(Warning: massive spoilers ahead).
There's alot of controversy about the ending which is the only thing about the movie that even had me wondering if it 100% worked. Upon more reflection I think it does, in a sort of Flannery O'Connorish way. Some critics are saying the whole last 1920s part of the movie is off and that's nuts to me. I always thought Daniel would kill Eli; they were playing the same game from different sides. I expected the oil/blood connection to be made explicitly, even that Daniel would baptize himself with Eli's blood in the last shot of the movie - maybe too over the top? The whole last segment is a brilliant portrayal of what our idols do to us: they turn us into charicatures of ourselves and our appetites. Daniel becomes greed incarnate, literally 'beating the competition' to death. He's the ultimate consumer capitalist, sucking the life/oil/blood out of Eli and everyone in his life.
Something none of the critics I've read comment on is the theme of father-son abandonment that occurs here as in PTA's other work. This is where Day-Lewis' portrayal (and PTA's writing) of Daniel's character is so careful; for Plainview is far from a monster during the first 2/3 of the film. He takes the orphaned boy in during the first act, and even though his relationship with "H.W." is far from ideal, he does evidence genuine affection for the boy which becomes apparent when H.W. is hurt by the gusher and when Daniel weeps after leaving him on the train. Of course, H.W. is only the latest in a string of abandoned sons in PTA's films. When Daniel is forced by Eli to repeatedly scream "I've abandoned my son!" it reminded me of Frank T. J. Mackey's breakdown at his dying father's bedside "I hate you, don't leave me!"
Final thought: PTA is a generation-X film-maker and even though There Will Be Blood is (almost) universally recognized right now as an instant classic, I wonder if it may be resisted by some of the older school film critics and/or the Academy Awards (for everything but Best Actor which almost has to go to Day-Lewis). I thought about this after reading Roger Ebert's semi-critical review where he said point-blank that he considered No Country for Old Men a perfect movie and that There Will Be Blood is not perfect. As I posted about last month, No Country blew me away and I do think it is perfect technically-speaking; but There Will Be Blood not only seeks to accomplish more than No Country does thematically, it does so with a few unorthodox twists - the score by Johnny Greenwood, the over-the-top ending. It's these breaks with classic film-making tradition that mar There Will Be Blood in Ebert's (and other critics') eyes and, at the same time, make it even more powerful to me, someone of PTA's generation. And I guess that's what fascinates me so much about PTA and this movie: he is telling a classic story, even a classic American story, in a pretty straight-forward way for the most part and doing it with stunning excellence. Yet, even in the midst of working within the epic film tradition, he updates it, not only in terms of style (score, ending, etc) but also in terms of theme (consumerism, father abandonment).
5 comments:
well put, and I agree that its probably THE movie of the decade - but i'm not sure that PTA is a "Gen-X" filmmaker, mainly because I think he's so consistently anachronistic (Richard Linklater, for instance, is a Gen-X-er, and wheres that like a badge in every movie he makes.) It's hard to believe, for instance, that MAGNOLIA was made in 1999 - it could take place in the 80s, or it could take place today. And PUNCH DRUNK LOVE was similarly weird in its sense of time and place. maybe that's just a label, but to me what makes PTA so exciting, and his films unique, is that he continues to defy classification, while still dealing with similar themes. in that way, the filmmaker he resembles most is the late 70s, early 80s Scorsese; though unlike Marty, it doesn't appear he's sitting on a mound of blow with Robbie Robertson. whats nice to know is that everything he does seems worthy of the wait.
Andy: yeah, my 'gen x' comment is confusing. I really only meant that he was literally born into and grew up as part of that generation. I don't really have a category in my head of 'gen x' film-makers or films, per se, though I do tend to think of several of my favorite directors as growing up in the 70s and 80s and starting to make their work in the 90s (Wes Anderson, Noah Baumbach, etc). PTA, Anderson, and Baumbach all deal with similar themes that I do think show up in a new way in films in the 90s because these guys grew up in a certain environment. but I doubt any of these guys still listen to Alice in Chains...let's hope not.
Excellent post. I too was somewhat surprised by Ebert's review of this movie. He seems to be losing that trait that made him a great film critic early on, i.e., being able to recognize new developments in film-making and appreciate them. He was one of the few who liked 2001: A Space Odyssey when it first came out. Not here though. I think he missed the boat completely.
Also, FYI: the son's name is actually H.W., not E.W.
yes, your gen-x was confusing. i spent most of the day in a daze, thinking, "why did Jeremy someone I respect so deeply make such an obvious and limiting classification?" and then i started wandering around, and when i finally came to, i didn't know where i was. and the first person i talked to spoke in some backwards language, and the dogs were walking humans. and then i blacked out, and when i woke up i was back in my bed again. except now, for some reason, every time I drink water it has a strawberry tinge to it. weird, indeed.
Jeremy - This has absolutely nothing to do with your last post (although Phil and I are definitely planning to see the film) but I just heard that I'll be seeing you this Saturday - whoopeee! We are excited to see you! Cheers, kb
Post a Comment