There Will Be Blood: Three Takes
June 3, 2008
First Take (January 16, 2008): Daniel Day-Lewis dominates this strange and fascinating masterwork by Paul Thomas Anderson, about the psychological rivalry between a ruthless self-made oilman and an enterprising young faith healer in turn-of-the-century California. Day-Lewis is absolutely spellbinding as Daniel Plainview, who mines the land of Eli Sunday (Paul Dano) promising a five thousand dollar gift for the young preacher’s new church, but despite making millions on the oil, Plainview withholds the donation for shear spite, he hates people, especially Eli, and finds contempt in the bogus powers he claims to posses. As directed by Anderson, his first true panorama of American morals since the even weirder “Magnolia”, the film devolves from a story about pioneering capitalism into a chamber piece featuring two very different men and their verbal gamesmanship, culminating in an epilogue that is as bizarre as the first two hours are grandiose and complex. This is a difficult film, but the filmmaking fires on all cylinders, calling most specifically on “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre” for inspiration, and in Day-Lewis’ performance, we have a man so fueled with hatred for his fellow man, and himself, that the spoils of his many millions are wasted on his palpably crippled soul.
Second Take (February 19, 2008): Upon my second viewing of Paul Thomas Anderson’s remarkable and strange film, my renewed choice as the second best film of 2007, I decided to do what I like to do for most of my rewatches, pay less attention to the plot and more attention to the themes and how the filmmaking and acting suggest the importance of those themes. What you come up with is that Anderson and Oscar winner Daniel Day-Lewis, as the enterprising, hate-filled oil man Daniel Plainview, are drawing a line of hypocrisy between capitalism and religious fanaticism (as seen by the ultimate downfall of Paul Dano’s Eli Sunday), that they’re ultimately the same animal if misused for personal satisfaction, bringing upon ruination and corruption in the mishandler’s soul. Plainview’s now famous speech to Henry, a man pretending to be his long lost brother, says as much about the corrupting influence of market competition (“I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people… I want to earn enough money that I can get away from everyone.”), as does his brutal mocking of Eli in the bizarre finale, before bludgeoning him to death with a bowling pin, says about the influence of bogus religion (“Did you think your song and dance and your superstition would help you, Eli? I am the Third Revelation, the Lord has chosen me!”). Earlier, as the first derrick of his new enterprise goes up in flames, and his son lay badly hurt in the background, Anderson singles out Plainview’s oil-soaked face in the glow of the fire, positively giddy at the prospects before him, and in this single moment Daniel comes closest to evil incarnate, the satanic red face of greed, caring less about if his beloved son is even alive, but more about the “ocean of oil” beneath his feet that will make him a man of tremendous wealth and power. In his quest for power, Plainview becomes an alienated shell of anger and venom, while Eli, preaching a false gospel to a flock of poor, ignorant farmers, ultimately falls prey to his own particular greed at the hands of the devilish oilman, finally entangling the film’s themes of money and faith in a twisted psychological game of boast, waste, and death.
Third Take (April 22, 2008; DVD): Paul Thomas Anderson’s psychological oil and religion drama has become an instant classic, but the two-disc DVD release is hardly worthy of such a monumental achievement, despite a choice short film and three deleted scenes. Of note on the features disc is a silent film made by the government in 1927 showing the production of oil, including some funny animated sequences where the camera can’t go, scored by Jonny Greenwood using highlights of his moody and impressionistic score. Despite that refreshing bit of info propaganda from the late ‘20’s, the set is ultimately a disappointment for what is missing, a commentary track from either Anderson or Oscar-winning cinematographer Robert Elswit, or the kind of lengthy behind-the-scenes documentary that made the “Magnolia” DVD so fascinating. One could argue that the film alone is enough, and it is, the few bonus features just add to the enjoyment of the work, but when you’ve looked at a dense film like this numerous times, you begin to crave stories about its conception and execution, and for the time being, us diehard fans will have to continue to crave.
By Adam Suraf