I saw There Will Be Blood yesterday. I can see why everybody's raving about it. There were some really brilliant moments and Daniel Day Lewis definitely puts his soul into that part, and overall I liked the film. But I think its greatest strength was also its greatest weakness.
At first I thought this was a story about a man and his son. Then it became a story about a man and his relationship with the town, specifically the local minister. Then for a while it was about a man and his brother. Then it was about all that other stuff again. I could never get a lock on the story because key characters would disappear for half an hour or more while we concentrated on something else.
That wouldn't be a problem if I felt the thematic connection between them. There probably was a thematic connection, but I wasn't really sure because so much of what went on in this film was unspoken. There was an enormous amount of subtext that was probably supposed to clue me into the point of the film, but I just didn't follow it.
Very Minor Spoilers to follow....
And that's also what made most of this film so good. There is a scene where Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis) realizes another character is not who he says he is when the character slips up and says something he doesn't even realize he said. The only way we know he did anything wrong is the look on Plainview's face. That's it. And you get it right away.
Subtext!
But the best thing about this film is the first 15-20 minutes. There is no dialogue. None. We learn everything we need to know about this man as he drags himself with a broken leg for miles over the desert so he can sell the ore he found in his well. We see him go from ignoring a crying baby to touching its face with affection. We see the work he's willing to put in and the sacrifices he's willing to undertake to succeed. And he never says a word.
Subtext!
The other great thing about that lack of dialogue is the concentrated silence it creates in your brain. You've been sitting in that theater with all these other people, just contemplating the events before you without anyone even having to speak. Then Plainview begins to talk calmly and quietly. Then a bunch of people start yelling.
Since it's been so quiet for so long, the yelling is jarring as hell and you get his frustration and annoyance right away. It's a very effective contrast.
It's also a terrific way to demonstrate how a script is built on action. You can do so much without words if you know how to build subtext into your action.
If you want to read the script, you can get it here from Paramount.
WARNING: The comments contain some major spoilers.
I feel like I'm spamming all the bloggage about this flick, but I love the shit out, so ignore me if you like but...
ReplyDeleteFrom my seat it's an amazing, rich examination of just the Plainview character and how he's battling himself over the course of the whole film. He's sorta the protagonist and the antagonist to my mind. All the interactions seem like illustrations of what he loathes within himself- solitude, exploiting, taking advantage of- all part of the "competition" within and he can't ever come to equilibrium with it at the end and destroys himself. It's such a spectacular corrosion to watch.
And DDL is like watching a nuclear reaction.
Oh I completely agree with you. I think that it was one of the most interesting things about this film, but I also think it cold have used a little nudge to connect the three major stories beyond just his character.
ReplyDeleteThe climax was about the preacher, but we didn't get introduced to the preacher until almost an hour into the film. And the conflict with his son, which I thought was the story, was resolved well before the end.
It sort of prevented me from figuring out where the story was.
I liked the film, I just wish it had a more cohesive storyline.
The story was about one man, Daniel Plainview, and his relationships in general.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I said it needs a THEMATIC connection. One man's relationships doesn't constitute a theme or a story.
ReplyDeleteAgain, didn't say I didn't like the film. I just thought it could have been stronger if I saw firmer connections between the stories.
How would you feel about exploitation as a theme? (Not that I know what I'm talking about, mind you, but each time I saw the flick this seemed to be a common element in the big sequences)
ReplyDeletePlainview Exploits the earth for silver/oil. (And she always fights back.)
He exploits HW for the family man image. (Which is really like my favorite aspect b/c he obviously loves HW, but he can't quite bring himself to believe it's enough to make up for it.)
The boom towns & people are exploited in the land rush when oil is struck.
Eli is exploiting faith & God.
Henry shows up to exploit the brother/family angle.
And when Plainview realizes this and caps the dude he's forced to exploit the Bandy's faith just like Eli.
Maybe the Faith aspect is completely tied to the exploitation. The Bible-thumping tends to overshadow any other sort of Faith, but I suspect there is more to it so I'm totally gonna have to see it again. Four times is just not enough.
That's an interesting idea. I can definitely see that.
ReplyDeleteIf that is the idea, though, I wish there had been more of a push to make sure I knew that. That's what I mean about subtext. Sometimes you need some straight text.
But no matter what, the film certainly does generate discussion and that's pretty awesome.
Great discussion. I just saw this over the weekend and have been dying to talk about it. For me it wasn't so much a thematical problem as a structural one. I felt like there was something lacking in the build to the climax.
ReplyDeleteEverything was pretty neatly tied up right before they jumped ahead to 1927. I wanted some more tension carried over into that final section to help build to the last scene. It felt like it just kind of happened. And my reaction was more of a “Huh” rather than an “Oh my God!”
That being said, I really enjoyed the film. Definitely one of the best films of the year.
I like to think HW really was Plainview's boy, and that mom really did die at childbirth. When he stated otherwise, it was simply because he was a ball of hate and wanted to hurt HW... like he said, he always saw the bad in people, even his own boy. And that's because his wife died giving birth to HW, hence is hatred/disbelief in God.
ReplyDeleteWhether the movie really makes sense or not, doesn't matter, it's a fun ride.
Nic, brilliant observations. You seam to have quit the mellon! What's your (head's) mesurements.
ReplyDeleteI saw "There Will be Blood" yesterday and thought about it's impact on me on and off throughout the day.
Overall, I didn't like "There Will be Blood" more than "No Country for Old Men," but Daniel Day Lewis' performance was ABSOLUTE PERFECTION. After Dustin Hoffman, (who can do no wrong in my eyes)Daniel Day Lewis IS the best actor in movies. He just needs to do more of 'em.
LOVED the ending of "There Will Be Blood," but did anybody notice that this film uses its background music a bit much to infuse tension during first 2/3's of the movie? Don't get me wrong, it's good music, but the tension, in my opinion, is rather heavy handed forced upon the audience and doesn't naturally flow out from the script or movie.
- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA
ec-- I do sport a 7 and 1/2 when I buy fitted ball caps but we can chalk that up to me typically just being thick.
ReplyDeletemel-- The 1927 jump does create a sort of vacuum and leave things off-kilter. The script has more of a transition in that particular spot but it does seem to pull the punch to me. (HW does in fact straight up go behind Daniel's back in business and betray him...) The cut is so abrupt that you can't help but feel the hole- something between HW and Daniel is gone now and time hasn't healed it. Having the wedding right up against Daniel's solitude underscores the 'Not my son bit' which should be gut-wrenching for Plainview but he's already spent. It's matter of fact to him, he knows HW's betrayed him, he's back to where he started-- alone. And it's insane in the audience because he uses nearly the EXACT SAME WORDS- "these past years, building your hate for me piece by piece"- that he uses to describe himself to Henry. HW could NOT be more his son. That shit is bananas.