blood2.jpg

You Got What You Want, Now You Can Hardly Stand It

There Will Be Blood / Daniel Carlson

Film Reviews | February 14, 2008 | Comments (90)


Paul Thomas Anderson has never been known for subtlety; when your cinematic breakthrough is capped with a medium shot of a large prosthetic penis dangling forlornly from Mark Wahlberg, it’s hard to be considered an understated artist. Indeed, if not for the more reserved drama of his feature debut, Hard Eight, writer-director Anderson would be known exclusively for the frenetic storytelling and constant sense of near-panic that floods his films, from the rose-colored history of Boogie Nights to the brilliant fervor of Magnolia and the tender, impressionistic romance of Punch-Drunk Love. But Anderson’s latest film, There Will Be Blood, is both a masterpiece and a surprising one in that it unfolds with few of the stylistic flashes that Anderson had made his oeuvre. Maybe it’s the fact that Anderson, who turns 38 this year, is beginning to realize that his age demands a certain amount of control over the material at hand; that could also be why he’s now credited as the more grown-up sounding Paul Thomas Anderson instead of the youthful and cavorting “P.T.” of his earlier years. Whatever the case, Anderson has made in There Will Be Blood the kind of sweeping, damning tale of American toil and corruption that stands as a hallmark of early 21st-century film and catapults Anderson beyond the level of gifted Gen Xish filmmaker and into the realm of the all-time greats, and he does it by both playing to his strengths and branching out into newer, bigger territory. Anderson’s eye is on the dirtier parts of our cultural history — like the book says, we may be through with the past, but the past ain’t through with us — but he’s also laying track toward the future of modern American filmmaking.

The film opens with a howl of dissonant strings that recalls some of Stanley Kubrick’s films, and Jonny Greenwood’s fantastic score crescendos even as it pulls itself into one unison blast that serves as an eerie warning of the story, and the man, about to appear. It’s 1898, and Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a poor miner working alone, just a pickax and a lamp at the bottom of a hole dug out of blasted waste and rocks. He’s digging for ore, but as the film charts the physical dangers of mining and Plainview’s first modest successes pulling wealth from stone, skipping forward to 1902, there’s no dialogue or narration. The only thing carrying the story is Plainview, and Day-Lewis moves his lanky frame around the screen with a dangerous grace, betraying a man of concentration and coiled energy. Plainview’s most defining moment happens several minutes in: He falls down his shaft and breaks his leg, but instead of screaming for help or even attempting to escape, the first thing he does is look around for the ore he was trying to blast loose. “There it is,” he whispers in the first spoken words of the film. It’s not that Plainview has no regard for his life; it’s that he views that life as meaningless unless he’s achieving the success he strives for daily.

Day-Lewis carries the opening sequence effortlessly, but Anderson isn’t creating a one-man show. By 1911, Plainview has moved from ore to oil and started his own drilling company, traveling from one dusty Southern California town to another, chasing the black river beneath his feet and selling his leasing and excavation services to homesteads so that he can aggregate his burgeoning empire. This is when he’s visited by Paul Sunday (Paul Dano), a young man from a town called Little Boston who claims that his father’s ranch is sitting on a large oil field. Plainview attempts to railroad Paul on a price for his information, but Paul is young, not stupid, and he’s the first person we see really stand up to Plainview, or at least resist his initial charms. Plainview’s condescension hides a few flashes of anger, but the tension between the two men is all done with performances, not editing or music. Anderson, working again with cinematographer Robert Elswit — who has shot every one of Anderson’s films — keeps the camera stationary more than ever before, framing a scene with the skill of a painter and then letting it play out naturalistically, eschewing standard reverse cuts during many conversations and instead allowing the actors’ body language and dialogue to dictate the pace of the scene.

Plainview and his young son, H.W. (Dillon Freasier), eventually travel to Little Boston to inspect the land and set up wells, and the bulk of the film follows Plainview’s tangled dealings with the townsfolk, the troubles that befall his operation, and the lengths he’ll go to just to win. But Anderson could never do a straight period (melo)drama, and There Will Be Blood is shot through with a mystical element that encompassed everything from faith-healing to missing brothers to the question of reality. When Plainview visits the Sunday ranch to begin prospecting, he meets the entire clan, including and elder son, Eli, who’s also played by Dano; Paul is nowhere to be seen, and barely mentioned. It’s a bizarre quirk of the story, and Anderson plants the seed of unease with the dual casting and murky family relationships, then promptly moves on, letting the constant question in the viwer’s mind — namely, “What the hell is going on with Eli/Paul?” — act as a kind of emotional catalyst to the story. Eli, though just a young man, is a pastor and faith healer at a tiny church in town, and he and Plainview engage in a cold war for the direction of the well and the effect it will have on the surrounding families.

Plainview is a relentless man, a monster of a human being brought to grandiose life by Day-Lewis, who barrels his way through the film like a runaway fire. For all his skill and the sheer ease and malleability with which he creates new characters, Day-Lewis is an impossibly infrequent performer. This is his ninth feature role in the 18 years since My Left Foot, but maybe that reclusiveness adds to the persona he creates in the viewer’s mind: He’s both instantly recognizable but also somehow forgettable. I’ve seen many of his films, and I couldn’t have described his voice or mannerisms to you before having this latest version of them imprinted on my mind. In Anderson’s film, he gives a towering performance, oscillating between a reserved introspection and a purposefully insane, over-the-top turn designed to sell the character’s individual shortcomings as representations of the generation of men who gave their souls for crude fortunes. “I have a competition in me,” Plainview says, and he’s so forthright about it that it’s unnerving. But he’s matched every step of the way by Dano, who’s leading Emile Hirsch in the race of Best Actors To Come Out Of The Girl Next Door. Dano plays Eli with a deep well of calm piety, and he firmly counters Plainview at every opportunity, holding out for more money for his father’s land and at one point blackmailing Plainview into being baptized just so Plainview can get the rights to set up a pipeline. The conflict between these two men is enthralling.

“I had it in my head, underneath it all, that we were making a horror film,” Anderson has said of There Will Be Blood. But while his comment may have been more focused on the terrible appeal of seeing Plainview’s life come unraveled, the story itself is one of the ultimate modern horror: The birth of a nation at the expense of itself. Anderson’s story remains wisely apolitical and focuses instead on the human cost of American growth at the turn of the 20th century, and the film is both recognizably Andersonian and bigger than anyone could have expected it to be. It’s a towering, perplexing, thoroughly engrossing film that’s a storytelling tour de force and the stunning affirmation that Anderson remains one of the best American working today, and maybe ever.

Daniel Carlson is the managing editor of Pajiba and a low-level employee at a Hollywood industry magazine. You can visit his blog, Slowly Going Bald.


Princess and the Warrior, The | Pajiba Love 02/14/08





Comments

Wow, now I really want to see this film. Thanks Daniel, good review.

Posted by: vic at January 5, 2008 1:40 AM

I am so excited to see this movie. I tell people P.T. Anderson is my favorite director ever since my boyfriend forced me to watch Boogie Nights in high school. So excited.

Also, of course, excellent review. Daniel, you are my favorite.

Posted by: Lyra at January 5, 2008 1:40 AM

Cool. This sounds fascinating. Plus Daniel Day-Lewis is hot.

Posted by: Cady at January 5, 2008 1:42 AM

Daniel Day-Lewis scares me. He's a badass on the big screen, no doubt, but he scares me all the same. I can't believe it's been 18 years since My Left Foot.

Posted by: Daphne at January 5, 2008 1:52 AM

I haven't been much of an Anderson fan in the past, but this looks incredible. Daniel Day-Lewis never disappoints.

Stellar review as usual Dan.

Posted by: Finn at January 5, 2008 2:01 AM

Seeing it Sunday.

Your review is extremely well-crafted, and worth the wait.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at January 5, 2008 3:09 AM

The trailer for this movie alone is intense, it gave me goosebumps!

Posted by: io at January 5, 2008 4:20 AM

"Day-Lewis is an impossibly infrequent performer. This is his ninth feature role in the 18 years..."


Something that 99% of "actors" should emulate.

This one will go on the "must see" pile.

THANK YOU PAJEEVA!

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at January 5, 2008 5:19 AM

Can't fucking wait.

Posted by: Jack at January 5, 2008 5:43 AM

I cannot wait to see this film! It has gotten so much attention from the critics and although this is not my favorite drama, I am eagerly waiting its arrival. Your review only has given me more incentive to put Sweeney Todd off for a couple more weeks.

Posted by: Ashley at January 5, 2008 6:16 AM

I cannot wait to see this film! It has gotten so much attention from the critics and although this is not my favorite drama, I am eagerly waiting its arrival. Your review only has given me more incentive to put Sweeney Todd off for a couple more weeks.

Posted by: Ashley at January 5, 2008 6:16 AM

I saw the sneek peak last week. I left the theater, honestly, just... I felt smacked in the face. I wasn't sure if I liked it or not, but I knew that I had just finished watching something astounding. It's been a week and it's still digesting. I can say now that the more I think about it, the more I settle into it, the more I love it. It was just a great experience.

Posted by: kayla at January 5, 2008 8:44 AM

i've really loved paul dano since "the king", i've heard he's amazing in this. on top of that, it takes a little coersion for me to get excited about seeing turn of the century american dramas, but daneil's review (as always) has convinced me otherwise. definitely going to see this.

Posted by: supermeg at January 5, 2008 8:56 AM

Great review, as always, Dan.

Mr. Kolby has been chomping at the bit to see this film, and Daniel Day-Lewis has long been one of my all-time favorite actors. The way he inhabits the characters he plays is mesmerizing. Anyway, we're definitely going to see it, as soon as it opens here. If it ever does.

Posted by: Kolby at January 5, 2008 9:03 AM

I've been a long time Daniel Day-Lewis fan. The intensity he brings to all his characters is amazing. This movies sounds like a winner.

Posted by: Pookie at January 5, 2008 9:43 AM

Fantasic review. I hadn't heard of this one before, but it sounds pretty damn good. I may have to check it out.

Posted by: Gabs at January 5, 2008 12:38 PM

This is definitely my most anticipated film in ages. I haven't read the book "Oil!" (by Upton Sinclair) but I'm really looking forward to the parts that Anderson culled from the book. An excellent reminder of America's oil baron roots.

Posted by: Farfalina at January 5, 2008 12:58 PM

Another in a growing list of movies enhanced by the sparse West Texas landscape:

- Three Burials of Melquiadas Estrada
- 3:10 to Yuma (Granted it was filmed in NM, but who can tell the difference?)
- No Country For Old Men

And this list becomes unmanageable if you go way back to "Giant"
______
P.S. Aimee Mann

Posted by: Rover Combover at January 5, 2008 1:25 PM

If the film itself is half as well crafted as this review, it will be worth my trip to the theater to see it. I didn't know much about There Will Be Blood before reading this, but it has now marched to the top of my viewing list. Thanks Daniel!!

Posted by: Dangle McGee at January 5, 2008 2:09 PM

Speaking of Day-Lewis roles....it appears that "The Ballad of Jack and Rose" was never reviewed on this site -- what gives?

Posted by: Finn at January 5, 2008 2:58 PM

'Sorry to deviate from the lovefest clusterfuck here, but if PTA directed this, a better title would have been THERE WILL BE BOREDOM. Pretentious little no-talent-having fuckwad. He'll never be Scorsese or Altman, the directors he's "inspired by" (i.e. ripping off to within an inch of their lives).


Speaking of Scorsese, is Lewis going to play the same annoying, handlbar-mustached character he played in the god-awful GANGS OF NEW YORK in every film from here on out?

Posted by: Case at January 5, 2008 3:02 PM

A great film...in January?!
I thought this might be too intense for me, but how can I miss a film that "encompassed everything [including] the question of reality"?
Thanks for your eloquence, DC.

Posted by: mfg at January 5, 2008 3:18 PM

Rover Combover,

Another growing list would be movies enhanced by the sparse Alberta landscape, being passed off as the sparse (somewhere in USA) landscape.

Sorry, I just find it kind of amusing films like Brokeback Mountain or Assination of Jesse James where the beautiful US landscape is such a big part of the film, are actually filmed in Alberta.

(And no, I'm not trying to start some turf war over which landscape is better, just making an observation)

Posted by: kdm at January 5, 2008 4:37 PM

or the film Assassination of Jesse James.... considering Assination sounds like some weird porn version

Posted by: kdm at January 5, 2008 4:39 PM

Beautiful review Daniel! I really can't wait to see this. Oh, and thanks for mentioning Jonny Greenwood's fantastic score.

Posted by: Gaby at January 5, 2008 5:18 PM

I just got back from this. It's an incredible film, for sure, but I didn't enjoy it at all. I acknowledge that everything is wonderful, from performances to screenplay to score to direction to technicals and beyond, but I just didn't like it. Not my kind of film, I guess.

I liked Paul Dano's preaching scenes, but that's about it.

In a shocking turn, I found the violence to be very shocking and overdone. Just a bit too severe and treated too lightly for my tastes. The deaths just sort of happened and that was that. No real reaction, no reason, no purpose - just death. Inconsequential.

Posted by: Robert at January 5, 2008 6:44 PM

I can't wait to see this...

and like many people, i'm glad daniel has kept his roles seemingly few and far-between. but can't i be greedy? i wish i got to see him in some other movies... even if they aren't up to par with some of his other roles.

Posted by: Colin at January 5, 2008 6:47 PM

Excellent review. Day-Lewis should go ahead and write his Oscar speech now. One pet peeve with the review though.
You say, "Maybe it's the fact that Anderson, who turns 38 this year, is beginning to realize that his age demands a certain amount of control over the material at hand..."
This is not fact. The sentence reads better without "the fact". Petty gripe over.

Posted by: JP at January 5, 2008 6:52 PM

Add: Who would have thought at the time that three great actors would come out of The Girl Next Door: Hirsch, Dano and Elisha Cuthbert's chest. Honorable mention to Timothy Olyphant.

Posted by: JP at January 5, 2008 7:00 PM

To say that Daniel Day-Lewis is a 'breakaway fire' is completely apt, considering he is truly a force of nature. 'Gangs of New York' would have been a worth while film if it had centered on Bill the Butcher rather than be a pretend socio-political farce smuggled in a mediocre revenge story.

Anderson is absolutely one of the best in the business today. I've been privy to that since even before 'Boogie,' with the brilliance that was 'Hard Eight.' It's unfortunate that directors like Baumbach get more attention (not to detract from his talent, but he is nowhere near Anderson).

This will earn him the respect and focus he deserves.

Posted by: ian at January 5, 2008 7:46 PM

kdm,

I concur that the films enhanced by the Alberta landscape should not go unnoticed.

I thought the landscape used in both Brokeback & JJ are as important to these films as any supporting actor.

My only retort would point out the stark difference between the lush views of the aforementioned mountains and the brutal and barren red dirt of the W. Texas desert.

Both provide dominant themes, no doubt. But could the emotions they evoke be any more different?

(Also... Color me surprised a Texan like Dan C. didn't give a shout of to the sprawling metropolis of Marfa.)

Posted by: Rover Combover at January 5, 2008 7:52 PM

All the comments here seem to be focussed on Day- Lewis (justifiably so), but is anyone else out there excited for Paul Dano? He was fantastic in Little Miss Sunshine being the character I remember the most despite his lack of lines. I am just as excited about his role in this film as I am about Daniel Day - Lewis' or Paul Thomas Anderson's involvement.

Posted by: Alex McQ at January 5, 2008 9:40 PM

Daniel Day-Lewis, in true Day-Lewisian fashion, was awesome and the greatest part of the movie. Paul Dano, also a fantastic up and comer, was excellent. There Will Be Blood was a great movie that will make exactly $87 dollars.

Posted by: That Guy at January 5, 2008 10:34 PM

Robert wrote: "The deaths just sort of happened and that was that. No real reaction, no reason, no purpose - just death. Inconsequential."

I think this was very intentional, part of the corruption depicted throughout the film. For Plainview, no life matters more than reaching the oil, getting more oil, oil oil oil. For Eli, death is used to counter Plainview in their power struggle over Little Boston. And both use death as an opportunity to humiliate the other. The lack of reverence for human life only highlights these obsessions, makes them all the more disturbing and horrifying.

Not to say that you don't have the right to be bothered by the way death was treated. I, however, think that these artistic choices work in the context of the film.

Posted by: stacy at January 5, 2008 11:02 PM

actually, That Guy, this movie did incredibly well in limited release in two cities, in fact i think it set some sort of record...i think we will be surprised by the box office. as for the film, i was so in love with it from frame one that i immediately saw it again and i'm going a third time tomorrow. just absolutely masterful. i was breathless at the end. wonderful review, as well.

Posted by: jordan at January 6, 2008 12:13 AM

I JUST SAW THIS TONIGHT AND HOLY CRAP!!! Amazing, fantastic, reminded me of Citizen Kane in parts...they should just hand the Oscar to DDL now and be over with it...GO SEE IT NOW!!!

Thanks Pajiba for the review, it was right on and you made me want to see even more :-)

PS I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!! I DRINK IT UP!!!

Posted by: Be Adequite! at January 6, 2008 3:14 AM

Stacy
Not to say that you don't have the right to be bothered by the way death was treated. I, however, think that these artistic choices work in the context of the film.
That's exactly my problem with the film. I get that the treatment of the deaths was very much intentional. That the perspective of the film was mostly Plainview's and, as such, the only suffering tha mattered was his own (the broken leg, his son's accident). I even respect that Anderson took that risk and had it pay off in the final production. It works and it works well. I just don't like it.

Posted by: Robert at January 6, 2008 10:43 AM

Yay! Another time I agree with Pajiba.

Daniel Day-Lewis is going to coast through to a deserved Best Actor Oscar, mark my words.

Posted by: Brooke at January 6, 2008 6:53 PM

Saw it tonight, it was fantastic. Easily one of the best films of the year.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at January 6, 2008 10:21 PM

I just saw this yesterday and it was great. I loved Jonny Greenwood's score, it added so much atmosphere to the scenes.

Posted by: ragoo at January 6, 2008 11:29 PM

I am torn about seeing this. As my sister once remarked: "two hours in the dark with DD-L, I'm there." But that would also mean spending two hours in the dark with Anderson's "vision". I liked Boogie Nights in retrospect but I did not enjoy the film as I was watching it. I have the same response as does Robert. I just don't like that the deaths seems so inconsequential. Thanks Stacy, I agree that they are intentionally so but I do not want to live through it. I will probably get around to seeing it, prodded by Daniel's review, but only if it makes it to the bargain matinee.

Posted by: rudy at January 7, 2008 8:40 AM

'Something that 99% of "actors" should emulate - BarbadoSlim'

In regards to actors working less frequently. BarbadoSlim i absolutely agree with you. To all the other posters - add my name to the growing list of people who can't wait to see this movie...

Posted by: Neena at January 7, 2008 8:44 AM

"All the comments here seem to be focussed on Day- Lewis (justifiably so), but is anyone else out there excited for Paul Dano?"

Yup--saw him in "The King" last year and have been a fan ever since. The trailers for this movie freaked me out every time in the theatre, so I can't wait to see it.

Also, Daniel-Day Lewis is a badass. Isn't he a shoe cobbler somewhere in Italy (when he's not acting)? Seriously...I could swear that I read that somewhere.

Posted by: em at January 7, 2008 10:23 AM

Em: DDL took a couple of years off to study cobbling after becoming fascinated by it several years ago, but he has now got that out of his system.
Saw this film on Saturday. It's excellent in every respect except that I though the last scene was not very well choreographed (I won't elaborate because of the spoiler aspect)...very well-acted, but not well choreographed.

Posted by: PaddyDog at January 7, 2008 11:34 AM

OK - Not really interested in seeing this movie, which kind of disturbs me considering my 2nd true love, Tomas/Hawkeye/Gerry is in it. (BTW: my first true love was Valmont aka John Malkovich - it's silly now, i know. i know). Perhaps it's just not the right time, you know? For no good reason now is just not the right time for story where everybody is a complete, total shit. Usually, of course, that is one of my favorite plotlines & I'm a not graybrain who loves happy endings either, but for some reason it just doesn't strike me as an unavoidable movie. Can't put my finger exactly on it.

Posted by: GinKirk at January 7, 2008 11:40 AM

"Two hours in the dark with DD-L? I'm there!" Yo, me too. So psyched to see this after reading the review.
DD-L is the only reason to sit through Gangs of NY. The other reason is Liam Neeson, but he's only there for two seconds (yet you spend the rest of the movie missing him). Cameron Diaz is the Jar-Jar Binks of that movie; if you skip every scene she's in, it makes Gangs a better flick.

Posted by: numchuck at January 7, 2008 11:43 AM

I sat for a full 5 minutes in the theatre as the credits rolled and Jonny Greenwood's impressive score washed over me with my mouth agape and my bumps a-goosed. As a fan of both Anderson and Day-Lewis, I was already expecting this movie to be good, but I don't think I was ready for how mind-blowingly good it really is. It seems the "western" is back in a big way, and the three I've seen (this, 3:10 to Yuma, and No Country) make me glad for it.

Referencing Robert's comments earlier about how deaths/violence was treated with little consequence, I agree. *SPOILER FOLLOWS* It was shocking (but gratifying) to watch Plainview beat and humiliate Eli while the other men just stood there watching. And the casualness with which he shot Henry and dumped his body in a shallow grave chilled me. But more than anything, it gave me a solid and complete picture of just how ruthless and focused this man was, and to what lengths he would go for his ambition.

And really, if you think about the violence and deaths in context of the end, you'll see there really was consequence. It was just a few years coming.

Posted by: Bill at January 7, 2008 2:09 PM

"Em: DDL took a couple of years off to study cobbling after becoming fascinated by it several years ago, but he has now got that out of his system."

Niiiice. Thanks PD!

Posted by: em at January 7, 2008 2:09 PM

just saw the movie and cannot jump on the bandwagon. there are some interesting touches and while the review is well crafted , the film has nothing to do with american corruption or the dirtier parts of our cultural history. it is a quirky story of a psychopath well played by day-lewis who reprises his billy the butcher role.also, in the interest of accuracy, hw is not his son.finally, the disappearnce of dano's first character( paul) for the remainder of the movie might be considered profound directorial sleight of hand .... or it might just be considered dumb.

Posted by: snake at January 8, 2008 12:43 AM

just saw the movie and cannot jump on the bandwagon. there are some interesting touches and while the review is well crafted , the film has nothing to do with american corruption or the dirtier parts of our cultural history. it is a quirky story of a psychopath well played by day-lewis who reprises his billy the butcher role.also, in the interest of accuracy, hw is not his son.finally, the disappearnce of dano's first character( paul) for the remainder of the movie might be considered profound directorial sleight of hand .... or it might just be considered dumb.

Posted by: snake at January 8, 2008 12:43 AM

Snake: Did you consider multiple personalities? Consider it in light of what Plainview says to Eli at the end about who the real prophet was.

Posted by: Bill at January 9, 2008 6:15 PM

The nighttime fire shots were amazing--reminded me of Days of Heaven (pretty much the only thing I remember about DoH).

Posted by: Joe at January 10, 2008 12:57 PM

i'm absolutely chomping at the bit to see this movie. i've been cloesly following paul dano ever since he completely blind sided me in little miss sunshine.

i peronally love pta and the fact that he isn't afraid to create a signature directing style for himself, unlike the utterly bland ron howard.

Posted by: citizen_cris at January 10, 2008 8:54 PM

bill: i did consider multiple personalities but once eli entered the picture, he never wavered from his persona. the fact that he turned out to be the kind of hustler that paul appeared to be in his brief stint, does support the possibility that they were one and the same. i guess my take is ... so what ?? listen, there were memorable scenes in this movie and it is worth the money and time to see it. i just don't get it as some kind of profound experience. the final 15 minutes would challenge the highest level of disbelief suspension. did he really have to chug-a-lug a bottle of gin to prove he was a drunk? and if those bowling balls were 16 pounders, he should have been a big league pitcher instead of an oilman.

Posted by: snake at January 11, 2008 11:43 AM

Saw this last night. I thought about the Paul/Eli relationship for a while during the film, and the one thing that stuck out to me was how Paul made a point of asking Plainview about his religious faith early in their meeting, before (as I recall) Paul even mentioned the fact that he knew where to find oil. I almost felt like it was important for Paul that Plainview not be a man of faith and therefore not be at risk of falling under Eli's influence. That line alone helped me decide for my own viewing that Paul was a separate character who was selling out his family and trying to escape his brother's burgeoning church.


Overall, I thought it was a fine film, but agree with snake about the "so what?" sensation. Both Plainview and Eli were masterful con men who preyed on the ignorant masses to build their respective empires, but neither character went through enough of an arc to make me care about how the story reached its conclusion. If anything, I wanted more time to be spent on the detrioration of the bonds between Plainview, his not-son H.W., and the girl Mary. Those relationships offered chance for Plainview's redemption, but the story unfolded in such a way that I could only conclude that he really was just a sonofabitch from beginning to end.

Posted by: RickO at January 11, 2008 1:08 PM

The Iceberg Cometh.

It's grand, terrifying, awe-inspiring, and ultimately left me cold. Why can't Anderson ever direct his actors to act like people?

Posted by: jm at January 13, 2008 5:48 PM

Just saw it. I wish I could speak like Daniel Day-Lewis. I would just walk around all day, speaking.

Neither he nor Dano held anything back -- they were like human equivalents of an oil gusher. Speaking of which, it was awe-inspiring to watch the men attempt to control such massive, pressurized, seismic forces with nothing more than iron attached to rope, enclosed in flimsy wooden housings. That they managed to do it at all is astounding.

Posted by: sansho1 at January 13, 2008 7:50 PM

In the name of my left Mohican foot I can't wait to see this movie.

Posted by: Babbs at January 14, 2008 2:31 AM

the milkshake clip is finally online. check it out before it gets pulled....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJxLsOwc0jk

Posted by: rt at January 20, 2008 4:01 AM

holy cow this movie was good.

SPOILER ALERT**
The only thing I want to comment on was on the director's treatment of violence. Yes, it was cold, but I don't think that he treated the violence lightly at all. In the case of Henry's death, I knew from the moment he asked about the Peachtree dance that Daniel was going to kill him and after that, the inevitability of Daniel killing Henry was more of what was focused on. It also underscored the conflict within Daniel between "hating people" and wanting to "get away" and being genuinely lonely. I mean, he really only turned to Henry because he felt like he had lost HW. His relationships with Henry and HW, when they were good, humanized him but when he deserts HW and kills Henry in pursuit of his ambition, it underscores the theme of ambition and greed consuming a man, and in turn, everyone around him, one way or another.

The other thing you have to put into perspective is the difference in the value of life in a "frontier" setting. When men are reduced to their barest urges and most primeval instincts, the value of life diminishes and even after Plainview has achieved his wealth, he can't leave behind the animal-like behavior that got him there in the first place.

Plainview is pretty much an anti-protagonist. I agree with the commenter that there's little in him to warrant much empathy - but then little things, like the scene on the train with HW as an infant and the way he cries over his brother's diary expose the tragedy in the character. I'll admit the only character I really "cared" about in this movie was HW. Which by the way Dillon Frasier was fantastic as HW - his unflinching stare and the contradiction between the ruthlessness he was taught and his own innocence as a child were compelling.

**END SPOILERS

Posted by: ms.a at January 22, 2008 10:46 PM

Saw this last night (it finally opened here in Albany), and both Mr. Kolby and I were utterly blown away. I am still trying to put into words what I experienced. Daniel said it best, this film is a masterpiece. I knew I was witnessing perfection during the scene when Plainview was first pitching his operation to a group of townsfolk. Daniel Day-Lewis has long been one of my very favorite actors, but I was awestruck by his performance here. Everything, from the mannerisms, the voice & accent, to the facial expressions, I just couldn't believe how he inhabited the role. And he was so frightening. I found myself tense throughout the entire film because I just wasn't sure what Plainview was going to do.

I thought the violence served to more fully illustrate just what kind of man Plainview was. He was so consumed by his desire to be THE oilman that he was unable to have a relationship with anyone with whom he felt he was in competition. He said it himself - that he was able to read a person to figure out what that person's place in his world should be. As soon as he felt someone was going to get in the way of his dream, that person was to be instantly crushed like an ant. Which, to me at least, paralleled the American idea of Manifest Destiny - on an individual level.

Posted by: Kolby at January 26, 2008 10:17 AM

it took me a few days to digest this movie and decide on it. there is only one other movie that has left me that completely astounded at the end. (the other was "the piano teacher".) I was truly disturbed. I sat still in my seat for several minutes, watching the credits as everyone around me filed out. It's been 4 days and I've decided that it's a GREAT movie. a rare gem. i agree that another poster...it does remind me a bit of Citizen Kane, which can only be a good thing.

Posted by: ellen at January 27, 2008 12:18 AM

I realize the chances of anyone responding to this are slim, seeing as how this review has been shelved for some time, but I had to ask: in the final confrontation between Paul Sunday and Daniel Plainview, was it suggested that Sunday was a homosexual? He says something along the lines of "I've sinned as I never thought I could have" while sipping away at his drink and mentions how that one fellow would succeed in Hollywood because he is "quite good looking."

I hope I'm not shouting into a canyon in cyberspace.

Posted by: Jessica at February 6, 2008 11:41 AM

does anyone edit these for typos?

Posted by: sarah at February 10, 2008 3:02 AM

Jessica- There were definitely many suggestions and possibilities in the movie that people had to make up their own minds on (that's what's so great about TWBB; it never holds your hand, you gotta figure it out).
***SPOILERS HERE, YO!!!***
In my opinion, I don't think Eli was gay, but just confessing the things he had to do to start his church (Eli was just as ambitious as Plainview). When he mentions Bandy's grandson, I think Eli just made that up. We SAW that kid earlier in the film; neither smart nor good-looking! It was just a lie to make Plainview think that Bandy's grandson was a more prestigous member of the church. Eli was desperate here, he was ready to say anything.
Another thing that was interesting was in the awesome redemption scene: Eli says that Plainview "lusted after women". A total lie; did you EVER see Plainview with a woman the entire time? I believe that Plainview was impotent. And that helped drive his ambition and misanthropy.
But then again, this is just a viewer coming to conclusions that were NOT handed out like movie candy. Bravo!

Yep, still thinking about stuff like this two days after viewing. Still checking out my favorite scenes from YouTube too.
Tired of saying "I drink your milkshake?" Try these:
DRAAAAIINAGE!
Just give me the blood, Lord, and let me get away.
Yes I do.

Posted by: numchuck at February 11, 2008 1:52 PM

Best film of the year in my opinion.

I feel sorry for you folks in middle America; I've been buzzing off this film for two months now. Hollywood has its perks. I guess the film is just now getting the wider release.

For those of you that complain that Anderson makes death "inconsequential," isn't the fact that you're disturbed by the treatment what makes it of consequence? That's exactly how you're supposed to feel. Seriously. I understand you're disturbed, but what's more powerful and tragic - a realistic portrayal of how nasty, brutish, and short existence can be, or a drawn-out ridiculously operatic and unrealistic speech as someone slowly bleeds out? That does not mean you have to enjoy what you're seeing, but - really - should you be "enjoying" death? Films are intended to tap into other emotions.

Posted by: Darth Corleone at February 14, 2008 5:15 PM

Snake>> It might interest you to know that those were real bowling balls. I don't know if they were 16-pounders, but Dano was quoted as saying that he very quickly learned that he better get out of the way of anything that the insanely Method Day-Lewis hurled at him.

Posted by: Darth Corleone at February 14, 2008 5:19 PM

I did not intend to capitalize "method," but given Daniel Day-Lewis' reputation, it seems appropriate.

Posted by: Darth Corleone at February 14, 2008 5:20 PM

Two more things in response to various comments above, and then I'm out:

1) It's wrong to dismiss Daniel Plainview as "Bill The Butcher, Part Two." He's not. Both are villains. Both have mustaches. Both are in period films. Both are willing to get their hands very dirty. But that's where the comparison ends. The characters and Daniel Day-Lewis' portrayal of them are starkly different.

2) What I find most amusing about Daniel Day-Lewis' role as a cobbler is that he will not talk about it with any detail publicly. The guy who trained him in Italy is a master of the craft, and Daniel considers himself a humble apprentice. He'll talk all about his films and roles, but the cobbler subject would seem to be off-limits.

Posted by: Darth Corleone at February 14, 2008 5:27 PM

ok, ok ... if everyone wants to hail this film as a profound cinematic experience ok, but it shouldn't stand as an example of capitalist corruption as a nation was being born. are we supposed to compare the day-lewis character to john d. rockefeller ? plainview is a psychopath, a sociopath, a nut. day-lewis did a great job of portraying him but has greater range than he needs for daniel plainview and , yes, billy the butcher. as long as he is going to restrict his roles to one every two years, he should step out a bit in his next choice.

Posted by: snake at February 14, 2008 6:46 PM

I'm probably adding to the chorus by saying that this was an incredible movie experience. From the acting to the camera-work to the score, it all adds up to greatness. I too was a little confused about the Paul/Eli bit but I've settled on the separate characters idea. I had no problem with the violence, it felt in place with the stark tone of the film. I can't at least thank PT for giving me a list of things to say when I have lash out violently.

Posted by: vadmspartan at February 14, 2008 7:18 PM

I thought the Plainview character had a kind of Achilles-like character to him. It wasn't enough that he had won, he needed all his enemies to lose.
It was the last thing he needed to see to, that's why I think the last line is great.

fwiw, I don't think of Plainview's character as being a villain. I think of him as being a product of his time. He conquered and created, a reflection of the unfettered Capitalism and social darwinism of the turn of the century. He was dysfunctional, but he was also kind of inspiring.

Posted by: mk at February 14, 2008 9:38 PM

How come this was moved back to the top of the home page?

Posted by: Brian at February 14, 2008 11:00 PM

Paul Dano was a weak choice to play Eli. He was outgunned and outflaned at every turn. He looked like a kid playing dressup. I liked the film, but if someone like Edward Norton was playing that character, it may have taken it to a whole other level.

Posted by: Rubble44 at February 15, 2008 1:58 AM

I'm sorry but I can't participate in this hyperbolic praise. Labelling TWBB as a masterpiece and then calling it day seems to me lazy and bordering on blind high-culture, middle class conformity. Yes, it was beautifully composed and shot, and whoever did the original score deserves to be pelted with awards (I don't think I've ever been so musically disturbed - in a good way) but the film as a whole was UNDENIABLY BORING. Even if a film has no ostensible polemic, and chooses to be more about exposition than linear plot, you have to come away with something learnt or felt for it to be a masterpiece. TWBB was just a technically excellent exercise in audience desensitisation. And while Day-Lewis and Dano are good, I think most of you are confusing histrionics with virtuoso acting; besides, you can't care about their characters because it's made patently clear that their personalities are essentially cold and immutable. Fucking "breathtaking"? You guys are such easy customers.

Posted by: Brighton at February 15, 2008 7:40 AM

I thought the performances were brilliant in this film. DDL is as usual excellent and Paul Dano was good too. TBH it just wasn't my cup of tea. I was expecting an epic movie and that is not TWBB is about. It's very heavy on dialogue but not much went on IMO.

Posted by: Neena at February 15, 2008 9:09 AM

This film was anything BUT boring. Like I said in my original post, I was tense throughout the whole movie. At the end, I couldn't believe that more than two hours had passed.

Posted by: Kolby at February 15, 2008 9:24 AM

I didn't think it was boring either. It went by way too fast for me!

Posted by: kayla at February 15, 2008 10:54 AM

Sorry there were not enough 'splosions for you, Brighton. And no boobies either.

Yeah, you actually have to pay attention to the quiet scenes of TWBB. I really wanted to show friends the best scenes that are on YouTube, but unless you see the whole movie, those scenes don't make much sense. I'll just have to quietly say "DRAAAINAGE!" to myself until after the Oscars.

All ya'll who immediately scream "boring!" when confronted with an actual plot, well, you may sneak back to the theatre showing Meet The Spartans. Now go play and don't come back.

Posted by: numchuck at February 15, 2008 10:58 AM

"And while Day-Lewis and Dano are good, I think most of you are confusing histrionics with virtuoso acting"



Normally I don't like to jump into the commenting, but here is a statement I have to respond to. Daniel Day-Lewis' performance IS virtuosic.



There are moments of histrionics, but those are the Character's histrionics, not the actor's. I've seen the film three times now and it is in the quiet moments that Day-Lewis impresses the most. In the midst of the craziness and humor of the baptism scene, it is the silent glare he shoots at Eli that strikes the strongest note.



I might be in the minority on this, but I have empathy for Plainview. In the end, his character has become a monster, but he does not start out as one. The progression from isolated man who still has some hope of making human connections to one who has given up any belief in the good of people or himself is beautifully demonstrated in the performance.



I am rarely able to watch a film and shut off the part of my brain that analyzes, but in all THREE viewings of this film I was swept into the story and felt I was watching a real life unfold before me.



I can't wait to watch Daniel Day-Lewis collect his Oscar next Sunday.



And on a side note, though it didn't detract from the film, I wasn't impressed with Dano.

Posted by: Recovering Navel Gazer at February 15, 2008 12:42 PM

Woah! Those is some crazy spaces! Sorry bout that folks.

Posted by: Recovering Navel Gazer at February 15, 2008 12:46 PM

I figured your spaces were there for dramatic effect RNG.

I thought Plainview ended the film much like he began, just older and with nothing left to do in his life. I also found myself wanting to find out more about how he came to be the way that he was. The only glimpses into his past are in the facial expressions he gives in a couple of spots in the film. Looks that actually earn the term "chilling".
I noticed that his lone emotional connection came about through a scenario where he was completely, and solely, in control. I can't imagine that he would have come into a child any other way.

Posted by: imk at February 15, 2008 3:10 PM

Yes, it was beautifully composed and shot, and whoever did the original score deserves to be pelted with awards (I don't think I've ever been so musically disturbed - in a good way) but the film as a whole was UNDENIABLY BORING.

----------------------------------------------

THANK YOU.

I *hated* this movie. *Hated* it to *Hell*. And I hate it even more when I see smarmy commenters dismissing everyone who didn't like as somehow too unintelligent to enjoy it.

I went into this one with a lot of trepidation. I wanted to see it because I looooove PTA's other flicks, but the trailer for this left me scratching my head. The movie itself was even worse. It felt like a chore to watch it.

Posted by: HallsyHatesU at February 15, 2008 3:31 PM

brighton : thank you and amen ...

Posted by: snake at February 15, 2008 6:06 PM

How someone could like a overly dramatic, art-school pretentious piece of crap like Magnolia but not like this film is mind-boggling to me.
Note that I am not saying that you are wrong, just that I can't understand.
I was already perplexed as to how PTA could have done that film after the stellar Boogie Nights.

Posted by: mk at February 16, 2008 5:41 PM

Of course I'm not wrong. It's an opinion. I'm just as perplexed as you, though. I'll never understand the accolades this movie is getting. I *hated* it.

Personally, I love Magnolia. It's probably in my all-time top 5. I love everything about it - the humour, the pathos, the amazing performances (even from Tom Cruise!), [i]the motherfucking frog rain[i]. Shit, that movie was awesome. So many amazing scenes stuffed into one movie.

I don't get the "pretentious" label. At all. I think it's the opposite of pretentious; it's just a bunch of ordinary people going about their lives and having crazy shit happen to them. If any of his flicks are pretentious, it's TWBB. That movie is, to me, completely devoid of EVERY single thing that made his other stuff great. Every character left me completely cold and I didn't care where the story went, I just wanted it to end. I'll never understand the accolades this movie getting.

Posted by: HallsyHatesU at February 17, 2008 6:45 PM

I had actually given up on any kind of response when I decided to come back to Pajiba for a review on (ashamedly) 'Jumper,' so thanks for getting back to me, numchuck. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree (I can't shake the feeling that Paul Sunday is homosexual, but it could just be Paul Dano's wonderfully weird fetus-like face), though you did bring up some very good points.

Posted by: Jessica at February 18, 2008 9:58 PM

This has to be the most boring movie ever! I sat through a little more than half the movie, and i would rather have an enema with broken pieces of glass than see the rest! Only americans could find a movie about christianity interesting in 2008... For the rest of us Atheism killed christianity a long time ago... AMEN!

Posted by: Ornefar at March 3, 2008 2:47 AM

"...i would rather have an enema with broken pieces of glass than see the rest! Only americans could find a movie about christianity interesting in 2008."
And you sound like one who knows, Ornefar. Luckily, in case you were thinking of injuring yourself, this film is not about religion. Whew!

(Regardless of your enlightenment, there are probably people in your own country who practice religion. Go figure. It's one of those historical/character things.)

Plainview would agree with you; religion as practiced in this film disgusts him. Pretty much everything disgusts him. Can't say I blame him.

The only thing I don't like is the end. Are there some scenes missing? It's like someone said: "oh, crap, we're two hours in, and no end in sight. Let's wrap this puppy up, fast!"

There isn't much of a link between "son back home from deaf school with teacher" and "you're a bastard in a basket". Is Plainview punishing himself, and why? (aside from, "he's a baddy".) Why didn't he learn sign language? Where is the Miracle Worker when you need her?

Posted by: Janis at March 4, 2008 3:20 AM

The ending was the most satisfying one I have seen in, well, forever. The battle between Plainview and Eli came to an end very quickly, with one person wallowing in the victory. No need for an all-out slapfest. I'm finished! Awesome.

Many years had passed between HW "back home with teacher" and "bastard in a basket". Plainview could not bear HW becoming his competitor (we know how Plainview deals with competition), so he told the truth about HW's origins to firmly close the door between them. It certainly worked.

Once HW became deaf, Plainview had no more use for him. He was using the boy to play up his "family man" facade. When they could no longer communicate, HW was cast aside for the brother. Learn sign language? Like Plainview CARED enough to go out of his way to build a relationship? Impossible.
The man is a sociopathic misanthrope. He says as much in one of the best monologues of the movie.

Posted by: Mrs. Plainview at March 4, 2008 4:31 PM





Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.