you are at »   Movies  »  Bob Reviews Blood  · Login
05,19,2012        Search
  Features


  August '08


   

There Will Be Excellence
 
By Bob 1/8/2008
 
Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood was simply put, one of the most amazing works I have seen this year, or any year for that matter. It was unquestionably a classic, and might go down as one of the greatest films of all time thanks to the performance of its lead actor: Daniel Day-Lewis. 
 
Day-Lewis was hauntingly thorough, and his speech impeccable. Not only did he deliver his lines with incredible gravitas, but he was able to carry an already excellent film to an entirely new level. I would say that this performance might possibly be the best I have ever seen, and it is certainly the most outstanding performance of the past decade. 
 
What makes Day-Lewis’s performance as turn-of-the-century oil tycoon Daniel Plainview so excellent is the fact that the actor fully becomes the character. Plainview’s greed, anger, and solitude seethe through Day-Lewis throughout the film in ways that have not been seen since Orson Welles’ Kane destroyed the bedroom of his second wife. It is said that Daniel Day-Lewis becomes completely consumed by his characters during shooting, and that he remains in character when not filming over the course of the shoot. This was evident here, as Day-Lewis became a wholly different person in ways which other actors can not. 
 
The film is great as a whole because it really is the story of Daniel Plainview. It is the rise and fall of this self-proclaimed “oil man” whose greed eventually ruins all of the contacts he has with other people. Plainview says, “When I tell you I am an oil man . . . you would also agree that I am a family man.” His family is entirely his relationship with his adopted son H.W., a relationship which is severely strained by after an accident leaves H.W. deaf, and Plainview sends him away.
 
This was the plot of the film: the juxtaposition of Plainview’s life as an oil man and a family man. His greed for success coupled with the familial relationships which he is unable to have because of this greed. He does not speak with his family (parents, brothers, and sisters), and as his relationship with his son because increasingly estranged, he becomes more and more isolated from the rest of the world.
 
Simultaneously, Plainview must feed his greed by expanding his empire, a goal which often puts him at odds with Eli Sunday, a local preacher played exceptionally well by Paul Dano (Little Miss Sunshine). The relationship between Eli and Daniel is also one which defines the film, and the course which Daniel’s life takes throughout. Both men strive to be leaders amongst their people, and struggle for power often. One is a man of faith, while the other is a man of money, and their conflicts over the course of the film help to isolate Plainview, and show the great lengths which he will go for his own personal wealth. Both are living their own dreams by following their own paths, but in the end neither fully appreciates what their lives work has amounted to.
 
As excellent as Day-Lewis and Dano portray these characters, attention must be paid to the work of writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson as well as Jonny Greenwood’s score. I mention Greenwood’s work along with that of the films creator because the music was stunningly perfect, and some of the most fitting I have ever experienced in a film. As for Anderson, the film is certainly a change of pace when compared to his earlier (much appreciated) films Boogie Nights and Magnolia. While his film Punch Drunk Love allowed him to focus singularly on one protagonist (like he does here with Plainview) his earlier films were sprawling pieces which had many intertwining characters and plots.
 
Here, Anderson proves that he is one of the best living directors. I have not seen a film of his that I did not appreciate, but this is his first that I believe to be without a doubt exceptional. (Magnolia would be there as well, if not for those damn frogs). The depiction of the scenery worked perfectly for the film, and it should be mentioned in the same breath as No Country for Old Men as the best shot film of 2007. Anderson’s script is also excellent in the way it acutely depicts the rise and fall of a man more concerned with his rise than anything else, including a poignant ending that brings the film to its shocking conclusion.
 
In the end, Plainview’s quest for power and money lead him on a path quite similar to that of Kane’s but without the satisfaction of a burning sled to answer all of the viewer’s the film ends with ends with some lingering questions about Plainview’s motivations and desires. While I agree the final scenes are excellently fitting, and Plainview’s startling final line is perfect, I still was unsure of what to make of Plainview’s relationship with his son, as well as the relationship between Eli and Paul Sunday. 
 
However, despite a few lingering questions I had, there is no doubt in my mind that There Will Be Blood is an American classic and Day-Lewis performance here will be remembered with the likes of De Niro in Raging Bull and Welles in Citizen Kane, some of the best of all time. I give the film 9.5/10 salty stix, and hope to see more from Paul Thomas Anderson very soon.

   

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.