The Article You're Reading Right Now

There Will Be Blood: it got here the same way the coin did.

By Burbanked on Feb 12, 2008 in Movies, Views and Reviews | 813 views |

SWM: looks at people, sees nothing worth liking About two weeks ago, I was preparing to head out to the movies, and to help me choose my best bet for a presumptive award-winning movie, I asked for your help. You told me to go see There Will Be Blood, and I did exactly as you asked.

Part of my disadvantage of seeing movies 1) far after their “limited release” dates and 2) far after most other film-loving people on the planet, is that by the time I’ve seen them, far greater writers with a stronger dedication to the cinema-reviewing crafts have already said about all there is to say. The bloguverse is well-filled with thought pieces on the amazing work of Daniel Day-Lewis as TWBB’s misanthropic madman Daniel Plainview; many have written at length about the movie’s discordant soundtrack, its stunning cinematography, its insane final scene. So to a large degree it’s hard for me to add anything at this point.

But the thing I can tell you - that only I can tell you - is how spectacular I believe this film to be.

I am never so in love with movies as when I see something that takes the traditional conventions of movie-making and just destroys them into so much cinematic debris. When a filmmaker is able to craft a story around someone as horrific, as detestable and rotten as Plainview, yet can do so in such a way that we as the audience aren’t spoon-fed the reasons behind the character’s psyche; that we don’t see their story unfold in the standard and familiar “character arc” way; that there is no redemption - and indeed, none is possible - for such a character; when a filmmaker can accomplish all of this and more, it truly feels as though we’re witnessing cinematic art.

And it is no small feat that films crafted in this way are allowed to happen, with such care and attention and passion and imagination. Even as Michael Bay continues to blow stuff up all pretty, and as long as crap parodies like Meet the Spartans stay in the black on someone’s balance sheet, and while remakes and pointless sequels and clichéd romances will continue to be the norm, fate and art demand that movies like TWBB be forced into existence.

I haven’t even mentioned yet the astounding achievement of craft that a movie like TWBB represents. It’s the kind of film that reminds me of what an epic-sized country this can be; that such wide, expansive vistas still exist where filmmakers can recreate historical time and place of both sweeping beauty and abject loneliness. I simply love the dirt and grit and texture of this movie, from its rough-hewn wooden oil derricks to the years-old sweat stain of Plainview’s omnipresent hat to the scraggy weariness etched on the ruddy faces of everyone we see. The level of detail in this film is simply amazing, and represents the kind of whole-cinema experience that we desperately need more of in the multiplex. There Will Be Blood is a tonic for the mundane, a refreshing splash of innovation, slapped right in the face. Movies like this are - and should be - rare; they should throw us off, surprise and confuse us and demand that we deal with them.

you will not get anywhere near his milkshake What a fascination it is that TWBB has gained such notoriety in the same cinematic year as No Country For Old Men, which is another strong, black-as-night film, filled with characters one would never want to meet, let alone sympathize with over the course of a story - and yet we do. As appalling as Plainview and Chigurh are, they still fascinate; we are drawn to them and want to think that there may be some humanity, or logic, or reasoning behind such behavior. And, like TWBB, NCFOM also pretty much grabs your expectations and has its way with them. Both of these excellent, transcendent films are staying with me in a big way. I feel like their characters speak to the darkest parts inside us, force us to wonder how and if such people exist in the world, and what it means when we realize that they certainly do exist. And where should we fit into such a world? Aren’t most of us so much like Sheriff Ed Tom Bell and maybe young H.W. Plainview: that all we can do is bear witness to the monstrosities that life can bring and hopefully - maybe - escape these horrors with our souls intact?

Again, this is the way films should impact us. I’ve seen far too many films that I believed were great when I was watching them, but which did not - and couldn’t possibly - stand up in my mind and heart over time. When contemplating Oscar-winning movies that did not deserve their prizes, it’s easy to find critics who suggest Titanic or Gladiator as prime examples, but for me there’s one one true and obvious test of such films. I loved Titanic, enjoyed the hell out of every on-the-nose moment of it. I became hopelessly enthralled by its silly dialogue, groundbreaking special effects and epic scale.

And I’ve never watched it again since, not once. After viewing There Will Be Blood and No Country For Old Men, I wanted to turn right back around and head into the theater again. It’s weeks and months later for these two films, and I feel even more compelled to see them again. I feel certain that they’ll improve with further viewings, that they’ll deepen and clarify and settle in even more soundly.

Trackback URL

12 Comments so far

Nayana Anthony | Feb 12, 2008 | Reply

Thank you!!!! I was a huge fan of both of these movies. A lot of people are dissing TWBB as boring… long… weird… whatever. I thought it was fantastic. But as a Minnesota girl, I have to give it up for the Coen brothers. No Country was by far my favorite movie of the year.
Piper | Feb 12, 2008 | Reply

I’m seeing this on Thursday. Can’t wait. Hope I love it as much as you.

I will be back to this post when I have thoughts formulated.
Burbanked | Feb 12, 2008 | Reply

Terrific, Piper! I really think you’ll -

- wait a second. You’re seeing this on Valentine’s Day? You know, that holiday created for the ladies?

You intend to stay married, right?

I’m not saying your wife will hate it - there’s no tangible reason she would or should - but this movie’s blackness is brutal! It’s not exactly huggy-smoochy material and there’s approximately one female speaking part in the whole movie.
Liz | Feb 13, 2008 | Reply

STILL haven’t seen this one. I truly intend to, really, and this review has definitely swayed me. Luckily my local theater is re-running Oscar nominees, so I might actually get a chance before the DVD comes out.

And I see nothing wrong with checking out a great film on a day that happens to be Valentine’s. Any good woman should enjoy it just the same.
cjKennedy | Feb 13, 2008 | Reply

Though I’ve just about run out of things to say regarding TWBB and NCfOM, I never get tired of hearing another’s fresh enthusiasm for them.

They’re easily my two favorite films of the year, though I somewhat arbitrarily annointed the Coen film as THE best. Truly I’d prefer not to have to pick one.

As for rewatching movies, I usually don’t very often, especially not in theaters. I’ll catch them from time to time, but it’s a rare movie I’m inspired to turn around and buy another ticket for. All told, I’ve seen these two films 4 times each and they’ve delivered every single time. Not only that, I feel ready to see them again already.
MC | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply

It is a shame that a single line of dialogue involving milkshakes is being bandied about to joke about this movie.
Megan | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply

“we don’t see their story unfold in the standard and familiar “character arc” way”

Yep. LOVE that these films give the audience room to move. We all had to go have coffee & conversation after we saw them. (Some of us put whiskey in our coffee, o’ course…)
Burbanked | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply

MC: A shame, really? I think it can only help the movie, maybe open it up to those who might not have sought it out, if the joke earns a small measure of pop culture relevance or catchy appeal. The milkshake line is at the very height of the character’s mania, his degradation into alcoholism and madness; the moment in the movie is, I think, filled with dark humor and desperation. One laughs at it because it’s so bizarre and uncomfortable - yet still somehow compelling.
Piper | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply

Burbanked,

Vals day is also the B-Day so yes it’s creepy and weird that I attended the 8 o’clock showing of There Will Be Blood last night… by myself.

And damn, I have to say that your wonderful review is making me rethink it a bit.

First, the prize goes to PT Anderson who I believe to be a young Francis Ford Copolla full an unbelievable level of arrogance and passion and self-destruction. This movie is way movies used to be made. And while No Country is good, it’s low-hanging fruit in my opinion for the Coens. I mean really, look at the story then look at the Coens track record and tell me that it’s not going to be wonderful.

PT on the other hand is ambitious as hell. I’m still in awe that he was able to make Boogie Nights and do it so well considering he was in his late 20s when he did it.

You’re right about all that you said and until the 3rd act I was right with you on everything. But once it moves to 1927 and we see Plainview in the house the movie falls apart for me. Lewis becomes so over the top, such a charicature of himself that I couldn’t put the movie together.

So all in all, not a complete movie for me but a success nonetheless for PT has made a movie like they haven’t for a long long time.
Burbanked | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply

GREAT comparison to Coppola, Piper, and let’s just hope that PTA retains that fire and passion for a lot longer and more extensive filmography than Coppola has created.

Also true about NCFOM, because those Coens just LOVE their “simple crime gone horribly awry” sub-genre. Even still, for them this one is turned up to 11.

I understand what you and others have said about the third act (and HE knows who I mean), but I just don’t agree. I think that the movie shows a natural progression of madness and alcoholism - as it applies to Daniel. Earlier he had told his “brother” that he just wanted to have enough money to get away from everyone, all of the people he hated, but ultimately that’s as much a lie as anything. He is a character who absolutely CAN’T be happy, regardless of his success or wealth or dominance or any of the things he believes are important. That entire last sequence, in which everything but his wealth is stripped away, proves how wrong his philosophy is. Even H.W. - who has no earthly reason to be kind to Daniel - reaches out to him, only to be rejected for no sound reason other than it’s Daniel’s wish to do so. What PTA has created here is VERY extreme, VERY off-putting, but I don’t think of it as a caricature. It’s more cautionary, more horrified than that. This movie does what few try to do anymore: it EARNS this ending. It’s extreme to be sure, but the outrageous way that Daniel ends up expressing himself is, I think, the only way that such a person who has lived to such extremes of fury and misanthropy would come to act.

And then there’s the booze, of course.

And Daniel’s final line - while, on the surface, might come across as a pun or jokey, silly moment - is also the most extreme way that he can express himself. This is a guy who is NEVER finished, who simply can’t stop this descent into hell that he’s created.
Sr. Irene | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply

Happy Birthday, Piper!