The Greatest Trick

Writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest film, the Oscar nominated There will be blood, is his best yet. Based on Upton Sinclair’s novel Oil!, it is not only an extraordinary study of greed, power and revenge but can also be read as political allegory and/or cautionary spiritual parable. It is a rare film that truly stretches the boundaries of cinema and will no doubt benefit from multiple viewings.

In fact, after watching this, I am really not sure what deserves the Best Picture Oscar more; this or No Country for Old Men. There hasn’t been such an agonising choice for Best Picture winner since Chinatown was nominated against The Godfather Part II in 1974. I was initially disappointed that criminally underrated western The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was not nominated for Best Picture, but in some ways I’m now glad, since having that in the mix would make the decision of Academy voters even more excruciating. To have three such outstanding films would be an embarrassment of riches.

At any rate, one Oscar this will certainly win is the Best Actor award. Daniel Day Lewis’ portrayal of oil prospector Daniel Plainview is an absolute triumph, even by his impossibly high standards. He acts his socks off, making Plainview a truly unforgettable character; at once monstrously greedy with a lust for success at the expense of all others, yet strangely charming in spite of the darkness lurking in his soul. He practically eats up the screen, chewing the scenery to within an inch of its life. His brooding, restless presence and ability to place all things, even family, as secondary to his lust for wealth keeps the audience constantly on the edge of its seat and unable to tear its eyes from the screen.

In an extraordinary, virtually wordless opening prologue, Plainview is first seen down a mine shaft digging for silver nuggets. Whilst attempting to extract his find, a beam comes loose from the makeshift ladder, and he falls, breaking his leg. He then painstakingly crawls out of the shaft and drags himself along the desert ground to the real estate dealer in order to make his money. Next, he is seen attempting to drill for oil, this time with a few employees. The dark, dirty and dangerous process of prospecting at the turn of the 20th century is shown in all its grim detail, and an accident leaves Plainview in possession of a baby, whom he adopts as his own for reasons that are revealed late in the film.

When the oil begins to flow, Plainview raises his stained hand to heaven in an almost religious way, as though he were worshipping the oil. He then marks the forehead of his adopted son with the same oil, again almost like a religious ceremony. It is suggested, mainly through Jonny Greenwood’s eerie, avant-garde music score, that this action actually constitutes Plainview putting some kind of curse on the baby, and neatly foreshadows later oil related events. A few years later, the main story begins, as Plainview purchases lands for his latest oil drilling operation, from which he wishes to build a pipeline to the sea. But he comes into conflict with the young, fiery local preacher Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), who tries through blackmail and other means to ensure his church benefits financially from the drilling. It is the clash between these two formidable figures that forms the bulk of the film.

To say anymore about the plot would be unfair, not just because it’s an excellent story but because this is a true work of cinematic art that needs to be experienced, not read about. As a director, Paul Thomas Anderson is operating at almost Kubrick levels of genius. Some critics have suggested the prologue was unnecessary, but in my opinion it was vital, not only for the foreshadowing of later events, but also to simply set the dark, weirdly unsettling tone which resonates throughout the entire film. This is a picture that absolutely has to be seen on the big screen, not so much for the epic vistas (though there are plenty), but for its overall atmosphere. The phenomenal use of sound, music and Robert Elswit’s staggering cinematography, which makes brilliant and contrasting use of light and darkness, beautifully compliment Anderson’s extraordinary vision.

Although this film belongs to Daniel Day Lewis, there are a smattering of other extremely good performances including Ciaran Hinds (as Daniel’s colleague Fletcher Hamilton), Dillon Freasier, Russell Harvard (as the younger and older incarnations of Daniel’s son HW), and of course Paul Dano.

Regarding Paul Dano’s character Eli, ordinarily such an appalling portrayal of Christianity would have greatly irritated me. However, there are three main reasons I do not have a problem in this case. First, Hollywood’s unfortunate stereotyping of Christians in a bad way has greatly improved in recent years, so There will be blood can be viewed more as an isolated film rather than part of an overall trend. Second, Eli is clearly a charlatan who enjoys the power he holds over his congregations. Not only that, but his veiled greed is arguably worse than Plainview’s, since Plainview is a straight talking businessman who wears his greed on his sleeve. Although Plainview is appalling in his treatment of Eli and his deeds are darker, any sympathy the audience might have is eroded by Eli’s hypocrisy, manipulations and desire to consolidate his own power.

Thirdly, and most importantly, the characters of Eli and Plainview are symbolic of religion and big business, and the part they have played in shaping modern America. As such Eli’s character can be read as a critique of what happens when the church gets its fingers sticky, and one only has to look at certain brands of American televangelism to see how the gospel has been transformed into a business. Alternatively, the relationship between Plainview and Eli can be taken allegorically to symbolise recent international dealings between capitalist America and the religious Middle East, where oil interests are fought over. The film’s title, There will be blood, perhaps refers not only to literal blood, but oil itself, over which blood always seems to be spilt.

However, it can also be argued that this is not a political film, just a thumping good tragic parable about greed and how it corrupts the human soul. There are several very good cautionary tales of this nature dotted throughout cinema history, but what makes this unique is the combination of Paul Thomas Anderson’s inspired direction and Day Lewis phenomenal performance. The utter relentlessness of Plainview’s character in his obsessive desire for more, more, and still more, because he doesn’t know how to do anything else ultimately invokes pity. As a human being he is consumed with a tragic monomania that the audience senses from the very beginning will lead to his own destruction. To be fair, the controversially violent ending may initially leave some viewers scratching their heads, but after reflection, I believe it is an absolutely perfect finale to a modern masterpiece destined to be as revered as Citizen Kane by future critics.

Oh, and one line from the film, where Day Lewis bellows the word “Drainage” will eventually be one of the most quoted in cinema history. You’ll understand why once you’ve seen it.

Simon Dillon, February 2008.

The pro-life movement in America has been plagued by criminals who plant bombs in abortion clinics, perceived hypocrisy among members who are anti-abortion yet pro-death penalty, not to mention general hysteria (for instance shouting hateful messages at those seeking abortions). However, their cause will have been given a tremendous boost by the Oscar nominated Juno, a smart, sharp, funny and touching film about a pregnant teenage girl who decides to give up her child for adoption. I have often argued that a good story has more influential power than a thousand political speeches, and Jesus himself recognised this by using parables to illustrate his points. Juno is a superb parable which will undoubtedly give the teenagers who see it plenty of food for thought.

When Juno MacGuff (brilliantly played by Ellen Page) finds herself pregnant by her boyfriend Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera), she at first considers abortion, but a solitary pro-life protestor outside the abortion clinic (who is played for laughs) changes her mind when she points out that eight week old babies “have fingernails”. Juno then finds herself with the daunting task of telling her parents she is pregnant and finding a couple who would be suitable to adopt the child.

If this sounds heavy and depressing, I must stress most emphatically that it is not. Jason Reitman’s quirky direction and Diablo Cody’s wise and witty screenplay make this a hugely entertaining story with razor sharp one liners and edgy, believable characters that keep sentimentality firmly at bay. Everything from the choice of music to the superb performances is nothing less than inspired.

As Juno, Ellen Page stands a serious chance of winning this year’s best actress Oscar. I have yet to work up the nerve to watch her previous film Hard Candy (though at some point I will take the plunge), but here she is a revelation; cynical, funny, intelligent, yet vulnerable and wise beyond her years in that she comes to realise she is dealing with issues beyond her maturity level. She is a truly wonderful character the audience can’t help but fall in love with (and speaking purely as a film buff, any sixteen year old who has heard of Italian horror film maestro Dario Argento immediately becomes someone I will root for).

The other main characters are fully developed over the course of the film. Juno’s stepmother Brenda (Allison Janney) is initially well-meaning but patronising. However she eventually comes to the defence of her stepdaughter in a hilarious scene during an ultra-sound scan. Her father Mac (JK Simmons) is brash, cynical, and arguably too often played for laughs, but towards the end has a very touching scene with Juno where he tries to reassure her that lasting love between a man and a woman is possible.

Mark and Vanessa Loring (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner) are the prospective adoptive parents who at first appear to have the perfect marriage, job, house and so on. But Vanessa is paranoid that Juno will not go through with the adoption plan for reasons later revealed. Juno also develops a friendship with Mark because of their shared passion for music. However, again this reveals hidden depths in Mark that indicate he might not be the ideal father after all.

This latter subplot provides an interesting additional theme; just what constitutes a good father? The audience is left with serious doubts about Mark, yet ironically Juno’s sixteen year old boyfriend Paulie, who jokes about being unable to grow a moustache, has far more maturity (and one suspect’s parental ability) in spite of the fact he agrees with Juno that they are not ready for parenthood and should give up their child for adoption. The larger issue of broken families is understated but important, and at one point Juno rants about how just for once she wants a child (hers) to grow up with parents who actually stay together. Her passionate speech reflects the heart cry of a generation for whom such brokenness has become the norm.

It’s interesting to note that some critics have said those reading pro-life into the film are incorrect, since this was not the intention of the filmmakers. Perhaps it wasn’t, but Juno is nevertheless an extraordinarily entertaining and persuasive pro-life statement by default.

On the other hand, certain Christian critics have complained about the frank (and funny) sexual references and how the characters sexual morality is not overtly criticised. For such critics, the film is not “wholesome” enough, which brings to mind an amusing scene where Juno refuses to consider a particular couple as prospective parents because they have advertised themselves as “wholesome”. I know exactly what she means. “Wholesome” often has prudish connotations of avoiding facing up to the edgier issues in life; issues which cannot simply be brushed under the carpet.

At any rate, such criticism misses the point. True, Juno is not a film that tackles the issue of sexual morality. It is a realistic reflection of the attitudes and choices made by today’s American teenagers who are reportedly seeing abortion as less of a desirable option. That is something that should give Christians hope and I believe it represents a turning point in the debate. Juno’s parents are from the generation who fought for abortion, yet when Brenda asks her stepdaughter if she thinks a termination would be best, she refuses point blank. Instead, Juno is an extremely brave character who acknowledges her mistake and faces up to the consequences with wit, humour, and immense likeability. For that alone, this film is to be highly recommended.

Simon Dillon, February 2008.

Before I get to Cloverfield, here’s a brief overview of what I experienced in the cinema prior to the film. After onscreen warnings about motion sickness and strobe effects in the main feature, I was then treated to additional warnings not to call someone on their mobile phone when driving, not to drink too much alcohol (that laughable Home Office one with the man in a Batman suit trying to help a hen party by climbing scaffolding to retrieve a balloon), and three times I was urged to wear a condom. By the time the film began I was feeling thoroughly patronised and wondered exactly why I was being treated like a brainless and irritating teenager/early twentysomething (with apologies to the very intelligent teenagers/early twentysomethings who read these reviews).

Then Cloverfield began with ten minutes of plot about a group of extremely irritating New York yuppie teenagers/early twentysomethings and their silly relationships, akin to a cinema-verite episode of Friends (a series I passionately detest). By the time the rampaging monster struck, I couldn’t wait for this ghastly group of individuals to be sliced and diced. The film’s introduction (and the commercials preceding it) had done their job well. I was howling for blood and well and truly on the side of the monster.

Much has been said about the supposed originality of Cloverfield. It has been described as a monster movie for the Youtube generation or Godzilla meets The Blair Witch Project. An ominous note at the beginning of the film says what we are about to see is classified material on a videotape found at what used to be Central Park. Yet, this concept is not particularly original at all. In the past few years, films like Spielberg’s War of the Worlds have already capitalised on the hand-held “run-away-from-the-monster” approach to superb effect. The Blair Witch Project itself wasn’t even particularly original (a similar film called The Last Broadcast was out earlier but largely overlooked). And the “fake documentary” concept has been done before (and better) in things like the BBC’s 1992 Ghostwatch programme, and most memorably by Orson Welles in his 1938 radio broadcast of War of the Worlds, which convinced several Americans that an actual alien invasion was taking place. Cloverfield is also highly derivative of many other films in the genre, most obviously Alien and Aliens.

That said this is a surprisingly relentless, frightening and ultimately merciless experience. In its relatively short running time it packs in several intensely exciting sequences, and is extremely effective as a horror film. Even though it could be argued the obvious 9/11-type imagery is crass, it does add believable realism. The apparently random plot disguises a very well written three act screenplay by Drew Goddard and director Matt Reeves does well with the hand-held, shaky-cam look. Producer JJ Abrams (best known for TV series Lost) is to be commended for creating a big monster movie with excellent special effects for comparative peanuts. Many factors will have kept the budget down, such as the cast of unknowns, all of whom do reasonably well (especially TJ Miller as Hud the cameraman who has a somewhat thankless role since his face hardly ever appears).

In short, this comes with my recommendation, though if like me you prefer to sit closer to the screen I suggest suspending that habit on this particular occasion on account of the shaky-cam.

Simon Dillon, February 2008.