It’s difficult to watch There Will Be Blood as anything but epic. Paul Thomas Anderson, the director of much-lauded, art-house favorites Magnolia and Punch Drunk Love, has created an enormous tour-de-force of gritty, self assured, and altogether beautiful film-making - the kind that packs a punch, leaves a bit of a hangover, and yet has you begging for a second (or third, or fourth) viewing.

The film takes place in the early part of the twentieth century and traces the emergence of oil baron Daniel Plainview, portrayed by Daniel Day-Lewis (Gangs of New York, The Last of the Mohicans, My Left Foot). At the beginning of the film we meet Plainview alone in a desert, mining for gold. He doesn’t find gold, but he does strike it rich - instead, he discovers a sea of black gold: oil. From that day forward Plainview is a man hell bent on making as much money as he can through the oil business; come what may, he will let no one stand in his way.

With the smiling, endearing, face of his son H.W. at his side, Plainview — a tall, dark man, with deep set eyes, and a deep, gruff voice — travels across the western states, from town to town, in search of his beloved black gold. Declaring himself “a family man” Plainview endears himself to the people of various towns by making promises to them he may or may not ever keep. In exchange for shares to oil-laden land he promises new schools and new churches. He promises to establish economic stability and to make small towns into large cities. He knows that to make money he must learn to sell himself. And so he morphs from time to time into what other people want him to be. For the sake of the oil he will be or do anything.

One day Plainview receives an anonymous tip that there is a wellspring of oil at a ranch near a small, dirt poor town called Little Boston in California. He and H.W. travel there, convince the ranch owner to sell the land, and subsequently begin the dangerous job of sucking the ground dry. Meanwhile, Plainview glad-hands the townspeople, assuring them he means well; he promises a new church building and a new school. The town believes him and trusts his deceiving grin. Soon the town is immersed in his pursuit and overcome by his greed.

But Plainview is not the only person motivated by greed in the town. Little Boston’s young preacher, Eli Sunday — played by Paul Dano of last year’s crowd pleaser Little Miss Sunshine — also hopes to reap the benefits from “the ocean of oil” beneath his feet. Eli, who says he is a prophet of the “Third Revelation,” hopes to strike a deal with the oil man whereby his church would receive five thousand dollars in exchange for Plainview’s use of the land and town’s resources. Plainview agrees. Sort of.

As time passes and Plainview begins to realize exactly how wealthy Little Boston can make him an intense rivalry rises up between he and the young minister. In some ways this relationship represents the battle between extreme atheism and religious extremism: Plainview believes God “is a superstition” while Sunday believes he has the power to heal and cast out demons and spends great deal of time trying to convert Plainview. Plainview believes only in himself, and perhaps even then not all that much. As for Sunday? Well, it’s difficult to say whether he actually has faith in God; at times he appears to use God as the means to an end.

What is certain, though, is that the behavior of both these men is difficult to watch. Neither appear to have much empathy for anybody else (including those closest to them), or to care about anything but material possessions. There are very few “good guys” in this film, and what good guys may appear are overcome by the overwhelming darkness inherent in the film’s main characters. Like another 2007 Academy Award nominee, No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood presents a world void of redemption, and therefore has a great deal to say about it.

But more than just a message movie about religion Blood might also be attempting to make important assertions about industrialism, capitalism, and the way we live today. As our current oil crises bubbles to a dark climax (perhaps) we can’t help but recognize the greed of Plainview as the same greed that has driven so many people in our modern world to lose their mind over this black gold. In that the film has a great deal to say about the processes by which oil is mined and the way that it can alter forever communities it is an important piece of cinema for present day America. Perhaps it will cause us to reconsider our current more-more-more, mine-mine-mine, lifestyles.

What makes Mr. Anderson’s film so epic is the way in which it is presented. It is visually stunning. Like No Country, it presents an awful and dark world through stark and barren visuals. The landscape is beautiful, but it is dangerous and haunting and overwhelming. Similarly, the drive and persistence and creativity by which Plainview and Sunday operate are amazing to see, but they are dangerous and selfish and evil people. Anderson and long-time collaborator, cinematographer Roger Elswit (one of the very best behind a camera - check out his imdb page!!) capture the film in breath-taking and metaphorically powerfully images. For its ability to accurately and powerful capture the dichotomy of danger and beauty inherent in the landscape and characters, the film has been compared to the work of film-makers like Terence Malick, Peter Weir, Francis Ford Coppolla, John Ford and others.

Moreover, Anderson’s directorial prowess here is also being compared to classic film-makers like Orson Welles, Robert Altman, and Stanley Kubrick. To his credit, Anderson allows the film to move along without manipulating it anymore than necessary. He patiently allows the actors to be their characters; he lets the camera watch and listen and instead of forcing the scene upon the audience or audience upon the scene he allows the viewer to become a part of the action. In response, Day-Lewis turned in the one of the greatest performances in recent cinematic history. It tends to be cliche’ to use words like seminal in a film review (as it is to use words like greatest) but I believe it is not overstatement to say that no actor working today is as capable as he. He is chameleon like, sinking into the skin and scars and limp and mustache of Daniel Plainview. He delivers each line with a terrifing growl and when he smiles, it appears to be the smile of the devil himself. I’ve heard it said that Mr. Anderson thinks of his film as a sort of horror story, a story of possession. Day-Lewis’ performance is enough to convince this reviewer.

Opposite him Paul Dano does a really good job. It mustn’t have been easy working opposite an actor like Day-Lewis, particularly in a film as intense as Blood. Dano, however, appears to have the ability and he too turns in a haunting performance. In many ways, he seems like a younger version of Day-Lewis himself.

Similarly to his approach toward directing actors, Anderson allows the story to unfold at its own steady pace and he never reveals more than he must. Because of this the film is all the more haunting. He allows the tension to build and explode on its own. He must have been familiar with these words by Welles about film-making:

“I want to give the audience a hint of a scene. No more than that. Give them too much and they won’t contribute anything themselves. Give them just a suggestion and you get them working with you. That’s what gives the theater meaning: when it becomes a social act.”

Blood is not the kind of film that has thrilling car chases, or bloody gun fights, or steamy love affairs: there are no cheap thrills. But if viewers are willing to be patient and thoughtful with it - like Anderson has been - and if viewers are open to being moved and shaken and changed by a piece of art, it can be a rewarding cinematic experience. It clearly is not for everyone and it will likely divide viewers as each of Anderson’s previous film has. But it is a powerful and challenging and important film about what happens when people reject redemption and follow their own devices.

There Will Be Blood warrants - no, it demands - multiple viewings. Paul Thomas Anderson has fashioned the best film of 2007.

David Kern enjoys southern gothic literature, folk music, and green tea. Mythical figures intrigue him and he has an unnatural affection for cinema. For more of his film reviews go to www.besidethequeue.wordpress.com

This entry was posted on Friday, February 15th, 2008 at 8:52 pm and is filed under Film Reviews. 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.