I've seen Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood" twice now, and both times I have to say I was both awed and frustrated by it. On the one hand, the oil-black darkness of its plot and themes is breathtakingly grim; the story's novelty is a virtue in itself. The dramatic peaks are stupendous: I hope the baptism scene will attain iconic status, as it is darkly funny, cathartic and deeply disturbing at the same time. The cinematography excels as Daniel has pointed out, with panoramic views of desolate landscape evoking dread and wonder. Most of all, Daniel Day Lewis's performance as oil prospector Daniel Plainview is of the very first order, more a demonic possession than a thespian feat.
Yet the film fails to say anything really exciting or interesting about its two main motifs, capitalism and religion. I was really anticipating something meaty about the latter especially, and I felt Anderson grasping for it during Eli Sunday's sermon; there was something there about religion as entertainment. But Eli Sunday is a charlatan through and through, and to explore religion would require some time devoted to the town of Little Boston. "Blood" is pretty much single-mindedly focused on Plainview, so that's not in the cards. Capitalism is a better-drawn theme; Anderson manages to convey the excitement and terror of America's driving force. But again, since Plainview looms so large, there is little time to explore the wider implications.
I also thought the film's last act doesn't support its dramatic weight; it's short and abrupt, yet we're supposed to get a lot out of it. There should be more about Plainview after he's struck it rich and settled in his mansion. Plainview's conversation with his son, which leads to their estrangement, could have been anticipated given earlier scenes, but Plainview's bitterness still feels a little disconnected from the rest of what we've seen of his feelings about his son. Plainview's confrontation with Eli Sunday, however, is another high point, something to which the whole film has been building. Which is basically how I feel about the film as a whole: There are a few great peaks, but the buildup is unnecessarily slow and disjointed.
"There Will Be Blood" is not a masterpiece. It is a thin garment drapped over Daniel Day Lewis's sinewy shoulders. But what shoulders! Lewis's performance is a once-in-a-decade event; it may even be one of the best turns in movie history. His dogged, monstrous and tender Plainview transcends the themes of the film; he's in that pantheon of tragic figures that includes Oedipus and King Lear.
So is it worth seeing "There Will Be Blood?" Without a fucking doubt. But it's better to see it as a superlative character study than a compelling allegory.
Yet the film fails to say anything really exciting or interesting about its two main motifs, capitalism and religion. I was really anticipating something meaty about the latter especially, and I felt Anderson grasping for it during Eli Sunday's sermon; there was something there about religion as entertainment. But Eli Sunday is a charlatan through and through, and to explore religion would require some time devoted to the town of Little Boston. "Blood" is pretty much single-mindedly focused on Plainview, so that's not in the cards. Capitalism is a better-drawn theme; Anderson manages to convey the excitement and terror of America's driving force. But again, since Plainview looms so large, there is little time to explore the wider implications.
I also thought the film's last act doesn't support its dramatic weight; it's short and abrupt, yet we're supposed to get a lot out of it. There should be more about Plainview after he's struck it rich and settled in his mansion. Plainview's conversation with his son, which leads to their estrangement, could have been anticipated given earlier scenes, but Plainview's bitterness still feels a little disconnected from the rest of what we've seen of his feelings about his son. Plainview's confrontation with Eli Sunday, however, is another high point, something to which the whole film has been building. Which is basically how I feel about the film as a whole: There are a few great peaks, but the buildup is unnecessarily slow and disjointed.
"There Will Be Blood" is not a masterpiece. It is a thin garment drapped over Daniel Day Lewis's sinewy shoulders. But what shoulders! Lewis's performance is a once-in-a-decade event; it may even be one of the best turns in movie history. His dogged, monstrous and tender Plainview transcends the themes of the film; he's in that pantheon of tragic figures that includes Oedipus and King Lear.
So is it worth seeing "There Will Be Blood?" Without a fucking doubt. But it's better to see it as a superlative character study than a compelling allegory.
8 comments:
Even though I think the film deals with big ideas, I don't think that Anderson is necessarily grasping for a statement about either of them. What I think is interesting about Blood is takes very classic models with Eli and Plainview. To a degree, it explores religion and capitalism as showmanship and entertainment and does toch on, like you said, these issues. However, I think where the film really becomes Anderson's and not just a John Huston or an Orson Welle's film is as we near the ending. Normally, in stories like this, a very clear arc of the descent into corruption or the tragic fall is drawn. In There Will Be Blood, Anderson lays all the ground work for that with his very present directoral hand, but then doesn't deliver on it. In a way, it's a bit like what No Country for Old Men does. It essentially creates the ingredients for a very classic explosive ending but then doesn't deliver it. Instead, Blood gradually goes a little more off the beaten path and into the realm of absurdity. We start to see this as soon as Daniel sends H.W. away to school. We see it in the baptism scene. "Give me the blood," no longer becomes a dramatic scream but Plainview eventually begins to laugh about it. We see it when he places the napkin over his head while lecturing his son about the deal with Union Oil. While I can understand perhaps the issues with the third act not tying up the whole, I think this ultimately serves the film. It's certainly not a neat ending, nor does it give the audience the kind of catharsis or satisfying drama that we'd expect after such a stylized cinematic build-up. Instead, it is, simply, ridiculous. I mean the whole scene is a comic joke. Is it even real? That's the big question, and I'm suprised that's not a bigger debate. I mean Plainview is moving around like Quasi Modo, talking of milkshakes, and bludgeoning Eli with a bowling pin. I mean this isn't tragedy or high drama, this is absurdist comedy.
When I talked about the last act, I was mostly speaking of the scene with his son. As I said, I think the final confrontation is actually a high point of the film.
Anderson doesn't sacrifice coherence in his other films, so I don't think it's part of his style to make a kind of leap from one time to another and expect us to understand the descent into madness. Witness how he portrayed Mark Wahlberg's descent in "Boogie Nights".
I think Anderson clearly *wants* to say something about these issues, which is why I disagree that his failure to do so is unimportant. He devotes too many lines to religion, for instance, for him to be relatively uninterested in religious questions as a whole or the role of religion. I don't want a statement in the form of some didactic pronouncement, I want an exploration. And there really isn't any. NCOM, actually, in playing with the form of the thriller, brings up a lot of interesting questions as well.
It is true that Anderson's darkly comic sensibility, which comes out perhaps most fully in the baptism scene, makes the film uniquely unsettling.
I also don't think the last scene is strictly farce, however. The two men are locked into a kind of violent confrontation from very early on; Plainview's "oil baptism" of Sunday, which of course prefigures Plainview's own baptism, is a harbinger of things to come. While it is mad, it is also to some degree logical.Which shows how mad the film is, I suppose.
I don't know if it's an exploration of capitalism vs. religion because wasn't Eli's church founded on greed?
Who said religion is pure?
Isn't that kind of the idea though?
Yes...it is. My point is that religion is invoked, whether corrupt or no, but not really developed.
Post a Comment