Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 06, 2007 at 06:42 AM
Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood is one of those legendary, go-for-broke, fiercely psychological big-canvas art movies that you need to see twice -- the first time to go "whoa!" and recoil and get all shaken up and bothered about, and the second time so you can reconsider and see what a masterwork it is, despite your feelings about the malignant emotional content. If you're a film maven of any kind you can't let your piddly emotions get in the way of recognizing diseased greatness.

Daniel Day Lewis's portrayal of the remarkable Daniel Plainview -- a driven, increasingly manic and misanthropic oilman who builds an empire in the early 20th Century -- is historic. It's one of the most riveting and demonically possessed performances ever put to film -- more feverish than any monster played by Lon Chaney or Boris Karloff or Bela Lugosi -- and yet human and vulnerable-seem- ing enough to stir a certain recognition. He's playing John Huston, after all, by way of Noah Cross. Or is it vice versa?.
Plainvew is a Count Dracula who spews oil rather than sucks blood. He's starts out as a hard-working miner, then a tough businessman, then a religion-hating misanthrope, then a father who abandons his son, and finally a full-out fiend.
Lewis has a Best Actor Oscar nomination in the bag, of course, but the moral matter of what he and Anderson have brought into the world may give pause to some.
I'm imagining Anderson and Lewis holding a miniature infant version of Daniel Plainview in baby blankets, fresh out of the womb and wet with afterbirth and yet adultly proportioned (as he is in the film), and saying to us all, "Come see our child! He's a monster, no question, but he came from our ribs and our souls and we love him...God help us but we do. We realize you can't love him -- he's not constructed that way -- but can you respect him at least? Can you at least see that he's where some of us -- perhaps more than a few of us -- have come from? Or is a person that, God help us, some of us may actually be?"

No one in the world will argue that the musical score by Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood isn't a major mind-bender. It's boldly intrusive, brassy and manic, pushy, crazy-man symphonic. It expresses Plainview's psychological state, of course, but it's also a character unto itself. It keeps saying "listen to me...no, no, listen to me!" And you do, and you can't help but think and think about it afterward. It's a guaranteed Oscar nominee.
I really don't know what to say about Blood's chances of being Oscar-nominated for Best Film, or Anderson's for Best Film or Adapted Screenplay (based as it is on Upton Sinclair's "Oil!"). My first reaction was that it's too cold for the Academy types to embrace it, but I'm starting to wonder. I really don't know if my first reac- tion is the one to trust or the reaction I'm feeling now, having seen it a second time last night at San Francisco's Castro theatre with a huge crowd, and admired it all the more.
"Does it have a chance of being named Best Picture by a critics group?," I wrote a week and a half ago. "Conceivably. Does it have a chance in hell of being nominated for Best Picture by the Academy? I really doubt this. A film this black and misanthropic has never played with the Academy. Compared to Anderson's film, No County for Old Men is a fairly gentle and kind-hearted thing, at least in terms of Tommy Lee Jones' lawman character.
I was wowed but mixed after seeing There Will Be Blood on 10.25. There was no question I'd just seen a masterfully well-honed psychodrama about a two-pronged figure -- a snarly, self-made oil tycoon and a creature from the black lagoon -- in early 20th Century California.

I also knew this was a powerfully convincing portrait of what a rough, backbreaking thing it was to get oil out of the ground 80 and 90 years ago, and a seriously strange but fascinating look at the primal influences of big oil and evangelical Christianity -- religions that obviously still prosper today.
It was also clear there was a strong, somewhat plagued psychological engine at its center. I'm speaking principally of Anderson's sardonic, dark-leaning world view (portions of Punch Drunk Love aside) and, I strongly suspect, his feelings about his late father, big-time announcer Ernie Anderson, who was allegedly a fierce personality with very dark leanings himself.
People are going to be talking about There Will Be Blood's closing line -- "I'm finished" -- for a long time to come. As well as those first 15 or 20 minutes of dialogue-free story-telling and atmosphere absorption. It's obviously a work of a first-rate filmmaker delivering a very high-end art epic, at times stunningly so.
There is nothing but realism in There Will be Blood -- there isn't a fake line or moment in the entire 2 hours and 38 minutes -- but it's also an embodiment of a very creepy psychology. Black as night, black as oil, blacker than the bottom of a sealed-up well. My girlfriend hated it. The thought occured to me during the first screening that it's probably going to make as much as The Assassination of Jesse James...if that.

I respect this film enormously. I admire each and every part. But it leaves you with nothing but the taste of bile in your mouth at the end. Bile and ashes that you want to spit on the pavement as you're heading out to the parking lot, and at the same time you want to keep with you because they came from a strong and penetrating film.
The day after first seeing it I wrote that Anderson "has a heart of darkness inside him that would make Joseph Conrad tremble and turn pale. I don't know anything, but There Will Be Blood doesn't seem like a movie for audiences to watch and delight in as much as a therapy session for Paul to work out his rage and anger at Ernie."
Lewis's "Bill the Butcher" in Gangs of New York was a grand guignol psychopath, but Plainview is even more diseased as he lets no light in whatsoever. No gentleness, humor or warmth (except for the love he shows his young adopted son during the first hour). A shrewd survivor, but consumed by utter greed and calculation. A man looking for love and loyalty, and yet ready to kill or abandon those he feels have betrayed him or let him down. Not a character as much as a kind of demonic force of nature.
A week and a half ago I wrote "there is no way -- no way in hell -- that rank-and-file Academy members are going to embrace this performance, forceful and amazingly intense as it is, enough for Lewis to win. I support his being nominated because I know what great acting is, but no way in hell does he win. Forget it." Now I don't know. Last night's viewing turned me around somewhat. I feel less emotional and more sure of the greatness at work here.

Within its own heavily male, oil-soaked, organized religion-hating, misanthropic realm, There Will Be Blood is brilliant.
But (and I'm talking about the first viewing, not the second) it's about as hateful as a quality film can be -- hateful in that there's no one to care about except for the young son (and his adult incarnation at the end), and not that much to think about. Most women viewers will probably despise it, and yet it's easily one of the year's best made films.
I haven't mentioned the fall-on-your-knees quality of Robert Elswit's widescreen cinematography or Jack Fisk's production design. I'll get into the other fine performances by Paul Dano, Ciaran Hinds, Dillon Freasier and Kevin J. O'Connor down the road. It's primarily a Lewis show from start to finish, and it's hard to focus elsewhere for the time being.
Anderson is saying, I think, "Don't let yourself be like this guy....but if you are like this guy, don't turn to religion to cure your ills because God is a foolish superstition, and religions are run by money-grubbing hypocrites."
There Will Be Blood is a cautionary tale -- beware of the Daniel Plainviews in your life, and the ones living inside you. Is it worth two hours and 38 minutes of experiencing a seething misanthropic cauldron to absorb this message? Yes, it's worth it...definitely. It passes along a kind of insanity, but it does so with absolute greatness.

Last updated: October 3, 2007
Obviously I'm light in several categories.
Suggestions and disputations are welcome.
BEST PICTURE: Australia (20th Century Fox), The Argentine (Focus Features), Guerilla (Focus Features), Milk (Focus Features), Seven Pounds (Sony), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Paramount/Warner Bros.), The Soloist (DreamWorks), Body of Lies (Warner Bros.), Revolutionary Road (Paramount Vantage/DreamWorks), The Changeling (Universal Pictures), Frost/Nixon (Universal), Doubt (Miramax), Blindness (Universal Pictures), Defiance (Paramount Vantage), The Duchess (Paramount Vantage), Valkyrie (MGM-UA), The Reader (Weinstein Co.)
BEST DIRECTOR: Fernando Meirelles (Blindness), David Fincher (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Ron Howard (Frost/Nixon), Brian Singer (Valkyrie), Baz Luhrmann (Australia), Steven Soderbergh (The Argentine and Guerilla), Gus Van Sant (Milk), Gabriele Muccino (Seven Pounds), Joe Wright (The Soloist), Ridley Scott (Body of Lies), Sam Mendes (Revolutionary Road), Clint Eastwood (Changeling), John Patrick Shanley (Doubt), Edward Zwick (Defiance), Saul Dibb (The Duchess), Stephen Daldry (The Reader)
BEST ACTOR: Leonardo DiCaprio (Revolutionary Road), Brad Pitt (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button), Ralph Fiennes (The Duchess), Hugh Jackman (Australia), Tom Cruise (Valkyrie), Harrison Ford (Crossing Over), Sean Penn (Milk), James Franco (Pineapple Express), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Synecdoche, New York), Heath Ledger (Dark Knight), Will Smith (Seven Pounds), Jamie Foxx (The Soloist)
BEST ACTRESS: Kate Winslet (Revolutionary Road), Angelina Jolie (Changeling), Keira Knightley (The Duchess), Nicole Kidman (Australia)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Leiv Schreiber (Defiance), Frank Langella (Frost/Nixon), John Malkovich (Changeling and Burn After Reading), Bill Nighy (Valkyrie), Robert Downey Jr. (The Soloist), Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic thunder), James Franco (The Pineapple Express), Alan Alda (Nothing But the Truth)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: Meryl Streep (Doubt), Amy Adams (Doubt), Vera Farmiga (Nothing But the Truth)
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE: Dr. Seuss' Horton Hears a Who (20th Century Fox)
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY: Charlie Kaufman (Synecdoche, New York)
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY: Peter Straughan (How to Lose Friends and Alienate People)
SPECIAL EFFECTS: Iron Man, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Michelle discovers a couple of comedy films thanks to the power of Netflix.
Adam joins the Elsewhere crew from the Windy City and hits the ground running this week.
July 2
July 3
July 4
Diminished Capacity
Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson
We are Together
July 9
July 11
August
Eight Miles High
Journey to the Center of the Earth
Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired
July 18
A Very British Gangster
Before I Forget
Felon
Lou Reed's Berlin
Transsiberian
July 22
July 23
Comments
Great review. Can't wait for this! Unfortunately it probably won't be until January before Vancouver gets it...Still, my anticipation is through the roof.
Posted by: Aladdin Sane
at
November 6, 2007 10:17 AM
Jeff, I'm often with the readers who get harsh with you. I suspect I will be with all your readers who love you for this review.
You deserve all the kudos you get for this (spoiler free!) review-- just perfect, whets my appetite even more for what looks like an amazing, challenging film.
Thank you VERY much.
Posted by: Dave
at
November 6, 2007 10:28 AM
Sounds like a fascinating character study. I'm going to drag my girlfriend to this and tell her she is going to hate it, then she may actually end up liking it to a certain degree. She actually liked The Assassination of Jesse James.
Posted by: arch451
at
November 6, 2007 10:28 AM
Jeff, awesome review. Thanks for keeping the details and spoilers to a minimum and yet still be able to convey the tone and mood of the film.
But do you really think it will make only $2 to $3 million at the box office? Surely, any nominations or rewards it receives (DDL is certain to be nominated for GG and Oscar, and will probably do well in the critics circles) will boost its potential. Without having seen the movie, obviously, $15 to $20 million seems realistic, and that's taking your word for it that it's as hateful as you say.
Posted by: BNick
at
November 6, 2007 10:29 AM
Sounds like the "Feel Good Hit of the Fall!"
Posted by: Stephe96
at
November 6, 2007 10:31 AM
Nicely written review, but it sounds like such a miserable and depressing picture. I'll pass.
Posted by: Ian Sinclair
at
November 6, 2007 10:34 AM
Thanks, Wells. Good review. I'm just looking forward to what bigfan0808 thinks about the film. Is Daniel Plainview single?
Posted by: PerfectTommy
at
November 6, 2007 10:36 AM
I don't get it... Bloggers always say that they don't read early reviews because it taints their own opinion of a picture. And then they go ahead and publish their own earlies right after a screening. Are their untouched opinions more important than their readers?
Posted by: Crow T Robot
at
November 6, 2007 10:45 AM
Sounds great, and thank oyu for the great review, Jeff. No spoilers too!!
But don't underestimate the timing, even if this is black and dark material. The anti holiday programming might kick in well. Perhaps with the WGA strike people will not be getting their TV fix in December, and the spill over into There Will Be Blood will be even greater...
Who know?
Posted by: iamjoe
at
November 6, 2007 10:47 AM
Great review, Jeff, but you've made two crucial mistakes:
1) There's a difference between a misanthropic film and a misanthropic character. People always make the same mistake when talking about Kubrick. Of course, he was far more detached (literally) and misanthropic than Anderson.
2) Anderson didn't have a troubled or hateful relationship with his father, he had a troubled and hateful relationship with his mother. Draw your own conclusions, but from every interview I've ever read, as well as his commentaries on his first two films, he genuinely worshipped his father. They lived together as bachelors into Anderson's 20s. Seriously, he didn't hate him.
Posted by: JD
at
November 6, 2007 10:49 AM
DIGG This. Great review Jeff!
http://digg.com/movies/There_Will_Be_Blood_Legendary_Go_for_broke_Fiercely_Psychological
Posted by: Alex Keen
at
November 6, 2007 10:53 AM
In the absence of the promised moviegoer reaction, I'll provide a soundbite, "Three and a half hours after posting it, Jeffrey Wells announces what his girlfriend thinks."
Posted by: T. Holly
at
November 6, 2007 10:53 AM
PS - I love how conflicted your enthusiasm for the film is -- genuine ambivalence is rare in film criticism these days -- but it seems that you are second-guessing your enthuisasm because you fear that others won't agree. Why not just give us your reaction, rather than anticipate the reactions of others?
Posted by: JD
at
November 6, 2007 10:56 AM
I haven't seen the film or heard the soundtrack, but I'm doubtful of a Greenwood nomination for Best Score. That group is notoriously insular, and it's tough for a new person to break in, especially one with a rock background. It took years for Danny Elfman to break through, and he writes fairly conventional scores for a guy who was once in Oingo Boingo. Gustavo Santaollala breaking through may signify a change, but a guy from Radiohead, with a group that nominates John Williams and James Horner at every chance? Not so sure.
Posted by: Jackrabbit Slim
at
November 6, 2007 10:57 AM
My grandfather spent the 1920s working oil fields in Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, and West Texas. He was one hardened old SOB when I got to know him in the 1960s. A man full of contradictions. I'll see it just to see what he lived through as a young guy.
Posted by: nemo
at
November 6, 2007 10:57 AM
'Most women viewers will probably despise it, and yet it's easily one of the year's best made films.'
From the sounds of it, most viewers--regardless of gender--will probably despise it. The majority of movie-goers (again, regardless of gender), I think, are not looking for something quite as dark as this sounds. Personally, this woman is looking forward to it; I think it sounds fantastic. The darker, the better, sez me.
Posted by: carla kolchak
at
November 6, 2007 10:58 AM
Is the message in this film really saying "don't turn to religion to help cure your ills"? I would hope it is saying no to the hypocrisy that exists in religion, not that religion itself is the problem.
I count myself as a person using Christianity as an idea of how I would like to live my life but not as a place to turn when there is something wrong. The hypocrisy in hiding oneself behind your religious beliefs is what I find sickening in the world today. If you turn to God and ask for help, sorry to say so buddy but you ain't gonna get it. It's better to try and do the right thing before you go crawling to your God and try to get out of you mistakes.
Regardless, that's a great review and all it did was make me want to see this film even more. Also, my girlfriend loved "Jesse James".
Posted by: chicbn872
at
November 6, 2007 11:00 AM
Great, Jeff! I look forward to reading this AFTER I see There Will Be Blood.
Posted by: Mgmax
at
November 6, 2007 11:00 AM
Wells has a girlfriend?
Iamjoe is right, Anderson loved his father and was/is estranged from his mother.
Posted by: VoiceOfReason
at
November 6, 2007 11:01 AM
Wait I mean JD is right. Durr.
Posted by: VoiceOfReason
at
November 6, 2007 11:04 AM
Wait, i mean JD is right.
Posted by: VoiceOfReason
at
November 6, 2007 11:04 AM
Gotta agree with Jackrabbit (though I haven't heard Greenwood's score yet). Jon Brion fell victim to this anti-rock prejudice with his terrific scores for Magnolia/Punch-Drunk Love/Eternal Sunshine... and Cliff Martinez's brilliant work with Steven Soderbergh has been overlooked for years (though that may have more to do with the guild's aversion to electronic music).
VoiceOfReason, as of Sharon Waxman's 2005 book Rebels on the Backlot, PTA said he was back in touch with his mother and things were okay between them.
Posted by: JD
at
November 6, 2007 11:09 AM
Great Review Jeff!!
Posted by: jens
at
November 6, 2007 11:37 AM
Without giving anything away, as a character, how does Plainview compare to, say, the also diseased Hearst in "Deadwood?"
Posted by: Vitesse98
at
November 6, 2007 12:02 PM
Hearst is a teddy bear.
Posted by: Kristopher Tapley
at
November 6, 2007 12:30 PM
well done Jeff
Posted by: berkguru
at
November 6, 2007 12:46 PM
Nice comparison, Vitesse98.
It's funny, when I originally saw the teaser for this film I thought of Swearingen from Deadwood. But, as I read more about Plainview, it's obvious that the comparison breaks down because (and I can't believe I'm saying this) Swearingen is too good-natured a guy!
Now Kris is saying that Hearst is a teddy bear compared to Plainview. My goodness.
And while we're on the subject, why is HBO spinning its wheels on the Deadwood epilogue films. I heard they took down the set.
Oh, well. Still a less-maddening ending than Carinvale had.
Posted by: BNick
at
November 6, 2007 12:53 PM
Is it kosher to post a comment in a thread about a post you haven't read? Ok, I read the first paragraph and that's all I need to know until I see the thing for myself.
I'm still a little worried about No Country For Old Men (oh, the weight of expectation), but I'm more excited than ever for There Will Be Blood.
Can't wait.
Posted by: cjKennedy
at
November 6, 2007 01:17 PM
Nicely written Jeff, although I'll be disappointed if religious hypocrisy is a key theme...it's only been covered ad nauseum since, what, Tartuffe??? Does PTA have something to add that Moliere missed?
Religious people are hypocrites because people are hypocrites. Republicans are hypocrites because people are hypocrites. Democrats are hypocrites because...well, you get the idea. Hypocrisy is a human condition not ascribable to any one group, is there any great revelation in singling out one versus another?
Posted by: delbomber
at
November 6, 2007 04:08 PM
I think Delbomber when the hypocrisy comes from those in power, whether it's religious or political, it's fair to say something about it.
Posted by: cjKennedy
at
November 6, 2007 04:57 PM
What I don't get is people that can't watch dark themed movies. Real life is just that. Not everything and everyone are happy or don't deal with demons. I can still find interest in someone who is happy as the same with someone who is not. Is the charcater interesting? Not every movie character can be Andy from Shawshank or Forrest Gump. I'm sure there are people just like Plainview. There may have been in the theatre last night. It doesn't make me not like the movie because I don't like the character or it's not a happy ending. Not everybody's lives are a happy ending.
Posted by: patsson
at
November 6, 2007 09:12 PM
I really liked Boogy Nights, never "got" Magnolia and thought Punch Drunk Love was overrated (especially the fact that everyone raved about Sandler and I didn't see him doing anything new)...
But I'll be buggared if Jeff's weeks of hype (and this review) haven't made me excited for this.
I hope I don't have to wait to long to see it (and No Country for Old Men) in Australia.
Posted by: Pete
at
November 6, 2007 10:07 PM
I can't believe I have to wait until late December for this. Please Gods of the Heavens allow us in L.A. to see this sooner. No Country and Gangster are going to help with the wait. But.....fuck.
Posted by: Geoff
at
November 6, 2007 10:58 PM
I haven't seen Jeff this effusive since 'Touching the Void'. I'm hoping this time he's a little closer to the mark.
Posted by: delbomber
at
November 7, 2007 06:31 AM
"I can't keep doing this on my own. With these...people."
Posted by: aspiringcrackaddict
at
November 7, 2007 06:49 AM
I love how seriously you took this review, Jeffrey. Great work, and watching a movie about a truly dark, tragic figure played out on an epic scale from PTA sounds like heaven to me.
Posted by: MAGGA
at
November 7, 2007 07:26 AM
Word of warning. If Wells loves it it means it has no heart at all and is as cold as a film can get.
Posted by: Dave Polands Gut
at
November 7, 2007 11:28 AM
Post a Comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)