There Will Be Blood (2007)

Written by James on February 15, 2008 – 11:33 am -

thumb_Blood There Will Be Blood (2007)Black gold, black hearts, bloody masterpiece

At the risk of being unbearably smug, reviewing films for a living can be an absolutely wonderful occupation - and 2008 would appear to be shaping up into one of the best years for flicks in living memory.

The latest proof of that particular pudding? Paul Thomas Anderson, who has previously given the world Punch-Drunk Love (2002), Magnolia (1999) and Boogie Nights (1997), has outdone himself with his adaptation of the Upton Sinclair novel Oil! and, in Daniel Day-Lewis as the morally ambiguous, Machiavellian early US oil baron, Daniel Plainview, the medium itself has been elevated.

It’s that simple. You could count on one hand the performances from more than a hundred years of cinema that deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Day-Lewis’s astounding take - Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), John Huston in Chinatown (1974), De Niro in Raging Bull (1980) - he’s just that good. A quick aside - if ‘Dan the Man’ doesn’t lift the Oscar statuette on 24 February, the Academy might want to think about judging art forms about which it knows ANYTHING AT ALL.

Still with me at the back? We were talking about There Will Be Blood, weren’t we? Good, (and please note that you heard it here first) because it will win Best Film and Best Director, too. The gong for the screenplay (by Anderson) may very well go its way as well; in fact, in this reviewer’s ‘umble opinion, it is only the absence of a solid female role (which is no criticism - it’s all about men, anyway) that will prevent TWBB from taking the ‘Big Five’, a feat only previously accomplished by three films - It Happened One Night (1934), One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975) and The Silence of the Lambs (1991).

Anyway, this epic, reminiscent of Sergio Leone’s Once Upon A Time In The West (1968) in its sweep and audacity, opens in 1898, with Daniel Plainview working his unforgiving silver mine in the New Mexico wilderness. When he breaks his leg after finally finding some silver ore, he drags himself to town and hires a crew, including a man caring for an infant son. By chance, Plainview discovers oil in the same mine, but the boy’s father dies in a drilling accident. Renaming him H.W, Planview adopts the young boy as his own. Nine years later: Plainview is a charismatic and modestly successful oil man with several productive wells around New Mexico and, with H.W. (Dillon Freasier), travelling the state, buying drilling rights. But his life is about to change forever - a visit from young Paul Sunday (Paul Dano) leads Plainview to the town of Little Boston, California, and ‘an ocean of oil’. But there’s a caveat - Paul’s twin brother Eli (also played by Dano) is a constant irritant to Plainview; he’s the preacher/’faith healer’ who tends to the flock at the Church of the Third Revelation. The $10,000 that the oil man agrees to pay for drilling rights is to go towards a new building for the congregation - in this pact, a blood tie has been forged between Daniel and Eli…they just don’t know it yet.

From the moment Day-Lewis opens his mouth (which takes a while - Anderson is courageous enough not to have any dialogue, save ‘There she is’, for nearly 20 minutes), you just know you’re in for a joy. Nailing the silken tones of a turn-of-the-century American gentleman without the hint of a brogue, the actor goes on to reveal, with no mis-step whatsoever, a man with a mask that covers his misanthropy. It’s slipping more and more as his success grows (’I see the worst in people. I don’t need to look past seeing them to get all I need. I’ve built my hatreds up over the years, little by little…I can’t keep doing this on my own with these…people’) yet Day-Lewis’s characterization nevertheless retains viewer sympathy because of the ‘moral’ (if you can call it that) battle that he conducts with the venal, utterly corrupt ‘man of faith’, Eli - a terrific counterpoint turn from Dano.

And it is in this confrontation, between two men who know themselves to be damned, that the film draws its supreme power, culminating in a denouement that is easily among the finest finishes ever committed to celluloid. Day-Lewis doesn’t merely chew the scenery - he swallows it whole. ‘Did you think your song and dance and your superstition would help you, Eli? I AM THE THIRD REVELATION! I AM WHO THE LORD HAS CHOSEN!’

Oh yes, there will be blood. You better believe it - and your life will be poorer if you don’t see this incredible dance of death.

158 mins.

Share or bookmark this post:
  • Digg
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • blogmarks There Will Be Blood (2007)
  • BlogMemes
  • co.mments There Will Be Blood (2007)
  • De.lirio.us
  • e-mail
  • Fark
  • Furl
  • Live
  • Ma.gnolia
  • NewsVine
  • Propeller
  • RawSugar
  • Reddit
  • Simpy
  • Slashdot
  • SphereIt
  • Spurl
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Pownce

Tags: , , , , , , ,
Posted in US, history |

6 Comments to “There Will Be Blood (2007)”

  1. chris Says:

    SPOILERS!

    TWBB was magnificently oil and sweat drenched and so on…

    …but, was it just me or did it fall apart a bit two thirds in?

    Why - for example - did Plainview kill his ‘brother’? There was nothing to suggest he was a particularly violent man. Why does his ’son’ burn down the sleeping quarters? It felt to me as though there was a big gap in the development of character?

    It was like … Oh! right! He’s murderous! and Oh? OK! He hates his adopted son.

    As a parable about the unholy alliance between evangelicalism and oil money on the US political right it was genius, but on other levels it didn’t seem to work so well.

    I’ll just get my coat and leave…

    ;-)

  2. James Says:

    SPOILERS!!!
    Hi Chris,

    “Why - for example - did Plainview kill his ‘brother’? There was nothing to suggest he was a particularly violent man. Why does his ’son’ burn down the sleeping quarters? It felt to me as though there was a big gap in the development of character?”

    In answer to your first question, I believe that there actually was a lot to suggest, from an early stage, that Plainview was tormented by his misanthropy - he freely admits the same to his ‘brother’, trusting him, if you like with an insight into that side of his soul, then when he finds out he’s a charlatan, the betrayal (that his ‘brother’ is just another one of ‘these…people’) is too much for him to bear and he turns to murder. His second killing in the film, however, is not so much based on misanthropy but is rather a vindication of his self-hatred and hatred for Eli.

    As far as H.W’s action’s go, I think it’s because (being a smart kid) he’s put two and two together after reading Henry’s diary (which of course was actually Plainview’s brother’s journal). Note how he leads the oil that he lights in the direction of Henry’s bed? A touch vague, I’ll admit, but I think I’m on the money. Furthermore, I think that HW was jealous of his place at Plainview’s side being usurped by the arrival of Henry.

  3. chris Says:

    I think your explanations are probably right about There Will Be Blood. Still, I think that the development was fairly sketchy. That Plainview is a tortured man - for me - only becomes really clear in the speech with his ‘brother’. Until that point he just appeared to me to be ambitious - perhaps even ruthlessly ambitious - but (especially in counterpoint to Eli) not particularly tortured. So, the progression from not trusting the brother, to trusting him, to betrayal and then murder happened a little bit too quick - almost as though you work out how far he has trusted the imposter only after he murders him.

    Which is just to say that I think TWBB’s aesthetic was biased towards visual and aural texture more than narrative clarity. I think its a film that fits together on the way home from the cinema - which is maybe a good thing.

  4. Daphne Wayne-Bough Says:

    I don’t do this very often but…I left before the end. I hated this film. None of the characters was sympathetic and after about an hour and a half I couldn’t care less what happened to them. The soundtrack music (which verged on the Stockhausen on occasion) was running over the top of the dialogue and stopped me from falling asleep. I agree DDL’s acting was excellent, but one sympathetic character might have saved it.

  5. James Says:

    Hi Daphne,

    Thanks for your thoughts - sorry to hear that the characterizations left you cold. In all fairness, it really was not, in my opinion, Paul Thomas Anderson’s intention to have anything good to say about anyone, so none of the characters being sympathetic is to my mind a confirmation of the director’s intent, rather than a narrative failing. However, I do know where you’re coming from - a rather invidious comparison, but remember the 1990s BBC series This Life that everyone raved about? I loathed it, because EVERY character was a whining, irritating, selfish shit. The worst of human nature, then, presented for our entertainment?

  6. James Says:

    And finally, for those who are interested, a superb reading of There Will Be Blood on the Named Tomorrow blog…

Leave a Comment