Not Coming to a Theater Near You

There Will Be Blood / USA / 2007

After a few weeks of letting this sit like a lump of hard crude in the back of my mind, I’ve finally—slowly—come to realize why I’m so inexplicably drawn to this film, other than its near and complete brilliance: H.W. Plainview is Charles Foster Kane. That’s not to say Paul Thomas Anderson drew his inspiration for this film from more than Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel and his own imagination; but the closing images of Day-Lewis’ self-immolated oil tycoon holed up in his own Xanadu, boiling and alone save for a lowly manservant, more than allow for comparisons to be made. If only I had the critical insight to flesh out this argument, I’m sure a pretty solid case can be made (though mainstream critics have already laid the foundation).

That said, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Johnny Greenwood’s amazing score, which at times builds to a buzzing groan that threatens to shake the screen apart; paired with Robert Elswit’s cinematography and the all-around transcendent acting, it helps mold a film that is, with no better word to describe it, a modern masterpiece.

Jenny’s Review, Rumsey’s Thoughts (with comments from Beth, Leo, Chiranjit, Tom, and Thomas)

by Adam Balz | Source: 35MM Theatrical Print
06 Feb 2008 9:13 AM | Comments (3)

Comments / 3 total / Submit Comment

1. Thomas / 6 February 2008 / 4:51 PM / URL

   I suppose any film that has engendered so much discussion is one to be remembered, but I didn’t feel that all the parts fit together quite so perfectly. The cinematography was stunning, yes, but too consistently austere for a film with such underlying comedy. And Greenwood’s score too often slides into oddly frantic rhythms that feel out of place with the quiet moments it is meant to accompany.

   The Kane comparison is interesting, but in terms of character, Plainview pales in comparison, simply because all we know of his pre-oil days is comprised of vague, and brief, reminiscences. We never learn enough about this man to actually care what happens to him, or wonder why he is so driven. Unlike Kane’s wish to return to a tranquil past in which he is blissfully unaware of ambition, Plainview wants nothing less than to drag the entire world down to his miserable level. We can admire Daniel Day Lewis’s performance, but Plainview is no Kane.

2. Adam B. / 6 February 2008 / 5:59 PM

   While I agree the Plainview-Kane comparison is lacking, I think there’s more to Plainview’s past than meets the eye. When he and his supposed brother sit side by side on the beach, there’s a hint that he’s trying, finally, to open up to someone. When Plainview’s excited nostalgia leaves Brands clueless, the brother is exposed as a fraud, causing Plainview to retreat further into himself, sure that there’s no one else he can open up to (which makes H.W.’s deafness all the more heartbreaking).

3. Andrew Wyatt / 8 February 2008 / 5:25 PM / URL

   My mind also fluttered to the Kane comparison, especially in the final twenty minutes. I’ll concede to Thomas that as empathetic human characters, there’s no comparing Kane and Plainview. But then my reading of TWBB is strongly allegorical, and I believe that Anderson is fairly explicit in his use of Plainview as a personification of Capitalism itself. As I wrote in my original review, Plainview evokes an Ayn Rand hero more than Kane, or even “the Platonic ideal and id of American business.”