The New Oldies

Rating: 2/10 (27 January 2008)

In Europe they consider the novel a nineteenth century device, and they wonder why we Americans are still obsessed with the narrative format. The novel was displaced in the 20th century, by ideas, arguments and essays. But here we are in 2008 still noodling with stories. And in the absence of artists who know where to productively lead cinema, film-novels have been artificially raised to high importance, and film 'novelists' to similar esteem: Lars von Trier (after Dogme 95), Scorcese (lately) and with this movie Paul Thomas Anderson. Their approach holds very little appeal for me, as I have to sit through an hour or two of these completely obvious movies without any real ideas being put into play; without being asked to consider anything substantive.
America is a culture which elevates individualism (for which stardom is the perfect emblem) to a freakish cult. I'm not one to gush over stars, and I don't agree that showy Method performances are the greatest thing in film today, but film aesthetes just love a grandiose, acting showcase. Here Daniel Day Lewis becomes the next to secure rave reviews by cranking up the Method machinery. The trick is getting old, but audiences, critics and industry people can't imagine what might dethrone it. Lewis as Daniel Plainview appears to be doing a showy impression of Walter Pidgeon for most of the movie. And because we're all familiar with Lewis from the big scorecard of great contemporary actors, we can compare how different the role is from the actor himself and say intelligent things like: "Wow. Isn't Walter Pidgeon not at all like Daniel Day Lewis?" and conclude therefore that we must be watching a great performance. But in 20 years Daniel Day Lewis will have ceased being a going concern, and new audiences will be asking each other "Why did people think this movie was important?" with puzzled looks on their faces. His performance will eventually have about as much meaning as Warner Baxter's performance in 'In Old Arizona' does today. Oh... you haven't seen that? He won the Oscar! Well how about George Bancroft in 'Thunderbolt.' Come on... you missed that one too? How can you talk about greatness when you've missed two of 1929's major contenders? They're this movies best context.
'Blood' pads every shot with 60 percent dead air. There's no narrative reason to do so, or for this movie to be almost three hours long. If you had to summarize the story for someone waiting for you outside the theater, it might take you ten minutes... tops. It is without embellishment. It is the most arid, non-complex three hour movie ever made. Only the silence and the violence distinguish it from movies made in 1929. Sadly, "obvious" is the new "brilliant."
The startlingly amateur & miscast Paul Dano plays the second annoying role here. The two beatings he receives provide the films sole interesting moments. I'd gladly trade three hours of tasteful restraint masquerading as art, for twenty minutes of intelligence, passion or creativity. Again, the logic seems to be "If it's three hours long, it must be art." Just because a movie isn't over-produced doesn't mean it's not over-inflated. This is a sermon.