It annoys me when I read such gushing reviews of a film when you feel like the reviewer is diligently acting as a film critic, a peculiarly removed spectator, one who ticks boxes but essentially misses some of the key aspects of the cinema experience.
Firstly the plot. I will happily admit I did not feel at all restless in it’s 2.5 hour length, but I found myself wondering afterwards, just what exactly happened in all that time? There are really only 4 or 5 key sequences that are actually memorable in the development of the plot about oil man Daniel Plainview. So much more could have occurred to add weight and depth and story, if not to the character of Plainview, to his colleagues, or his workers, or the villagers whose lives would surely have changed immeasurably by the newly created industry on their land. At one point we suspect we may learn about this as he promises the villagers schools and roads and employment at a town meeting, but none of this is ever revisited and we are none the wiser.
Plainview’s past is wantonly overlooked, this man we spend so much time with. Surely the story is essentially one man’s decent into a morally devoid madness of capitalism and greed. The problem being, he was never truly drawn for us from the start. We don’t know his past, just his entry and further career in the oil business. Along the journey we are given few insights to work with.
It doesn’t take long to establish Plainview is a driven, unscrupulous business man, but is he really the evil, cold hearted bastard we are meant to despise? Yes, he does some rather underhand deals impacting the inhabitants of the oil rich territories he purchases. He may have exacted some rather vicious crimes on individuals, but it doesn’t really shock or evolve a great deal and his crimes (economic and violent) were surely very common in those ruthless times.
The appearance of his brother is a regrettably short interlude in Daniel’s stoic, isolated existence whilst his relationship with his son, although strained and confused, didn’t strike me as terribly unusual, or even that moving. I’ll consent that the clash between the young preacher Eli and Plainview reached some worthy emotional pitches, but this too, could have been explored more.
I think one of the key problems is that There Will Be Blood knowingly breaks one of the key rules of Hollywood, it refrains from offering us any characters we will truly like, or can actively relate to. It does succeed in the only alternative, making interesting characters, or is that character? Daniel Plainview is terribly watchable, with his awkward limp and angry facial tics, he masterfully holds the attention. That however is entirely due to the power of Daniel Day Lewis, certainly not the writing. Nor is Paul Dano’s minister, initially creepy enough, much help. Although the faith healing scene is eerie and darkly fascinating, Eli becomes quickly one dimensional and, eventually gives the impression of being mildly irritating, spoilt whiner.
In the end, despite the truly awesome black comedy of the final scene, I feel an absence of any emotion. I was slightly warmed that the preacher with the small mouth gets what he had coming to him, but I neither cheer nor mourn the final psychological position of Daniel Plainview. It just is. Perhaps that is the point but after the fever pitch, emotional whirlwind of Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia, it felt remarkably flat, cold.
So, There Will Be Blood, incredibly well executed technically but ultimately unsatisfying and lacking humanity. It brings me back to The Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men, where humanity, or the complete lack of it, was a key motif. A much more likeable film.
I’ll leave you with my favourite scene from No Country for Old Men, that of Chigurh in the Gas Station. Enjoy.
\[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0kVdEGklkc\]