In the Oscar race for best picture, No Country For Old Men is probably (having yet to see Michael Clayton) the best of the films nominated for best picture; however, it is not my favorite of the films. When I left the screening of No Country for Old Men I felt the supreme satisfaction of seeing a film that is truly great in all ways. There is no shot, no frame, no line of dialogue that is not, at very the least, next to perfection. However, upon leaving the screening of There Will be Blood I felt something else; something more profound. Something for which words, in their eternal power, have no business in describing.
There Will Be Blood is not perfect. It is the kind of film that has dirt and oil beneath its fingernails and its cold dark soul. It is a very loose adaptation of Upton Sinclair’s prolific novel Oil. I say loosely in that the majority of the film only focuses on the beginning of the novel. With a running length of 158 minutes, I don’t doubt why that decision was made.
As the film opens we see our protagonist, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), digging for oil beneath the earth. He fails in an explosion that shatters the long and powerful silence. However, if there is anything positive about Daniel, it is his steadfast ability get up after an injury, physical or otherwise, and move forward. Daniel with the “help” of his “son,” H.W. (played by several actors throughout the film), begins to build an oil empire. It is upon his arrival in the small California community of Little Boston that the story really takes off. We begin to see much more than an everyday entrepreneur in Daniel, but something dark and nefarious, something for which the only word that fits is “greed.” Not just greed, something worse, something darker, some kind of madness. In Little Boston we also meet the antagonist, a preacher named Eli Sunday (Paul Dano,) whose intentions and behavior mimic all too closely those of Daniel. In my opinion the sort of strange relationship they form is based not so much on mutual interest, but in fact in those things which they truly hate about each other; things that exist within themselves.
Daniel Day Lewis should , and will, win his second Oscar for this amazing film. His performance was stunningly good. There is nothing false, nothing overdone, and nothing to find fault with in his performance. This character is so full of greed and darkness but we still kind of like him; this is what makes Lewis’ performance so incredible. Is his performance the very best of this century so far? In my humble opinion, yes; of course, this century is only eight years old. Paul Dano also does a fantastic job. However, it’s hard to be noticed when standing beside a giant like Lewis. I am actually more partial to Dano’s performance in Little Miss Sunshine. His character grabbed my attention even more than Alan Arkin’s Oscar winning performance.
I can not talk about this film without talking about the person who made this and so many other wonderful films possible: the director, Paul T. Anderson. Before I go on I must admit I am a Paul T. Anderson fan boy. The man has never ever made anything less than a masterpiece. Magnolia, probably his most debated film, is still on my list as one the great films in the history of cinema. If it means anything, let me add this: There Will Be Blood is actually a million times better. Thomas has always been looked at favorably in the critical community, but most of the time his work is seen as merely respectable. Even now in the midst of amazing reviews and numerous awards some critics say that his style is just too showy, long, or whimsical. Try as I might, I simply don’t understand their problem with him. To me Anderson should be lauded as one of the great auteurs of American cinema whose distinct and powerful voice says much about the language of cinema and the heart of humanity. I don’t think comparisons to Stanley Kubrick are really that much of a stretch. I should also add that, as a writer, Anderson is the crème de la crème. You know you can tell a movie is well liked when the reviewer utilizes numerous film terms popularized in French film criticism.
And then there is the ending. Like Anderson’s film Magnolia before it, it too is the matter of much controversy. But in the strange logic of Magnolia, the ending is the only thing that could happen. This is a story about greed, about the darkness of the human heart and the emptiness left in the soul of men who may or may not have gotten what they wanted, but never ever got what they needed. For those expecting the end to be easy to digest, you could certainly not be watching the same film that I was.
Thank you again for your numerous e-mails and facebook notes of support. However, I would really really appreciate it if you guys wouldn’t mind posting comments, thoughts, or maybe even a nice debate here in the comments section. That would make me a very, very happy person. But, once again, thank you so so very much for your support. I would also like to give an extra special thanks to my good friend Amber Matthews who has decided to my editor. So thank you Amber....
Coming Up Soon...An close look at Oscar Nominations, A Rant about The History Boys and a few more reviews.
No comments:
Post a Comment