Let me pre-empt my Monday Movie Madness 2nd entry by saying that, as you may have realized, I'm not skilled in the art of movie reviews. So unless you're planning on seeing any of the movies that I review on this here blog, I would be wary reading the rest of my entry, since I may unwittingly give some of the plot away.
With that in mind, onward!
There Will be Blood was a BIG movie, with big ideas, about America's most important commodity, and yet, I left the movie theater with that feeling you get after gorging on sushi - you know, 2 hours and 45 minutes later you're hungry again. Put more succinctly, I was dissatisfied. And frankly, I was surprised that this movie came so highly recommended by many a person, one of which stated that it was "Shakespearian".
1) This movie could have easily been wrapped up in 90 minutes without losing any significant value. It was simply too unmemorable to be this long. And when there are a plethora of scenes that I visually can't recall, I get the feeling that they were simply fluff and filler. Out of curiosity, I looked up the director and I saw that this Anderson was the man behind Boogie Nights, which I loved, Magnolia, which I loathed, and Punch Drunk Love, which was so-so, and ALL of which were TOO long. So, I guess that explains that.
2) Maybe I've been jaded by the Bush/Cheney years, but Daniel Plainview isn't such a spectacular villain, especially when viewed in the historical time line of the United States. In fact, Anderson paints this man like he's just a regular Joe trying to make a buck. Yes, Plainview is unscrupulous and has little regard for humanity, but he's not exceptional to any other businessman. But maybe Anderson wanted to show the banality of capitalism? In which case he did a great job. But if this was Anderson's attempt to demonize early capitalism, then he'll have to try harder.
And a note to Anderson: if the latter is the case, it shouldn't be worth 2hrs and 45 mins of hard work. Especially when you're talking about capitalism in this great country, where Manifest Destiny and the Protestant Ethic form the most perfect union of exploitative prosperity. Frankly I've been more distraught after reading an Upton Sinclair novel.
However, maybe this isn't Anderson's message. Maybe this is me wanting Anderson to show capitalism for the evil agent that it often is. None the less, even if this is my subjective interpretation, the fact that Plainview ends up an emotionally destitute alcoholic is trite. I mean, a man who was a laborer, actively sought to expand his empire, and in the end built an immense fortune, does not tumble into life of inebriated disarray. No, this man breeds and bequeaths his fortune to his progeny; invigorating his empire and taking over the world!
3) Speaking of trite, its so timely and Hollywood to show religion as the ignorant and vulnerable masses who get exploited by big business. Its as if Anderson read Marx and thought, "well I can make a movie like this about the oil industry". Except this is the US, and we are not, and never were, a secularized country where religion is just the opium of the masses. Oh no, religion is our big business. And, as I stated before, in the US you can't have capitalism without religion. So chances are, if there ever was a Plainview, he was probably a religious man.
4) That whole Paul/ Eli Sunday ordeal was confusing. For a while I thought Eli and Paul were the same person. And almost as if Anderson had read my mind, he threw in that scene where Eli attacks his father at the dinner table, which rather than clarifying anything, further confused me.
5) Big ups to the scoring of this movie. I'm almost inclined to say that without the soundtrack this movie would have been disastrous. I loved how eerie and ominous it was.
6) Just a comment on my colleague who said this movie was Shakespearian - it's not. Shakespeare would never leave a message to be parsed. S/He'd have nailed that message in a coffin and buried it to rest.
Here's the thing about reviewing movies - when I left There Will be Blood I thought, "that was ok". But now that I've fully internalized what I viewed I realize that this movie is sub-par. There Will be Blood deserves a 6.5.
3 comments:
it just so happens that There Will be Blood is loosely based on an Upton Sinclair novel called 'Oil'.
finally got to see the infamous There Will Be Blood... Daniel-Day Lewis' performance was top-notch. He takes well to the overbearing, violent father-figure role -- he also did this in Gangs of New York.
SPOILERS
This is an old review, but since I didn't know about this blog until today, Veronica (thanks for eventually letting me know - sigh) I need to chime in.
I really enjoyed this film, but like the last two or three P.T. Anderson films, it is flawed.
You are right it is too long, but that's only because Act 3 doesn't deliver the goods. That third act belongs in a 110-minute (average length) film, and the unconvincing jump forward in time kind of kills the momentum of the first two Acts, which take place two decades earlier.
I've never read the Upton Sinclair source material, because, well, I'm not a book reader. I don't enjoy novels. I'm a little curious if the novel "Oil!", on which this film is based, jumps the same way.
And why didn't they age Paul Dano just a weeeee little bit? And why didn't we SEE the twin brother again? Why does Daniel TELL us about it? That's a major no-no in filmic storytelling.
That's why "No Country for Old Men" holds the edge for me in terms of Best Picture for 2007. Story structure is the frame on which you build the house, and TWBB's frame is missing a few joists (like me!)
And, for the record, Veronica, Daniel Plainview is the HERO of the film, not the villain. He is John Galt and Howard Roarke, but in the real world.
In both Plainview and No Country's Anton Chigurh, I found cinematic characters who embody the feelings I have about the world and its inhabitants, but would never share with those around me, for fear of them running away.
God, how I wanted to smash Paul Dano's head in my damn self. When it finally comes to pass, I was bummed that it wasn't handled as deftly as the rest of the film. I have no sympathy for believers, given all the damage they've done to the world. That's for a whole other post!
Anyway, hope you see this buried comment on this year-old posting, Veronica. Thanks for inviting me to your blog!
Post a Comment