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.
