Review: There Will Be Blood
WELL BEING
Daniel Day-Lewis scorches the screen as an oil baron in a staggeringly intense drama.
APR 18, 2008 - EVER SINCE THE PRODIGIOUSLY GIFTED PAUL THOMAS ANDERSON announced in Entertainment Weekly that he’d made a horror movie in There Will Be Blood, several reasons have been tossed about as to why The Shining must have been an obvious progenitor. Both films revolve around borderline-mad lead characters – Jack Nicholson there, Daniel Day-Lewis here – that go completely bonkers by the end, both films feature eerily discombobulating scores, the protagonists of both films have young sons that they grow increasingly distanced from, and so on. But there’s a far more obvious sign – if you care to look for it, if you care to hear it – right at the beginning, when a thousand out-of-sync violins bubble up and burst over to reveal the first visual of the film: a landscape. It appears to be just a shot of the earth and the hills beyond, but the ominousness of these strings could be hinting at the oil lying underneath – the oil that bubbles up and bursts over from stygian depths in the mine that Daniel Plainview (Day-Lewis) is prospecting for silver.
You could make a fairly airtight case that this oil is to There Will Be Blood what The Overlook Hotel was to The Shining – something that takes possession of the protagonist, affecting his every action, responsible for his every situation. It’s just before striking this lode of oil that Plainview slips in the mine and breaks his leg, ending up with a permanent limp. It’s this oil that results in Plainview becoming a surrogate father to an infant (called H.W., and played as a boy by the remarkable Dillon Freasier), having claimed the life of the real father when drilling equipment fell on him. It’s this oil that takes away H.W.’s hearing, when the boy comes too close to an erupting gusher. (This brilliant sequence is scored to an ear-splittingly primal percussion, and it’s a stunning contrast that H.W. has lost his hearing while it’s our hearing, primarily, that shapes our response to what unfolds.) And it’s this oil – the relentless quest for it – that claims Plainview’s mind, and finally, his soul.
So, yes, you could pull your film-studies hat firmly around your ears and point out any number of reasons for There Will Be Blood having descended from The Shining. But unlike Kubrick’s horror epic, Anderson’s film – which is loosely adapted from Upton Sinclair’s novel, Oil!, and which charts Plainview’s ascent from ordinary miner to oil baron, from 1898 through 1927 – is also a character study, and not just in the way that Plainview displays an unexpected tenderness towards children or that he can bring himself to open up only to his brother (a superbly self-effacing Kevin J. O’Connor). This is a study of two characters, really – Plainview and his faith-healer nemesis Eli Sunday (Paul Dano, who also plays Eli’s twin, Paul). What’s at stake here is Plainview and Eli, Plainview versus Eli: a loner-misanthrope versus a compassionate tender of his flock, an overpowering force of nature versus a wheedling insinuator, a capitalist versus a church-man. And yet, by the end, we see that Plainview and Eli may not be all that different. It’s just that Eli’s currency is faith; he’s just a capitalist of a different kind.
And Anderson milks this antagonism for all its worth. In one of many, many great scenes, after concluding a deal with Eli to dig for oil on his ranch, Plainview proffers a hand to seal the verbal agreement. But as Eli clasps the extended limb in a reverential gesture and bows his head and begins to pray, a visibly discomfited Plainview pulls away. This early moment sets up what will be a lifelong battle of wills, and their clashes are enormously entertaining. One of the biggest surprises of There Will Be Blood is how flat-out funny it is. Whether it’s Eli’s outrageous exorcism rituals (that leave us in no doubt that he’s just as unhinged as Plainview is), or the confrontation where Plainview buries a kicking-and-screaming Eli’s face in the mud, or the controversial final scene that delivers on the title’s promise (there is blood), Anderson orchestrates such a masterful mood of horror-comedy – maybe that’s what he was really going for – that you’re not sure if the appropriate response is to cover your eyes or clutch your sides.
And as always, Anderson lets his love for actors – for acting – shape a large portion of his film, writing for Eli and Plainview a show-stopping series of speeches. If nothing else, this is what There Will Be Blood will be remembered for: the “I do my own drilling” speech; the “I’ve built up my hatreds over the years, little by little” speech; the “I’ve abandoned my child, I’ve abandoned my boy” speech; the “bastard from a basket” speech; the “I am a false prophet” speech; and most memorably, the “If you have a milkshake” speech. Dano is extraordinary – his blank-cherub looks are almost comically at odds with his character and demeanour – but this is a Day-Lewis show all the way. As larger-than-life performances built around larger-than-life characters go, this portrayal is possibly unmatched in its scenery-chewing relish. But there’s so much intensity invested in every gesture big or little – when he licks his thumb pad before beginning to count out currency notes, when he contorts his face in rage (his features literally appear to realign themselves), when he affects a curious stiffness in his stance while wordlessly commanding his son to stop hitting him, when he stifles a sob after stumbling on a childhood photograph – that Day-Lewis doesn’t come off as a late-Pacino-style surface showboater. Like the oil his character lusts after, it all seems to come from someplace deep within.
Copyright ©2008 The New Indian Express. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Baradwaj IMO the opening images and the droning electronic chord allude not to Kubrick’s The Shining but to the beginning of his 2001: A Space Odyssey and its murderous apes exploring the post apocalytpic part of a Darwinian continuum,which links here to Daniel Plainview,in the sense that America’s natural wealth, has been travestied in favor of a purely selfish materialism,justified by desperate religious fantasies embodied by Paul Dano.
claustrophobic idiom: I’ve read about the materialism vs. religion parallel in relation to America, but I never got any of that from the film, which worked for me purely on a character-based level, and not on any allegorical level Hence, Shining and not 2001). That said, there’s something interesting in the image comparisons here
Awesome movie and interesting review. I totally agree with “…Eli’s currency is faith; he’s just a capitalist of a different kind.” It’s too bad that most Bollywood flicks don’t have such “depth” that you can explore in your reviews.
I hadn’t thought of the comparison to the shining before. They are also comparable because both films depend so much on the performances of the lead actor, and both actors(Daniel Day-Lewis and Nicholson) deliver two of the greatest performances of all time. I wasn’t really thinking of the comedy aspect of the film when I saw it because I wasn’t expecting that, but it is indeed a dark comedy in many ways, and Daniel Day-Lewis’ performance is not only dramatic, but brilliantly comic. I just can’t get enough of this movie. There is also another good article on “There Will Be Blood” which also talks about “No Country For Old Men” and “The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” at jviz.blogspot.com here
http://jviz.blogspot.com/2008/04/dark-movies.html
A fantastic review, for an equally fantastic movie. Relished the last line!
Mithun: Well, it’s not as if all films from over there abound with “depth,” but yeah, their ratio of heavy:light films is much higher.
Jim: I too didn’t expect to laugh this much. The baptism (of Plainview by Eli) alone is such a crack-up, you can practically see Day-Lewis’ lips twitching. Of course, he tempers the comedy with that sudden cry “I’ve abandoned my son, etc.” before getting back to “crap, when is this freaking ritual going to get over” mode.
Karthik: Thanks man. Just wish it had come around to these parts sooner, but better late than never, especially to see it on the big screen. BTW, can anyone say when it was released in other parts of the country? Thanks.
BRangan Thanks for that link.I picked up the Dawn of Man allusion,but none of the other references.
The film released here(in Delhi) around the Oscars weekend.
BTW, recent search terms leading to Blogical Conclusion include “animated insects” and “Mandakini’s nipple.” I so glad my blog attracts readers with such a diverse range of interests
A masterful review of a masterful film!! keep ‘em coming, my dear buddhist monk!!
“Visu Perippa”: You big fart
Do you make it a point to read up on all previews, interviews, the original book on which the film is based, other reviews of the film and so on before you decide to view a Oscar-nominated Hollywood film for watching(like the connection between Shining and this film and so on)? Dont you think that robs the spontaneity off your natural response to the film a bit? Not to mention it might also skew your own analysis/reading of the film.
Another thing, regarding “depth” - It is my opinion that depth is overrated quite a bit. I mean a whole lot of us dont even have time to ponder over all the metaphorical or symbolic implications while a scene is being played out on the big screen. What matters more is the visceral impact and an engagement with the audience at a certain level. Subtexts and layers might be interesting material for academic dissection after the screening, but they dont necessarily enhance your movie-watching experience.
Also sometimes the perceived depth is attributed to the director’s insight by the reviewer, when it might not be the case. It might be just the reviewer trying to read a bit too much into a film that he liked while watching it.
The depth factor could be an icing at best, in my opinion. What matters is the cake itself.
Vijay: Actually I never ever watch/read previews, interviews, whatever because they give away things that spoil the film. For instance, the director could say X is what he was going for, and that gets stuck in your mind, but while seeing the film (and in my opinion) he could be going for Y. The previews etc. of Indian films are especially horrible because they give away plot and bits of dialogue as well. Almost always, the first question asked is “What is your film about?” In this particular case, I read this bit long after I saw the film and it stuck in my mind while beginning to write the review.
Regarding “a whole lot of us dont even have time to ponder over all the metaphorical or symbolic implications,” well, a review is written AFTER a film, right? Not while actually watching it. So when you’re running the film through your mind’s projector, you could say, “Ah, maybe that’s what this means.” Some of us like to do this. From your comment, I guess you don’t. It’s really just different levels of engagement with a film, or any piece of art really.
And regarding “It might be just the reviewer trying to read a bit too much into a film that he liked while watching it,” OF COURSE this is the case. That’s what makes a good review so valuable. If I (or any other reviewer) didn’t try to filter the film through *my* life experiences and *my* analytical processes, why would you even be interested in my take? I could then just write about the plot and the performances and be done, right? What use is that, then?
“… a visibly discomfited Plainview pulls away.”
Your eye for detail is what makes your reviews so good to read. PTA sets up several moments to underscore the subtext of religion (and milk) in the movie. But none of those moments really call attention to themselves.
I think Daniel Plainview has beaten Alonzo Harris to become the loudest hero to win an Oscar.
I haven’t watched No Country For Old Men yet, but It better be drink-your-milkshake-good to deserve that Oscar.
Gaipajama: “PTA sets up several moments to underscore the subtext of religion (and milk)” - yeah, isn’t it funny? Like when Plainview and son first walk up to the Sunday ranch, Eli’s father offers them goat’s milk, and during the dinner scenes, glasses of milk are kept prominently in the frame. I’m glad you mentioned it. I was wondering whether to talk about this in the review, but I guess I was afraid of — cough, cough — “reading too much into it”
I said I dont have time to ponder about all those things only while watching the film. I do think about it afterwards if I want to, but in no way it enhances my viewing experience, because the viewing has already been done at that point and is in the past. Its just academic dissection at that point. I might be surprised that I missed something or maybe find a new angle that I might not have thought of but if it didnt hit me while watching the film it didnt serve the purpose(of getting a full-fledged experience while waching it). Of course as a reviewer you have to do it all the time. But for me who is just another movie fan, I feel the “depth” aspect is overrated as a contributing factor to a movie’s impact on me. I wouldnt sit thru 2001 space odyssey for example( even though it might have a lot of philosophical, scientific ideas buried beneath the surface which are open to debate and although I might appreciate the thought the director put into it) because the experience itself was boring(just like how I would’nt bother analyzing what raga every Ilayaraja or Rahman song is in, like how some of their diehard fans do, if the song itself didnt make any impact). The movie is cold and distant . I would rather watch a Carl Sagan Cosmos episode on my flatscreen TV, maybe with some choice western classical music in the background to boot :-)That could make me think/get entertained/engaged as much as 2001 did if not more. The experience is probably more or less the same. Of course all this is just my opinion.
“And yet, by the end, we see that Plainview and Eli may not be all that different. It’s just that Eli’s currency is faith; he’s just a capitalist of a different kind.”
So glad you wrote that..thats exactly how I saw the film. The capitalism vs the Church dichotomy was clearly secondary and underdeveloped as a theme.
On a different note, have you watched ‘Eastern Promises’ yet? Did you enjoy Cronenberg’s earlier film ‘History of Violence’? As the title suggests its nnother movie that oozes blood and gore in nearly every frame. For that matter even ‘No country for old men’…Which would you pick as the best gore fest?
wannabemoviemaven: Actually, I wouldn’t pick any of these as “gore fests.” The violence in these films is shocking because there are such unexpected spurts of it. I think the Saw films, for instance, are more likely candidates for “gore fests.”