There Will Be Blood

I've had a few discussions about There Will Be Blood with a friend. He didn't like it.I loved it. Of course, I've liked/loved Paul Thomas Anderson's films to varying degrees (Boogie Nights is the best film ever made, Magnolia is in the top 30, Hard Eight and Punch Drunk Love are pretty damn good too.) But I'm not biased, I swear. I went into this movie with high expectations but still a little put off by the setting (the early 20th century, in the always overrated "Old West"), the essential story (oil vs. god), and the fact that one character is in every scene. I always thought there was too much Adam Sandler in Punch Drunk Love (John C. Reilly should have gotten the lead) and I'm still not sure Mark Wahlberg was the best choice for Dirk Diggler (John C. Reilly should have gotten the lead) so I was unsure how well Anderson would use his leading man.


So I had some uncertainty going in. Then, from the first harrowing scene underground to the final scene in XXX XXXXXXX XXXXX, I was awed - by the acting, the writing, the music, the editing, the camera work, etc. It was beautifully made, well made... perfectly made. It's a movie where specifics are hard to come by in review. It truly was an amazing experience. That's why I'm a little surprised that some people didn't like it.

But then I try to explain why I liked it - why I liked the story of one man consumed by greed, ambition, power, and NOT love. And I think about it. And I grasp for the explanation.... until.... it hits me. This was the same movie as Boogie Nights. A man. Consumed. Greed, ambition, power, and not love. A movie about an industry (oil, porn), about California (Central Valley, San Fernando Valley), and yeah I have to state the obvious - gushing phallic symbols (oil derricks, Diggler) directly leading to money, power, greed. etc.

Sure, you can say (and everyone has said) that Anderson owes a lot to other filmmakers. Yes, Scorsese used the nightclub tracking shot. Yes, Welles tracked powerful man's rise and fall and abandonment of child. But Scorsese used too much montage and Welles didn't use enough. You can criticize Anderson for a few things (e.g., liking the music of Aimee Mann way too much) but knowing what to do with his influences and undeniable skills isn't one of them.

Back to the two films and their undeniable parallels. One is an ensemble film. The other is the opposite. I think Anderson, when making Boogie Nights, gave it the seemingly happy ending everyone (including me - all 11 times I saw it on the big screen) wanted. (Spoiler alert for a film made 10 years ago but I shouldn't assume everyone's seen it) Dirk and Jack reconciled, Buck got the stereo shop, Jesse had the baby, Reed's a magician. Everyone but Todd is happy. (BIG SPOILER ALERT for the new film) But not all stories should have happy endings. Power and greed and money corrupt. Sometimes, they just make you develop bad habits and crash your cool cars. Sometimes, they make you do truly awful things and you watch as the world - your world, the one you built from the below the ground up - ends. Abruptly.

(Now it's safe to read again if you haven't seen it.)

Go see this movie. If you've seen it already, see it again. If you're an Academy member, don't try to talk yourself into Viggo Mortensen and just give it to the Irishman. For Best Picture, do not talk yourself into No Country For Old Men (fine film but not even close). For Best Supporting Actor, write in Paul Dano. And for the Actress awards, do what you want because there were pretty much no women in There Will Be Blood.

So is it better than Boogie Nights? No. But that's okay. Only one film has ever come close. Very close.