One Battle After Another.

Review #2426: One Battle After Another.

Cast: 

Leonardo DiCaprio (Bob Ferguson / "Ghetto" Pat Calhoun), Sean Penn (Col. Steven J. Lockjaw), Benicio del Toro (Sergio St. Carlos), Regina Hall (Deandra), Teyana Taylor (Perfidia Beverly Hills), Chase Infiniti (Willa Ferguson / Charlene Calhoun), Alana Haim (Mae West), Wood Harris (Laredo), Shayna McHayle (Junglepussy), Paul Grimstad (Howard Sommerville), Dijon Duenas (Talleyrand), Tony Goldwyn (Virgil Throckmorton), Starletta DuPois (Grandma Jennie), John Hoogenakker (Tim Smith), and Eric Schweig (Avanti) Written and Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (#1546 - There Will Be Blood)

Review: 

"I think even before I had kids, I kind of felt a connection to how this father felt about his daughter. And it only grew deeper and stronger as I have had kids to understand what he was writing about in that way. And I’m trying to take from the book what I needed and pursue my own path and let it move in directions that it seemed that it wanted to go.”

I suppose I shouldn't be too surprised to encounter this in the proper place for a new film: a movie theater*. Apparently, Paul Thomas Anderson had wanted to do a movie based on Thomas Pynchon's 1990 novel Vineland for many years. He loved the book so much that he struggled with how to adapt it and set it aside. He found later that when he wrote a series of separate stories, he found it worked to combine those with certain elements of Vineland (a book set in 1984 dealing with a burnt-out hippie, a traitorous revolutionary and a DEA agent dealing with a secret that also features "like death, but different" Thanatoids, to provide an example of what the book sounds like) for what became this film; previously, he made an adaptation of Pynchon's Inherent Vice in 2014 and had taken slight inspiration from Pynchon's V. for The Master in 2012. You may or may not know that the title of the movie is shared with a statement put out by Weather Underground, the far-left militant organization (and described as "domestic terrorist" by the FBI) that had run for a good deal of the 1970s (with targeted bombing of government buildings and banks, with a good chunk having warnings set out beforehand) before it splintered off into other organizations.

It is an interesting movie, that's for sure. It probably goes without saying that it rises above just being termed an "action thriller", mostly in the strange places that it mines for screwy moments of humor without straining into parody or sanctimonious hokum. It manages to cycle through 162 minutes with such energy and charm that reminds one of the enthusiasm that can be found with letting movies flow on their own terms. The ensemble does work out for captivating interest in seeing where the wind blows in would-be revolutionaries in the eternal battle that comes not just from trying to challenge the system but also the battle of seeing what the world will look like for the next generation. It works out well for DiCaprio, who gets to play the role in all of its burned-out flaws that come with people that may or may not be ready for what lies ahead in real danger, whether that involves a gun or, well, being a person in someone's life. It is bleakly amusing to see how one sees him from the first thirty minutes (where he, alongside Taylor in her own path of self-serving nature, is depicted as in and later out of the French 75 lifestyle) to him for most of the film as the hazy chaser in a strange world around him. Consider how he looks when paired with del Toro (who just glides through the movie like a pro) in certain sequences of what you might as well call revolution with ideas of, well, responsibility. It befuddles me to note I had seen exactly one movie with Sean Penn in it before this one. At any rate, this is a movie with a real standout performance by Penn, who makes for a compelling adversary that actually does inspire the tiniest bit of humor from an aspiring fascist club member. There is plenty of menace to be found even within the growing absurdities that come with a character that really, really wants approval in all of the strange ways possible (as one does when starting out by being forced to get an erection before ending with, well, a pitch-black moment very fitting for him). He isn't too different from Taylor when it comes to self-serving people that love the sound of their own voice when it comes to force - really, he could be anybody who ever managed to make it to a certain position of privilege and still crave affection (notice how we never see if Lockjaw has a spouse or other kids) in such seething contempt because they can't just admit it. Likely the best representation of how Taylor (who does pretty well with a role that is only in the aforementioned first part but basically haunts the entire narrative) is similar is the robbery sequence where you might think the group is going to assert their identity of being able to move along freely (one does that by being on the counter without a mask, for example), loud and proud right up until Taylor's character just shoots a guard because he dared to move.

People come and go with one hell of a tempo behind it, and Infiniti (in her film debut) does a worthy job keeping up with the proceedings with patience and a presence to match the growing insanity. The sequence with her and Penn meeting for the first time to basically size each other up is especially enthralling in the display of two people displaying just how much hatred (and, dark humor) can be found in a test of DNA. As a whole, the movie finds one thing above all in its chase of the frontier (namely with one hell of a car sequence): there are many battles to be had in life, but the ideal one to really, madly, deeply want to win is to raise a good person to walk in your footsteps. You are not your parents, you are the choices that come from what you learn from the people around you, for better or worse. The dueling groups of people that seek to fight for a different future (whether by bomb or incinerating false hopes) will come and go, but the plight of people around us will be clear as day to those who actually take the time to look and listen with their own eyes and ears. Basically, it is a movie that moves with enough of a jolt to remind you what love can be about in the face of bubbling dread for what the world might look like for the next people. In that sense, it is a timely movie to check out and see for yourself what the fuss is about.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

*Is it a bias against Netflix? Meh, who knows I just hate the idea of streaming anything new.

*I do kind of wonder for the record about one little plot thing, so scroll at your risk: how exactly do Bob and Willa get back home with the safety of having a cell phone now? Did the government just say "fuck it, these guys aren't worth the trouble". Does him having a phone mean that he is less paranoid, and how does one get to that point when you basically went through hell? Also I totally wonder if it was picked at random that the person presented to be gender neutral is the one that ends up ratting to the troops that Willa does in fact have a phone to track.

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.