Ambivalent 10

Rating: 10/10 (7 April 2017)

Why do I love this horrifying film so much? First, it has a balance of pace not seen since Jaws. Slow, quiet, steady build-up, followed by crescendos. Those who are bored by variable tempo just might be adrenalin junkies - as if Jaws didn't stimulate enough. Next, there is Daniel's adopted son, H.W., acted by Dillon Freasier. Pay attention, Hollywood, this is a master class acting clinic put on by young Mr.Freasier. Steven Spielberg has done a phenomenal job of brainwashing audiences and critics for decades that children should act like they did in Close Encounters or E.T., but Mr. Freasier is an utter repudiation of the glib Spielberg lens. In real life, children are like H.W., dragged along by adults, and not emotionally or intellectually precocious or multi-dimensional, and least of all, artificially animated. Kids are simple and raw, like H.W., and that's, brilliantly, that.
But this is not about bashing Spielberg, whose films range from good to classic. This is about that almost extinct species of Hollywood film that was spotted in 2007: the epic classic. There Will Be Blood is a sprawling, immersive, atmospheric film that belongs near the head of the class in the company of The Deer Hunter, Taxi Driver, The Godfather, Apocalypse Now, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Jaws, Star Wars, Rocky... you get the picture. I could go on about all the film's mastery, from acting, to music, to scene transition, but others have covered that very well. Instead, my takeaway is its message.
The film's power lies in its utter shredding of the political and ethical sciences in the face of the force of nature, personified by Daniel (who is not human, except in form): the world is animated by knowledge, courage, and action, not by right or wrong. Morals are a human artifact, our prism for gauging how civilized or primitive our species is. Inaction, ignorance, fear, and/or unwillingness to defend or develop one's property (moral action) are deserving of succumbing to natural primitive forces. Custodial rights flow to those who transform the resources of Earth and not to those who passively exist with them. It's a cold, impartial message from reality itself, and it's stark truth is why this movie is polarizing. Does a billionaire really bash a nebbish to death? Another human could choose to help or ignore such a hapless, insipid soul, but Daniel Plainview is not that human, for he is the personification of nature: survival means removing all doubt, so neither a fake brother nor a fake preacher can threaten his being, embodiment of life: animation. This is a man vs. nature story, and in the absence of man's action (moral and defending morality), natural action (Daniel) rules.
So, we are left with the question of our humanity: is an inanimate living being just another resource, like water, coal, metal, fire, or oil? According to this film, yes, so the animated form will not succumb to any inanimate resource, natural or human, even if the human resource has the potential to become animated. And that leaves me ambivalent about this movie's message, if not its quality, a 10.