Impressive but unsatisfying

Rating: 8/10 (3 January 2009)

Paul Thomas Anderson's epic about oil and one man's struggle for riches and power has been greeted as a modern classic. Featuring an astonishing performance from Daniel Day-Lewis, numerous memorable sequences, magnificent photography and an incredible, iconic score, one can see that all of the ingredients are there. So, why is it that, having seen the film three times, it still doesn't seem to be a great film? The first viewing was bewildering. It was obvious that this is a hugely impressive film and one which should be seen. Day-Lewis is spectacular as Daniel Plainview and thoroughly deserved his second Oscar. Added to that, writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson uses his epic canvas to full effect with stunning visuals. The film is too long, but quite engrossing and always seems to be able to draw out another fantastic sequence to keep your attention. Having said that, it was a somewhat baffling and distant experience.
The word was that this film was a spectacular metaphor for America where the twin forces of religion and capitalism are shown to be in a terrible and destructive conflict. This seemed to be a simplistic and inaccurate interpretation. The problem with it is the central religious character, Eli Sunday, brilliantly played by Paul Dano, is not a decent representation of Christianity (the final scene certainly shows him to be a poor representation). Indeed, any kind of grand message didn't seem to be there.
The second viewing presented an interesting character piece. It was an easier watch and, on a smaller screen, was still impressive. However, the film was still an enigma. It still seemed to have a lot and do little and still appeared to be a somewhat overrated film.
The third viewing did provide the most complete experience. Day-Lewis's Plainview remained a mesmerising presence in the film and the brilliance of Paul Dano's performance had also become more apparent. The thrilling moments (the Derrick fire, Plainview's baptism and the final scene) were still thrilling. However, it still didn't quite work.
Why not? Some of it may well be a matter of taste as I have little complaint with the film and have to admit that it is a really impressive piece of cinema but I still think there are problems with this film. It is very densely packed with themes, sub-plots and events. As such, some things seem superfluous. The relationship between Plainview and the adopted son, H.W., is important but underdeveloped. One never gets a decent look at H.W., whose actions become increasingly inexplicable and who, as a character, gets increasingly distant. As for Plainview, his feelings remain a mystery which is distracting rather than intriguing. This is symptomatic of the film as a whole. Anderson leaves a lot of loose ends and infuriating, unanswered questions.
There is one further problem. The film is, mostly, about the power struggle between the oil man Plainview and the zealot Eli Sunday. Plainview has to win over the town where Sunday rules supreme. Not only does Sunday resent this, but he tries to exploit Plainview's venture, apparently, for his church's benefit. Plainview's pride and greed generates further friction. A lot of the conflict is between the characters but the town of Little Boston caught in the middle of this disappears from view through the film and this seems to be a misstep from Anderson. How is the town affected by the sweeping changes around it? What do the ordinary men and women make of the events around them? Paul Thomas Anderson has never been a conventional or easy director and that shines through in this film. Some have taken to this style but I find it to be unsatisfying. "There Will Be Blood" is not a bad film. It is a very impressive piece of work and should be seen. The central performance demands to be seen. The problem is that with all of the elements there it shouldn't be the film it is. It should be a must-see, but it is rather less than the sum of its parts.
4 Stars out of 5