directed by Paul Thomas Anderson
screenplay by Paul Thomas Anderson
novel by Upton Sinclair
USA 2007
Rather than stick to the usual Daniel Day-Lewis program of: 1) point camera, 2) record every sound out of his mouth, and 3) sit back and watch, P.T. Anderson has once again proven his considerable directorial skill by harnessing the presence of this master of method-acting into just another tool in his sizeable kit. The opening shot explicitly demonstrates Anderson's control over the turn-of-the-century world he creates, blasting discordant sounds that resemble music over a rugged landscape. It's an old move (like one of my favorites, Peter Weir's Picnic at Hanging Rock), but like all of Anderson's moves, he executes it with such taste and discretion so as to nicely garnish his storytelling. Very soon after, Daniel's body lies at the bottom of the well-shaft, the crude itself glistening in what little light filters in, an omen of riches to come. For a second, there's no plot or narrative content as the gems of oily reflected light dance around, and the crude oil itself is the scene-stealer, a reminder that even the great Daniel Day-Lewis/ Daniel Plainview, both actor and character, despite such power and resilience, are but a drop in a barrel in this world. Anderson proceeds to out-frame, under-light, and exert countless other subtle strategies toward his leading man in order to further embed him in the picture.
Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood punctuates the film nicely with an interesting take on a jazz fusion/modern chamber music score. The horns and sax reminisce the best bits of Punch Drunk Love, though the violin often seems heavy-handed.
The theme is slightly confusing when the film takes its departure from the spirit of Upton Sinclair, on whose story the screenplay is based. Where Sinclair was an unrelenting, trust-busting social activist, P.T. Anderson is an entertainer. Daniel Plainview's story, quite deliberately, is not representative of the oil industry, an industry that today earns record-setting profits and has absolute dominance over the entirety of human society. When Plainview refuses Standard Oil's million-dollar offer, he becomes something other than this industry. His snide quips about Standard owning the railroads is Anderson's sliver of social commentary, perhaps dividing the world of capitalism into Old money vs. New money, and illuminating a fringe element of humanity therein. The titular blood is spilled by a capitalist renegade, a new-money man, and a fierce competitor, not by the old-money establishment. What's left after the blood is clear is just another well-told character piece, pulling its punches at some truly great opportunities to break into the dirty mind of state-sponsored capitalism.
4 comments:
Some very interesting points, but I think there are some things going that are far greater that a mere character study. I think the grandest and most provocative statement the film makes, is that in America, commerce will always dominate religion. In fact, commerce, capitalism, greed, and ambition, these things are the true religion of America. It's also pretty provocative , not only to tell a story about an 'oil man' setting up shop in a community of religious zealots, but the mere visualization of the mingling of oil and blood. I was actually thankful that Anderson stayed away from a heavy handed commentary on today’s politics. As a character study, I think 'There Will be Blood' is among the best ever created, hearkening back to masterpieces like 'Citizen Kane' and 'Barry Lyndon.' And speaking of Stanley Kubrick, this film reminded of two unlikely films. The procedural depiction of far off technologies reminded me of Kubrick's 2001, though that looked into the future rather than the past. But both were about the evolution of man, whether biologically or technologically. It even reminded of 'The Shining.' A lead character who makes you fear for everyone around him, not to mention the dissonant music. I think you were right-on about Lewis's performance. It's so good, Anderson could have easily made it a one dimensional performance piece, and I for one would have been enthralled. But instead, he used Lewis's revelatory skill to make an astonishing film about a man slowly extricating himself from humanity, and extricating humanity from himself. I'm 25 years old, and this might be the best film I have ever had the pleasure of seeing on the big screen.
-Film Buzz Luke
I loved this movie.
YOU'RE JUST A BABY IN A BOX!!!
I've since had the opportunity to revisit TWBB. Plainview is a textbook sociopath, and while he doesn't intentionally extricate himself from humanity, his familiar abusive tendencies effect the same result. But yes, I'd say it's interesting. Jack Torrance, on the other hand, exhibits an unrecognizable abnormality that truly astonishes. I think you're hitting the idea of allegory right on the head, though. While it's easy to call it a character study (because aren't the vast majority of films character studies?), I think it's more interesting as a study of the many characters that Plainview represents. Jack was an everyman gone mad, while Daniel is still of rational mind. There are obvious thematic gems here, but what's the most interesting, for me, is the allegory, especially as it relates to the proposed sociopath in all of us.
and Sean... Right on, man.
Post a Comment