There Will Be Blood is the best film of last year and also of this year, at least so far (it seems to have some kind of dual release schedule, but is officially a 2007 movie). It is directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, adapted (loosely, everyone says), from a book by the novelist and radical activist Upton Sinclair (who once ran for California governor as a socialist). Anderson is now arguably the hottest director in Hollywood, while Sinclair continues to be confused with fellow novelist Sinclair Lewis. Anderson deserves his acclaim. Since 1996 he has issued five top notch movies, each an achievement of his uncompromising vision. In his dedication to his craft he resembles no one less than Kubrick (though most people like to compare him to Altman).

From its opening scenes, There Will Be Blood insists on going its own way, and the musical score itself, by Jonny Greenwood, puts one in mind of Kubrick’s The Shining. The first 15 minutes is virtually silent (possibly because the film begins when movies were silent), as Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) works a mine by himself despite a broken leg. We soon know that nothing, absolutely nothing, will prevent Plainview from getting what he wants. The film is divided into about four sections, which show Plainview’s shift to the oil business and his rise and rise, and ends on something of a declension, as if Citizen Kane, after all its exultation about its hero’s career, were to end on an elaborate scene in which the millionaire faces off for one long last battle with Big Jim Gettys.

Like Kubrick’s films, There Will Be Blood is both “political” and “artistic” at the same time. It makes no concessions to the viewer’s typical desire for someone to “identify” with. We view all the film’s people from the outside (which isn’t to say, however, that we lack understanding of their motivations). The film moves in grand narrative chunks that focus intensely on specific moments, and leave out a lot of dead weight. From the political end, There Will Be Blood does something interesting. It harks back to a time when religion was viewed as an impediment to business and political health. Here, its politics, like its approach to narrative and to audience participation, is utterly contrary to contemporary practice.

Most important of all, Daniel Day-Lewis, who is in virtually every scene, is riveting. You can’t take your eyes off him. He dominates the screen, without necessarily drowning the other actors. And then in a few minutes you forget that he is Daniel Day-Lewis and he is simply Daniel Plainview. It’s important to add that the film is not without wit, but even the humorous parts only point out the supreme brilliance of Day-Lewis’s performance, specifically the sequence in which nemesis Preacher Sunday has blackmailed him into a baptism.

There Will Be Blood also harks back to the themes found in Anderson’s early films. Both Hard Eight (1996) and Boogie Nights (1997) concerned themselves in general with a benevolent, wiser older man who takes on the role of guardian angel to a rambunctious younger man. Magnolia (1999) had some elements of this theme but buried within a larger panorama of parent-child conflicts. Punch-Drunk Love (2002) was an odd man out, a love story, perhaps inspired by Altman’s similarly quirky A Perfect Couple. After his outer excursions, Anderson returns to his major theme with different layerings and seasonings. The guardian angel is no longer so benevolent; the “son” is less wayward. The focus on Plainview’s character is intense. He is a man who can carry a grudge (hence the title). The whole last sequence is an answer to the humorous sequence of Plainview’s baptism. Few contemporary, commercial filmmakers would have thought out their films to this degree. But Kubrick did.

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 6th, 2008 at 11:07 pm and is filed under Reel Politique - Film columnist DK Holm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.