs of New York, but I had no idea he’d live up to all the hype on TWBB. Amazing. He truly steals every damn scene in the movie. It’s all the other actors (and Anderson) can do to keep up with him. I think there were a few moments where Paul Dano was actually registering real fear on screen, as though Lewis might actually take this too far and seriously injure him. Amazing stuff. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen any actor take a character so far and get so deeply into it. I know it’s not a completely accurate comparison, but I’m again thinking of The Shining with Nicholson’s crazed, over-the-top performance.
I agree that the ending is a bit much and goes for the cheap seats, but it fits the rollercoaster arch of Plainview’s life. He is a man who will do anything to win and he has the capabilities to accomodate any goal, but he’s an empty man inside and he knows it. When he shuns his son and breaks the only bond that tethers him to humanity, his entire existence slowly begins unravelling (did you catch the tears in Daniel’s eyes as he exits the train, yet they quickly dry up as he commits to his plan). Eli isn’t the cause of Daniel’s pain, but Eli’s own arrogance caused Daniel to publicly admit his single greatest failing and he must repay that indignity in kind. By the end of the movie, he is the shell of a man but the fire that made him wealthy and powerful is still burning. Eli simply has the misfortune to assume he has something he can hold over Daniel.
What a massive error in judgment.
Hmmm. I will need to ruminate on this one a bit this weekend and see where I come out on it, but safe to say it is quite an amazing achievement for Daniel Day Lewis and Paul Thomas Anderson.
Was it just me, or did anyone else think of Agent Smith listening to Plainview speak?
Joel, this really was an extreme departure for PTA. He deserves the recognition he’s been getting for having the guts to take on such a huge challenge.
This movie really blew me away. And it’s definitely one of those films that for which you need a couple of days to absorb everything.
“Did anyone else feel the influence of Kubrick here?” Absoultely. I’ve been hesitant to draw to specific of a parallel because it’s Kubrick for chrissakes, but yeah. It was all over this movie. 2001, Barry Lyndon, The Shining in particular.
DDL. Seriously, you couldn’t take your eyes off the guy, right? And he’s in every damn scene for 2 1/2 hours. Amazing.
The ending I think plays better on repeat viewings. By the time it comes the first time your’e kind of exhausted and overwhelmed….or I was anyway. The 2nd time through you can better process it and you can see it coming.
I didn’t catch his tenderness for HW at all the first time, only later when I was looking for it did I see it, but it was there all along and its’ a key to appreciating his character.
DRAAAAAAINAGE!!!!!!
I didn’t get an Agent Smith vibe, but now that you mention it…
Great to read your astute thoughts on the film and to to be privy to the still fresh excitement you’ve expressed through them.
That was a great initial response, joel. I love seeing others enthused by films.
Within seconds of seeing the opening the first time I thought, “2001!” And it just stays there and seems more plausible as Anderson’s homage to Kubrick. The character arc is quite “Barry Lyndon,” and you’re correct about the comparison to The Shining. Craig and I have both touted the Kubrick touches to the film elsewhere (much to a certain person’s chagrin, ahem…)
I was so wowed by the ending the first time that I wasn’t exactly sure what to think of it yet. It took me several days to appreciate it on my own. Seeing it just a few evenings ago a second time I completely understand it and think the film just *works* as tightly as any “epic” film can.
The emotional rollercoaster ride of the film, as you say, joel, is even more poignantly well carved and easier to guide oneself through the second time. The dramatic push and pull of the narrative, all of it leading to Plainview’s inevitable psychological collapse and disintegration, is just overpowering the second go around. The “son” being deafened; H.W. being abandoned; Plainview’s discovery about his “brother”; H.W.’s return, etc. It’s all so meticulously written and dramatically tight the second time–it’s one of those films that demands to be seen again. Kind of like No Country for Old Men, but in that film’s case it’s more of reliving the experience of the greatness of the filmmaking while still discovering greater subtexts. There Will Be Blood is a tougher nut to crack since its scope is greater, its allegorical pulse a little more shyly hidden (though certainly by no means invisible for those looking) and its narrative fairly sprawling (though much more controlled than one may think after immediately seeing it the first time).
This is stunning work. It’s not just a departure for Anderson in my opinion. To me, no matter how well accomplished his earlier films were (must admit, I like his first three, dislike his fourth–never went over the moon for one of his like this one) they were fundamentally building blocks (some who dislike Anderson may say “film school,” though that’s excessively demeaning and unrealistically “purist,” as well as just plain harsh) for this effort.
I now find myself in the position where, like Craig has said, I could flip my #1 film of the year and my #2 film of the year without a sweat. It’s a close call, closer than I thought.
If you put a gun to my head and forced me to choose ala Sophie, I’d probably still give No Country the #1 spot just because it seems like a summation of the Coens’ art in a way so few films are. There Will Be Blood, as horrifically beautiful as it is, seems almost a co-creation between Anderson and Day-Lewis. (And evidently Anderson isn’t entirely one to argue with this point considering his and Scorsese’s talk recently.)
But anyway, yes, what a terrific film this is.
I saw it last night…
Anyone want to know what I thought of it…? LOL
Of course. Spare no feelings.
Heh. Back to the project at hand. LMAO
Can you say…MASTERPIECE?
Having seen this now I can understand why this film is so bitterly divisive. I know Craig (& I think some other people on here) have said that they could switch their #1 & #2 on any given day. But I think everyone else has NCFOM at the tops of their respective lists.
THAT IS EXACTLY HOW I FEEL. Only NC doesn’t make my Top 10 & Atonement is my #1. Or was. Maybe still is.
I will have a clearer idea when I see both of them again. I joke a lot (drily & archly) on this site & at AD as well. But now I’m dead bloody serious.
This is a classic. I don’t honestly know if I can retain Atonement at #1. But it won’t slip any further away than #2.
I was strongly tempted to hold on to my ticket stub so that I could tell future generations that I had been to TWBB on its premiere night in my home town. To my mind, I experienced what people likely felt seeing 2001 on its opening night in the 60s. Or film aficionados attending the premiere of A Clockwork Orange in the 70s. You know how you feel talking to a sophisticated older person who attended a landmark event in artistic history & you deeply envy them that experience, even as you’re completely fascinated?.
Well, years from now I’ll be able to do the same thing & people will wish that they could’ve been there, too. This is a rare intense passionate rite of passage that comes along maybe once in a generation. If that. People will be talking about TWBB a hundred years from now. The people that loathe it will still loathe it vociferously. Film buffs that adore it will continue to.
There are odes to Kubrick, Welles & Malick in abundance. But yet this is such an astounding breath of fresh air. Despite being an adaptation of a book (well, roughly) it is so completely free of derivation & unoriginal thought.
I was spellbound. Had no problems with the ending. I laughed my ass off. It is extreme. But it makes perfect sense within the context of the piece. It’s very much like the concluding moments of The Silence Of The Lambs. An oddly amusing & droll ending to a fabulous work of art.
I dunno. Can you tell that I liked it a little?
Wow, Serena. You know, I wasn’t sure if you were going to like this film. I’m glad you did. :-)
I was also laughing during the last scene, as were other people in the theater. And I saw it on opening night in my town too. I left family at home in the ‘burbs to go back into the city and see it. :-)
I am nearly dead right now.
The anticipation of seeing this film is killing me.
Curious. The guy sitting next to me in the theater was laughing his ass off during that final scene but I was so terrified of Plainview’s growing anger that I stopped laughing about halfway through…you could see where that one was going immediately. When it goes from dark to hellish, the guy next to me nervously stopped laughing and tried to contain himself. I think he was embarrassed but I could see what he found humorous.
I think on a return viewing, I will find that scene more absurdly funny but it’s also just as likely I won’t be able to see beyond the darkness that is Daniel Plainview. I dunno. I will definitely be seeing this one again soon.
Glad you enjoyed it Serena. I also saw it with a packed theater at an exclusive engagement and the place was electric when the movie started. It’s only playing one theater in the entire Vancouver/Portland metro area, which is kind of crazy considering the hype and buzz behind it. I rarely get to see a movie like this under those conditions because I usually avoid opening night, but the wait for TWBB was killing me so I braved it. Worked out pretty well.
What made me laugh, joel, is, to quote Chuck, how bat-shit crazy the scene was. It actually made me uncomfortable. Same with the earlier scene in the restaurant where Plainview puts the napkin over his head. Those scenes are insane and they made me uncomfortable. They’re appalling, eliciting shock, pity and nervousness. In the restaurant I felt the mortification of all of the characters, including Plainview. And the last one is certainly scary because you know he’s gone over the edge and something bad is going to happen.
Maybe my laughter was nervous laughter in those parts.
joel, I was laughing as I was exiting the theatre. It’s big & bold & absurd. How can you not?
This is my take. There’s a scene early on where Daniel is talking either to Eli or his brother. (I think it’s Eli.) He basically says that, at some point, he’s going to take Eli down.
I deliberately tried to remain spoiler free. But I knew sketchy things about the ending. The way people were reacting (even though I didn’t know precisely to WHAT) led me to believe that it would be a big showdown that at least one of them would not leave alive. So I understood the gravity of the situation.
I’ve all ready had a number of discussions with different people since last night. Some of the people that loathed this movie hated Daniel’s guts. Thought he was an unbelievable bastard. But I understood him. Felt tremendous sympathy for him.
I am a decent, caring person that loves children & animals. My friends & family mean the world to me. I am tremendously loyal & would go to the wall for anyone I cared about.
But there are some people that are evil. Or are looking for an opportunity to mess with you or your loved ones. If people irrevocably cross the line (& I’m NOT talking about the normal petty misunderstandings & little arguments that crop between individuals - but something much harsher & potentially more damaging) then they have to be dealt with. Simple as that.
Daniel was ruthless. But he was a hard driven business person who was motivated largely by his own greed & ambition. There were things that he wanted & things that he was determined to have. As far as he was concerned, Eli’s days were numbered from that moment many years ago when Daniel had words with him. He had not forgotten - & he was waiting.
When Eli came to him & asked for money that gave him the perfect opportunity to humilate him & then take action in the way that he thought most expedient. There was no escaping Eli’s fate. It was inevitable. Plus Daniel had nothing left to lose. He was an extremely wealthy man with no connections to other people or the outside world. He was no longer speaking to his son or his daughter in law. He had no wife or romantic relationship & likely no friends either.
So he was, for all intents & purposes, “finished”.
He was very successful but he lost everything that actually mattered to him. So his enviable existence was short circuited on this dark, tragic note.
But you have to laugh. He settled the score. Tamed the lions. Emerged triumphant. But he’s come to the end of the road as well…
I’m sure he was satisfied with that. But it was pretty damn bleak.
Just a fantastic experience though. I’m still thinking about it…
Yeah, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with laughing at those scenes. Plainview is equal parts absurd and horrific in those moments and your response to him can go either way. I definitely got the impression that the guy next to me was wound as tight as I was by the end of the movie and that his reaction was as much a nervous response to the tension as it was a response to the humor.
My only regret about TWBB is that the damn milkshake line was spoiled for me weeks ago. In fact, I’ve been hearing about it everywhere. If I’d only read it once (by accident no less) I might have forgotten about it, but it keeps appearing everywhere. Christ, some guy devoted an entire web site to it. I can see why but man, I wish I didn’t know that was coming. It was in the back of my mind throughout the entire movie and when I knew that it was imminent, I knew something ugly was going to occur. In a movie like that, a line like that is only going to occur in conjunction with something bad. Very, very bad.
Kind of disappointing that the release schedule for this film (which was retarded IMO) allowed for that part of the movie to be so routinely spoiled for those of us that don’t live in NY or LA or attend critics’ screenings. But since I expect nothing less of the internet these days and I frequent sites where folks see movies well in advance of myself, I have no one but me to blame.
But enough whining…great movie.
See, to me, wallowing in a movie’s greatness with other people is much more fun than arguing about it. I’m glad Joel and Serena enjoyed their milkshakes.
As for the ending, well I wouldn’t change a thing. I’ve already used my “puppet show/punch in the balls” metaphor at least 3 times so I will spare you a 4th.
But yeah, there are layers of humor. On the surface, there’s a slapstick element to it, when he’s chasing Eli around trying to bean him with bowling pins. It’s almost playful and then….YIKES.
But underneath that, and maybe this is where the uncomfortable laughter Alison mentions comes from (I felt it too), I take a little bit of sick pleasure in seeing Eli so thoroughly taken down. First he makes him admit that he’s desperate. But this is pretty subtle. Then he uses Eli’s own greed to force him to admit he’s a phoney and we start to get a little more intense.
Then he reveals Eli has been completely had. Already near his lowest ebb, Plainview has just pulled him beneath the waves…and he’s ENJOYING it.
Then he has to rub it in. A lot. Repeating over and over how he fooled him and took all his oil. Then saying how his brother Paul was the smart one and how Eli was just afterbirth.
Finally, even the total emotional destruction of the guy isn’t enough so he finishes him. Literally.
Up until that very very last part where I typically cringe and go “oooohhhhhh, jeeeeeez” I’m kinda smiling. It might be sort of an evil “Alexander de Large in Clockwork Orange” kind of masochistic grin, I’m not sure. I’m glad it’s dark.
Of course the milkshake stuff and DRAAAAAINAGE stuff is just funny in an off the rails kind of way
Speaking of milkshakes, I’ve said this twice elsewhere, but I’m dead set against the pop-culturification of this wonderful movie. I don’t want it reduced to the level of a catch phrase like “watchoo talkin ’bout, Willis?” or some bullshit like that. I know it’s human nature to want to be a part of some kind of weird club, but I’ve never been much of a joiner. Leave me out.
Nick, it bums me out you’re still getting spammed, but have no fear: it won’t last forever and TWBB will come to South Africa soon….and when it does? Well, I’m a little envious of you still having your first time ahead of you. Very exciting. Small consolation, I know.
Jeff Wells can be more amusing to me when I try to place him in a prior era of cinema. I can see him writing, “Folks, the only way we can ensure that the new breathtaking work of majestical voluminosity, Citizen Kane, is by ensuring that the phrase uttered by the titular character–’Don’t worry about me, Gettys! Don’t worry about me! I’m Charles Foster Kane! I’m no cheap, crooked politician, trying to save himself from the consequences of his crimes! Gettys! I’m going to send you to Sing Sing! Sing Sing, Gettys! Sing Sing!’–enters a commonality and eventually frequency in discourse throughout the land. One should hope for ‘Sing Sing!’ posters, perhaps positioned at dance halls and emblazoned outside on picket fences in residential areas. Once this is accomplished, perhaps a manufacturing of sleds could be made solely to promote the film to folk interested in purchasing sleds for their children. The ‘Rosebud’ sled should become a regular fixture in American life in the coming months so as to assist Mr. Welles in reaching as many people as theoretically possible.”
joel, I think this release schedule has helped the film a good deal in actually creating word of mouth interest in the film, though I can completely understand how frustrating it is to not be able to see the film when you wish you could. sartre and I are probably so spoiled, having seen it so long ago, we should slap our own wrists for being spoiled so terribly rotten.
Serena, I’m so pleased to see you love There Will Be Blood. I think it will become a classic, whether it be now or in the coming years. This is Anderson’s “Big One” in my estimation and will be considered as such, I firmly believe. It and No Country for Old Men, I think, are the only two films to be already ensured their places in “The Pantheon” of great classic films. (Goodness knows There Will Be Others from 2007, but they will all need more time to grow and age.)
I always keep my ticket stubs to all films. I even have those organized, primarily by director. Like my photography teacher and my film teacher, I have many misc. ticket stubs posted on a big board in my room, haha. I want posterity to *know*, haha.
Joel, don’t balme yourself, blame Craig. The guy can’t keep his mouth shut when it comes to film masterpieces.
Yay! Serena loved the film too. Great to read your fascinating and astute thoughts about it. Alexander, Craig, and I were lucky to see it early. But I kinda envy your having just seen it for the first time - reviewing and deconstructing its workings in your head, and feeling an acute and fresh sense of excitement about seeing something special.
Thanks for breaking the final scene between Eli and Daniel down so expertly Craig.
Serena, after seeing the film I thought Paul and Eli were brothers, and my wife thought they were the same person. In the end the ambiguity didn’t matter, and actually works well metaphorically in terms of the exploration of actual, false, and symbolic brotherhood. But the question is answered by the news that Paul Dano was originally cast as Paul, but took over both roles once the first actor playing Eli dropped out.
Alexander, that was a hilarious and smart Citizen Kane/TWbB riff.
I’m ordering my “Rosebud was the Sled” coffee mugs today Alexander. Want one?
Based on the directors you listed in another thread and your stub collection, I’d say you’ve got quite an obsession brewing there. Ya think?
As for Paul/Eli, this problem keeps cropping up. Someone even asked about it at the Q&A with PTA and DDL. For me, I was momentarily confused when Eli Sunday first showed up…and so was Plainview, there was a definite tentative look on his fave….but then I quickly forgot about it and it was never an issue again. Nothing in the plot hinged on whether Paul was Eli or if they were really twins. It’s a non-issue for me.
Yeah, the Eli and Paul thing was ultimately kind of weird and it wasn’t until the credits that I realized there actually were two distinct characters both played by the same actor. It’s the only aspect of the movie I found difficult to swallow and a bit annoying, but it wasn’t that big of a deal so I let it go. It would have been interesting for PTA’s script to leave it more ambiguous at the end but Plainview spells it out pretty clearly that they are two separate entities. Regardless, Dano is excellent in the role(s).
Yes, Craig, I am completely obsessed. I need counseling. I need help. Your website is feeding my obsession, my addiction. :-)
I sincerely think Paul/Eli are two different people. Plainview seems to spell it out completely as you note, joel.
I agree. The only reason my wife favored it as a potential angle was that it would be another way for Daniel to fuck with Eli by taunting him about a brother that only existed in his head. But as we all agree the evidence is fairly clear, and the issue was only ever a sidebar.
Glad to be an enabler Alexander. We’re like a support group encouraging movie addiction rather than trying to stop it.
Alexander, with God’s help you’ll conquer this terrible infliction.
Oops, affliction.
sartre, thank you for your kind words as always.
Yeah, that was the best damn milkshake that I ever drank…
I have to say, in all of my years of active moviegoing (around 10, as I started seeing a lot of films in late adolescence) & awards season follies (approximately 20) I have NEVER had an experience like this.
Seeing Gone With The Wind & Lawrence Of Arabia in cinemas (many times over with the latter) was something I’ll never forget. Those are my two favourites. They were from the time I saw them & they always will be. But by the time I came across them decades had passed & they were all ready beloved classics that had taken their respective honoured places in film history.
Now I certainly have seen movies in my time that have gone on to be important & adored by cineastes or the public at large.
BUT NOT LIKE THIS. TWBB is a towering achievement. This is the very first time that I have witnessed anything that actually lived up to that irredeemable hype. Those comparisons to Citizen Kane, Giant & Days Of Heaven were all true.
IMO Citizen Kane has acquired an inflated reputation over the years. It is a good film that was supremely innovative for the time period. But, seeing as I won’t personally give CK any more than three stars out of five (yeah, I know…but it’s JMO) I think that TWBB is better than CK. It may be better than Days Of Heaven (four stars at least) & it’s easily as good as Giant (which is a five star classic to me).
So now I’m torn. I don’t think that I can support Atonement with the same passion. Though of course I still love it. But here is the sad & frustrating thing about this new shortened awards season. Atonement, as I mentioned in another thread, is a complicated brew. It’s a classic, lush romance. It’s a tearjerker. It’s cerebral. It’s hot. It’s tragic. It’s melancholy & mournful.
People will love Atonement & they will be still be discussing its merits generations from now. Regardless of what awards it does (or does NOT) take home. But in terms of art (even though I’ve only seen TWBB once) I’m beginning to feel that PT’s film is a work of greater significance.
I will have a much better idea when I see it again. But I may have to switch my support. I may have no choice in any regard. Atonement may not make it in. I don’t know what I’ll back if neither of them is in AMPAS’ final five.
But I certainly don’t think nearly enough time has elapsed that awards bodies, film buffs or the general public will comprehend what they’ve got on their hands. TWBB is a profound work of art that will be discussed & dissected endlessly for years to come. So I’m certainly passionate about it getting its due.
Let’s see. Giant lost to Around The World In 80 Days. Isn’t that correct? What a bloody travesty. 2001 wasn’t even nominated & Oliver won that year. (I’m sensing a pattern here…) A Clockwork Orange lost to The French Connection which I find boring & severely lacking on almost every level. The only things that redeem TFC for me are the car chase & Gene Hackman. Gene’s brilliant & one of my favourite actors. But I so wish he had won for something else. He is fine but he’s been much more electric & intriguing many times over in a hundred other movies I could name. Easily.
So it seems (& y’all know this same old song & dance) that the Academy nominates challenging work but often fudges it at the last minute & gives their awards (particularly in the BP category) to the safest choices they can find.
When I see TWBB again I’ll have a better idea. But I’m leaning towards the perspective that TWBB is ground breaking masterpiece territory while Atonement (great in its own way) is just not in the same league.
I’ll just going to sit back & think about this for a while. Eventually I’ll be on the right track…
sartre and Craig, haha, too funny and too true on both accounts.
Serena, I love your enthusiasm for There Will Be Blood so much that I’m going to completely ignore your deigning Citizen Kane three out of five stars. Really?! Oh, wait, I just finished saying I would ignore that… Moving on…
A Clockwork Orange vs. The French Connection. Well, one is more conventionally entertaining and features an outstanding Gene Hackman. A Clockwork Orange is a great film but I don’t think it’s necessarily a travesty to see The French Connection come out on top. It’s miraculous, in a distinctly ’70s way, that A Clockwork Orange was nominated. A case could also be made for The Last Picture Show. Sheesh, that is a brutal line-up right there. Nicholas and Alexandre and Fiddler on the Roof, the Two Russian Films from that year, don’t measure up, do they?
Evidently, come Oscar night, the real race was between The French Connection and Fiddler on the Roof. 1971 was seen by many as a pivotal year in terms of ‘Old Hollywood’ vs. ‘New Hollywood,’ the former represented by Fiddler and Nicholas/Alexandra and the latter being given three avatars in The French Connection, A Clockwork Orange and The Last Picture Show.
It is frequently true that the safest film ends up winning, though. Around the World in 80 Days winning is a good (as in, bad) example of just that.
Serena, I’d give Kane more stars, its classic status is secure, but I see what you’re saying I think. For me, watching it is a technical pleasure…meaning I dig the filmmaking and whatnot…but it never grabs me emotionally.
I had a similar feeling as you with TWBB as well…it felt like I was witnessing greatness as it happened whereas so many other movies I consider great happened before I was old enough to appreciate them.
Exciting times.
Alexander, you deserve a spanking. Maybe you’ll get one sooner than you think…LOL I kid. I kid.
Sorta…
I did state emphatically that it’s my opinion that I only consider CK a three star film. But it would be mine anyway, right? I think Orson was a genius on many artistic levels. (Not just as a director.) Plus he married Rita & she adored him till it went on the rocks. So he must’ve been a swell guy.
But there aren’t many films that I’d personally award classic status to that leave me cold, keep me at an emotional distance & don’t provide me with a desire to ever rewatch them. Technical innovation can only count for so much.
It’s funny. I don’t think I’ve ever come across a straight guy that didn’t have at least a grudging respect (if not an unabashed adoration) of TFC. But it’s not a film that interests me on any level,
This’ll kill you Alexander. I loathe The Last Picture Show with the intensity of a thousand white hot suns. It only resonates with me for one reason: Ellen Burstyn. She’s fabulous. But she is every project that she undertakes.
When I was growing up, TLPS is the first movie I ever saw on late night TV where people actually flipped each other off. When Ellen does that to Clu Gulager’s character she is so furious she can barely contain it. And that wicked little cat fight she has with that other woman is just sublime.
“What do you think you’re doing? Why, I should slap your face.” “Why don’t you just kiss my ass?” But other than that…
Never saw Nicolas & Alexandra. Though some of the songs are nice, Fiddler On The Roof doesn’t do a whole hell of a lot for me.
But I do believe A Clorkwork Orange is brilliant filmmaking on a grand scale. But that’s just me….
Craig, I don’t know how other film buffs of our generation feel (I’m speaking of people that were born in the 70s or close to them) but this really is the first time that I discovered a truly GREAT film that didn’t have a back log of decades of reverence & fantastic reviews.
Seeing as we missed the boat entirely on the golden age of classic Hollywood (30s to the 60s) & some of the grand complicated cinema in the 70s I thought that we were done for good. That there were no more grand challenging pieces out there left.
I couldn’t be any happier to be proven wrong. Craig, you’re always welcome in my lifeboat when it rains….
This is the first year I’ve ever been aware enough to see what are arguably going to be two cinematic masterpieces and was fully aware of what I was getting myself into in the theater. I remember seeing Goodfellas in a theater right after it came out and how mind-blowing that was, but I had no way to properly understand what I had just experienced. It wasn’t until years later that I came to appreciate all the levels on which that movie was working on me.
I’m not saying I haven’t seen any great movies in the theater between now and 1992, but I think you get the level to which I’m elevating TWBB and No Country in my mind.
But getting to Craig’s comments on Citizen Kane, he and I have discussed this issue many times before. I think it’s near impossible to appreciate just how radical and mind-blowing that movie was for audiences when it orignally came out and since then, it’s been borrowed from, paid homage to, ripped off, and hyped for decades. How can you watch any movie that has been picked so clean and not be somewhat emotionally divested from it as an adult? I’m not saying it’s impossible to fully enjoy the classics once they’ve become the “classics,” but it’s got to augment your ability to honestly appreciate them in some meaningful way.
And so for me, No Country is at the top of my list for 2007 partly because I think overall, it was the better film but also because I went into it with little or no hype hanging over me. I’ve had 3 fucking months of listening to everyone hype TWBB and honestly, it worked against the movie a little bit. Sure, Blood deserves all the acco