THERE WILL BE BLOOD (2007) ****
rated R (for some violence)
2 hrs. 38 min
written by: Paul Thomas Anderson (based on the novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair)
produced by: Paul Thomas Anderson & Scott Rudin
directed by: Paul Thomas Anderson
Here's another film that has remained with me a week after viewing and that's why it made it on my Top Ten Films of 2007 list. I saw it because I have never seen a movie starring Daniel Day-Lewis where I wasn't absolutely mesmerized by his performance. This film only supported that statement, the man is an amazing actor and this movie is a quite an experience. It definitely supports the fact that oil and religion don't mix, not today and certainly not in the desolate Northern California landscape of the late 1800's. That's right, the film is about oil and greed and religion and deception. It's a dirty movie where you will feel the grime and dust cake your skin in your seat, you feel the heat just as much as the characters on screen do.
This is a film that demands your undivided attention and does so easily from the beginning. Writer & Director Paul Thomas Anderson starts off with unprecedented form by not giving any dialogue for about the first 15-30 minutes. That's right, no one utters a word but the film still manages to speak volumes on many levels. We're shown a barren desert landscape somewhere in California with the swelling sounds of orchestral strings accompanying the sharp bite of a tool striking the earth. The man is Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) and he is indeed meticulously chipping away at a wall deep down a man-made well, searching for his fortune. He mines for silver alone, an independent man with no need of assistance let alone words. He has no one to turn to when calamity strikes, and yet he has the will to overcome that calamity in order to stake his claim.
In an unprecedented move, Anderson only uses music amid the sounds of a birthing industry for this opening scene and that's what hooks you in. I sat there finding myself riveted as I'm sure others were in the quiet theatre. I was forced to pay attention, almost as if right from the start viewers are asked to make the decision to become thoroughly invested. Very soon, we see that Plainview is not your average turn-of-the-century entrepreneur who pulled himself up by his bootstraps. No, this is a man consumed by himself, who surrounds himself by those who would believe in him. Yet we see right through the charismatic salesman. Plainview doesn't care about anyone, he even flat out says later on that he often finds himself despising other people.
Years later, Plainview has his hands in multiple wells which has made him a rich man. He travels around speaking to townspeople living in prospective lands with a prop, an adopted a son named H.W. (first-timer Dillion Freasier), who was orphaned as a baby when a collapsing rig killed his father. That may seem like a compassionate act by Plainview but like anything else, we find he has his ulterior motives. H.W. is unaware that Plainview isn't his real pappy, and Plainview exploits his mini-me so he can call his enterprise a family business. This behavior is dealt with eventually as is many other of Plainviews unrepentant ways. We see that a man cannot repent until he actually sees the need to.
The film does play like a work of classic literature in ways I can't really describe, it just has an epic scope. Like any such work, there is an antagonist and what's interesting is that a reader (or viewer) is usually already rooting for a respectable protagonist but not in this film. One night, a mysterious young man named Paul (Paul Dano) appears and tells Plainview he knows where there are untapped oil reserves. He tells Plainview that for $500, he will disclose the location of his family's ranch. Of course, Plainview is soon on the scene and trying to cheat the old farmer (David Willis) out of his property under the guise of wanting a quiet place to hunt quail. The farmer's other son, Eli Sunday (also played by Dano) suspects the real motivation for the purchase, and so their clash of wills gets underway. Hence, we have our classic protagonist in Sunday, a Pentecostal preacher in the small local church. He wants to make sure his congregation--and their spiritual leader--are taken care of but he too is a charlatan with ulterior motives.
So you have two charismatic people at odds with each other who are more alike than they'd ever admit. It's ironic that this is essentially a war between oil and religion....sound familiar? As much as these two characters are continuously at odds one commonality is that money and salvation can change who a person is. There are continuous clashes throughout this film of the material and the spiritual. I'm not gonna get into the specific cause and effects of either of these characters actions but both definitely cause serious repercussions to those around them. All of it is gripping and powerful, as Anderson shows us two men consumed with their own agenda and the misery that comes from it.
The story comes from Upton Sinclair's eighty year-old novel Oil! about an oil baron who engages in a mental battle with a revival type preacher who holds the key to a plot of land with oceans of crude bubbling underneath the surface. Both want control of the gusher, because both are looking to line their coffers. Anderson uses that set up and runs with it, creating an ominous title change that does indeed provide that human life source but also blood from the earth. Oil is the fuel for everything. It powers cars, it invigorates communities, and it compels men to trade their souls for its reward.
I'm probably not the best person to call this film a masterpiece but nonetheless, that's how I see it. The only other film by Anderson that I've seen is his last one, 2002's "Punch Drunk Love". I know some may find that shocking but I knew that "Boogie Nights" was more or less a cover of Scorcese's "Good Fellas" and that "Magnolia" was a take on Altman's "Short Cuts".There's nothing wrong with that but I figured if I'd seen those movies....why watch those? I know, heresy.
A protagonist like Plainview can make or break a film. He's a great literary character that you can't take your eyes off of but you don't like him. What is most riveting as I watched the film is trying to find out why he thinks so highly of himself. Maybe he doesn't, maybe he has his demons, but he sure comes across like a guy who really believes what he's doing is right. An strong actor is needed for this role and I can't see anyone else but Day-Lewis as Plainview. I can't help thinking that this movie would not be nearly as excellent as it is had a different actor been cast in the lead. The entire cast is fantastic, including Ciaran Hines as Plainview's right-hand man and Kevin J. O'Connor as a shady grifter. Dano falters a little in trying to play a convincing older version of himself, but as the awkward and often sinister preacher, he's able to sell the man as both a righteous lunatic and a scheming con artist.
This is by far Daniel Day-Lewis' film. That's who you see this for. He commands every scene with his John Huston-inspired characterization. He's an actor who famously gets lost in the roles he takes and this is no exception. I've enjoyed every performance I've seen him in since I first saw him in his Oscar-winning role as Christy Brown in "My Left Foot". He plays Plainview in multiple stages of life, from a determined young man to the over-confidence of middle age and on into old age, broken and alone with his ego. Though Plainview has the gift of gab when it comes time to pitch his sale, he is most often a man of few, carefully chosen, often biting words. Some viewers and critics see his performance as grand standing and entirely over-the-top. I can see that but Day-Lewis is so captivating that I forgive it and become absorbed by him.
There's also much talk about how the movie ends. While I would never spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet, I can't seeing it ending any other way. This topic isn't unusual though, I hear many discussing the conclusion of "No Country for Old Men" as well. I understand the complaints but I respect both endings for the fact that they remain true to the characters and however a story ends, that's what should matter. Like the Coen brothers film, here's a film that will haunt you for some time. I saw it three weeks ago and I'm still seeing images and discussing it with others. Not many films can do that today.