The Last of the Mohicans.

Review #1631: The Last of the Mohicans.

Cast: 

Daniel Day-Lewis (Nathaniel "Hawkeye" Poe), Madeleine Stowe (Cora Munro), Russell Means (Chingachgook), Eric Schweig (Uncas), Jodhi May (Alice Munro), Steven Waddington (Major Duncan Heyward), Wes Studi (Magua), Maurice Roëves (Colonel Edmund Munro), Patrice Chéreau (General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm), Edward Blatchford (Jack Winthrop), Terry Kinney (John Cameron), Tracey Ellis (Alexandra Cameron), and Justin M. Rice (James Cameron) Directed by Michael Mann (#1531 - Ali)

Review: 

“The idea for The Last of the Mohicans came to me because I’d seen the film written by Philip Dunne when I was 3. I realized 40 years later that it had been rattling around in my brain ever since, that it was a part of me, a very important part. I just hadn’t been consciously aware of it up to that point. I also thought: there hasn’t really been an exciting epic, period film in a long, long time."

Sometimes you can't help but awe at someone's attempts at reshaping the frontier in terms of a period piece. The film is an adaptation of The Last of the Mohicans: A Narrative of 1757, written by James Fenimore Cooper in 1826. It was the second of five novels written by Cooper involving the frontiersmen Natty Bumppo, known by numerous nicknames to settlers and natives alike, one of which being "Hawkeye" - this was also chronologically the second in the series (referred to as the Leatherstocking Tales) that had adventures that spanned from 1740 to 1804 that was inspired by the real-life exploits of figures such as Daniel Boone (the capture and rescue of his daughter Jemina was fictionalized into an episode in his book) - he had his share of praise and criticism (most notably with Mark Twain, who mocked his excess), but that novel is generally referred to as his masterpiece work. There were a few previous adaptations of the stories to film, most notably with the 1936 adaptation in The Last of the Mohicans, featuring Randolph Scott as Hawkeye that was written by Philip Dunne - Dunne is credited for his screenplay in this film (right after Cooper), and each film had their clear differences to the book; a look into the details of the book when compared to the film reveals a few key differences, such as Hawkeye actually being older in the film, alongside additions and omissions such as a focus on settlers and their struggle with conscription alongside other moments spent away from the main group (such as focusing on the romance of Hawkeye and Cora rather than Cora with Uncas).

Here, we have a film where the authority of ritual become loosened and challenged by the wilderness. It has the look and gravitas needed in capturing the magic that other frontier films (shall we say Unconquered (1947), for example) that makes for a fairly useful attempt at making reactionary drama come alive for what is needed for the 1990s. It was shot in North Carolina with no expense spared to make a frontier adventure in the wilderness that had a committed Day-Lewis (in terms of actually living in the wilderness for a few months prior to shooting), a runtime of 112-117 minutes that is generally available in a revised cut (Mann had to trim it down from a planned three hours and tinkered with the film for DVD release - the 112 was the original, while the director's expanded version runs at 117) and a budget of $40 million. On the whole, it is a pretty good looking movie (as shot by Dante Spinotti in the second of films with Mann as cinematographer), one that aims for sweeping passion and excitement in the 18th century without being tied down to complete accuracy that tries to strike at the heart of forging forward in a new land with Mann's aesthetic for vivid entertainment that sticks with one for quite a while after seeing it. In a plethora of urban dramas that characterized Mann's previous work (this is his fourth feature film), one in which he wanted to do a current perspective on a complex time with intensity.

In this case, Day-Lewis certianly captures the task needed for such an earthy role. It is one that demands a resourceful actor that can play to romance and adventure needed in a film presenting a clear tapestry of athmosphere. The preparation done by Day-Lewis plays a part in how he does his performance, but it is also the striking eyes that play the key aid in how he balances his standing in where he is in when it comes to converging cultures. It is as if he reflects the soil of the frontier, reactive in what is needed. Stowe reflects the other side of frontier pursuit, an independent streak with grace that pairs quite well in romance (or the opposite feeling with Waddington) without getting lost in the land or with the action. Means and Schweig play their parts with reasoned solumn efforts despite not having as much dialogue - but they sure do help when it comes to the climax, where dialogue isn't needed to much to depict swift tension. Waddington reflects the stubborn spirit of the British well enough, one that moves by what seems proper and what seems to be needed in the wilderness. Studi plays maleficence with rightful emphasis, one that burrows his descent with edge that we can see in anyone as interested in seeing the perspective of preservation within revenge. At any rate, what we have here is an interesting piece between two genres, one that fits in the mold of adventure like a matinee film from decades ago but with the modern style and perspective that comes with the territory of forging a fresh film that takes inspiration from paintings of that era for a dazzling look to go with those weapons of the time to make a compelling narrative come alive. It plays with facts to make a useful time seem all the more interesting, and it has sat well within Mann's line of work after nearly three decades.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

There Will Be Blood.

Review #1546: There Will Be Blood.

Cast: 
Daniel Day-Lewis (Daniel Plainview), Paul Dano (Eli and Paul Sunday), Kevin J. O'Connor (Henry), Ciarán Hinds (Fletcher Hamilton), Dillon Freasier (H. W. Plainview), Russell Harvard (adult H. W. Plainview), Sydney McCallister (young Mary Sunday), Colleen Foy (adult Mary Sunday), David Willis (Abel Sunday), and Hans Howes (William Bandy) Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.

Review: 
"I really subscribe to that old adage that you should never let the audience get ahead of you for a second. So if the film's abrasive and wrongfoots people then, y'know, that's great. But I hope it involves an audience. If not, that's my fuck-up."
"I begin with a sense of mystery. In other words, I am intrigued by a life that seems very far removed from my own. And I have a sense of curiosity to discover that life and maybe change places with it for a while."

Anyone with a particular vision and the right sense of timing can be a director, just ask Paul Thomas Anderson. The son of actor and horror host Ernie "Ghoulardi" Anderson, he found himself interested in making movies from a young age, doing them on video and 8mm camera while also doing writing. He made his first attempt at a true production in high school with The Dirk Diggler Story (1988), which took a mockumentary approach (Boogie Nights, released nine years later based on that material, proved his breakthrough). He did brief study at Santa Monica and Emerson College along with two days at New York University before deciding to set out on his own with work (a production assistant, mainly for television. It was during one of those experiences that he met Philip Baker Hall and told him about a short script that he believed would suit him and after his liking of the script Anderson set out to raise the funds to do what would become Cigarettes & Coffee (1993) - it received notice from festivals and got Anderson on his way to venturing into theatrical works, which resulted in movies such as Hard Eight (1996), Magnolia (1999) and Punch-Drunk Love (2002), although this has turned out to be his biggest success in terms of notice or with audiences. Similarly, anyone with a particular vision and the right sense of timing can also be an actor, and Daniel Day-Lewis would certainly come to mind fairly early as one of those actors with reputation to spare. Born in London, Day-Lewis found interest in a variety of fields that included acting and woodworking (with one inspiration for the former being the films of Ken Loach), and he studied like other famed alumni before him at the British Old Vic Theatre School. He soon honed himself a method actor with theatre before growing to shine in film with a dedication to maintaining character that resulted in highlights such as My Beautiful Laundrette (1985), My Left Foot (1989), and The Last of the Mohicans (1992) in a career that spanned 35 years and 20 films before retirement in 2017.

The film is based in part on the 1927 novel Oil! by Upton Sinclair (Anderson stated they drew upon material from the first 150 pages), which had inspiration from the exploits of oil man Edward L. Doheny that included success in Southern California and Mexico alongside a key part in the Teapot Dome Scandal in the 1920s. Anderson found it a "great stepping-stone" in terms of helping to lend cohesive material to draw upon, which included research to cities and museums displaying pieces of oil equipment from the days of the boom while citing further inspiration in part from The Treasure of Sierra Madre (1948, which he apparently watched every night during production). What we have here is a film of great physicality and loneliness, one involving a man that seems to have oil in his veins rather than blood in the way that he moves along in wheeling-and-dealing through a rise to fame, fortune, and eventually madness. Day-Lewis based his voice and characterization on recordings of famed director John Huston while also looking over letters and artifacts of the time period involving the oil boom that included reading up on Dohney. He captures something profound in predatory greatness, one more entity than man in his ultra-competitive nature and ever-growing hatred of the people that encompass him (one with no friends, lovers, or even a true son) - he dominates most of the scenes present in terms of dialogue and stature that generally works out in a performance for the ages. Dano has the interesting task of two roles, as the original actor cast for Eli (Kel O'Neill) was replaced by Anderson a few days into shooting. What could have been a gimmick used to stand out for having the same actor play different roles is instead done quite well by Dano in drawing out differences in the response to opportunity - whether that means clear-edge honesty in one brother or something devout in ambition in another. O'Connor does fine what is needed as a shadow of hope in his time spent with Day-Lewis in revealing the differences in one's humanity and what one needs from those close in some relation to them, whether that means affection or something else. This applies just as well to Freasier, who accompanies Day-Lewis as a sort of token of machinations and later a token of something else - anguish, which Harvard utilizes for his one key scene near the end to display the contrast between blood and partner as a man of the basket and his own path.

Of course no film comes without at least one caveat. It may very well prove a bit much for some audiences, in regards to its length or in its uncompromising approach to its subject matter that maintains a dour atmosphere that might seem overdone or pretentious to those who don't see with what it aims to do involving its sprawling scope as an epic with its own kind of scenery of oil. This is basically a fable involving the nature of two people aiming for success by any means necessary, even if it involves sacrifice of one's soul to get there (since we are dealing with a man of oil and a man of faith) that either will satisfy those in its reach or slip some from its sermon on the derrick. One other thing to note is its ending involving a bowling alley and a "milkshake" analogy. While I can certainly feel a chuckle out of that particular line, I do find it to be a satisfying way to close out its method of madness with proper finish in displaying the blood, sweat, and tears that could come from trying to cultivate liquid gold from the ground and beat out the competition and problems on all sides - whether that involves humiliation at needing to atone for oneself or finding oneself to be utterly removed from humanity in the basic form. It is a brutal and uncompromising look upon the nature of man with regard to power that can consume one's family or even themselves in the end, which ultimately makes a devastating winner that works for those in the mindset with patience for 158 minutes of a grand tale of oil and blood. It's an unsettling film, but it is exactly what it wants to be without consequence.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.