There Will Be Blood (dir. Paul Thomas Anderson)
Well, after months and months of waiting, I've finally seen it. And while this is a monster of a film that surely will take a while to fully digest, I'll try to share my initial impressions.
Let's get to the point: Is this the best, or my favorite film of the year? I certainly expected it to contend very heavily. Right now, I'd have to say no. While there is probably more to admire within this film than anything else I've seen this year, the complete package did not resonate with me on the level of I'm Not There, and quite possibly No Country For Old Men. I've seen those two multiple times so I feel I'd need to see TWBB again to place it with any kind of legitimacy.
From a technical standpoint, this film has no equal this year. The photography by Robert Elswitt is perhaps not as gorgeous as Roger Deakins' work in Jesse James/Robert Ford, but it is superlative work without any kind of fancy flourishes. The way dust and flame are used...just amazing. The production design by Terrence Malick's collaborator Jack Fisk is beyond realistic, every nook and cranny seeming to reek of 100 year-old presence.
Behind the camera, it's hard to put in the words what PTA has accomplished here. This is so far away from anything he's done before that the filmmaking is almost unrecognizable, and while the screenplay certainly goes over the top, especially in the final movement of the film, visually it's much more restrained, and free from the gimmickry of his previous work. That's not to say it isn't well-directed; there are some marvelous tracking shots, both dolly and hand held, one of my favorites the one with Daniel carrying his son. And there are an array of compositions here that would make Malick proud.
Daniel-Day Lewis. What can you say? The guy puts every other actor to shame, nearly unmasking his peers as mere amateurs. He owns the screen here, mesmerizing even in this mostly low-key performance. And when it does erupt, it's with a fury that almost causes one to choke on nervous laughter. One caveat, however: I don't feel that this performance is quite the achievement that his Bill the Butcher from Gangs of New York was. We certainly see more into the inner life of Daniel Plainview, but there really isn't one specific moment as great as when Bill sits in that chair with the American flag draped over his shoulder, delivering a monologue to DiCaprio's character. And that speech defines Bill's ethos; it doesn't justify what he believes or what he's done, but it something one can understand in connect to. I don't know if you really get that with TWBB, the comparable scene being when Plainview speaks with a man, who for spoiler's sake, I will call a stranger who arrives halfway through the film. What you learn is that Plainview doesn't like people, doesn't like to be around them, and only wants to beat them in competition. And I'm sure we've all felt antisocial, greedy, or competitive before, but it's not much of an emotional foothold. And I think because of this, the character fails to resonate as much. We'll see how I feel about it in the future.
I won't say much more about the acting, but all the supporting players are great in their own way, esp. Paul Dano in what maybe should have been either a a more sympathetic role, or a more dispicable one. I'm not sure about how I feel there.
I'll finish here by going back to the idea of resonance, and I'll compare again here to No Country For Old Men, which it certainly shares similarities with. You have a dry, barren climate. You have men who seem to operate with very odd codes of morals or ethics. And you also see something about the corruption of humanity and the lengths men will go to get the things they want. And while the conclusions of both films will be frustrating for many, NCFOM seems to leave you with much more baggage to take home and reflect on, epecially as it ends on an abrupt, yet elliptical note. Anderson's film is also abrupt, but the punctuation is much more pronounced. It's a cork slammed hard into the top of a crude, bubbling potion; perhaps there was something more to be learned before the end, but it isn't anything you're likely to lose sleep over.
One last comparison to make in this regard is with Malick's Days of Heaven, and while that film doesn't give you much of a portrait of any one human being, or show you the full scope of how the story speaks to (or for) the country it's set in, as Anderson does, its gaze is more tender, more pondering, and overall, I think a bit more effective in what it ultimately reveals about humanity.
This disparity doesn't prevent There Will Be Blood from being a masterpiece (a title I'm not quite ready to bestow on it), though. It just may be a more unwieldy one.