No: 17264 Friday, June 23, 2017

23

FRIDAY

JUNE 2017

By Aakash Bakaya

'W

hat recent film will be deemed

a classic in the future?' This is a

question frequently asked on

movie forums. There are a ton of candi-

dates, all of which vary from age group to

country to relevance. But what factors

makes a film be declared a classic in the

first place. Is it an ideal portrayal of the

time period it's depicting and a perfect

representation of the era it was shot it?

Does it push the boundaries of the film-

making process while simultaneously

adhering and even improving on its roots?

Is it simply just a great story told in a way

that only film could capture? 

These are only some of the points that

deem a certain film a 'classic' but they also

happen to describe what makes Paul

Thomas Anderson's 'There Will Be Blood'

such an acclaimed masterpiece. I watched

it when it came out and only recently re-

watched it for a second time. 10 years ago,

I shrugged at the end credits and taught

'that was pretty good' but after my re-

watch - I just stared at the screen in shock

and awe.   

'Shock and awe' was the military doc-

trine used by the US army in Iraq a few

years before the film was released. The

policy is described plainly as the use of

overwhelming power and spectacular dis-

plays of force. I bring it up because it so

accurately describes the unforgettable

performance by Daniel Day Lewis as Daniel

Plainview. His depiction of the stern, ruth-

less and at times utterly terrifying oil

prospector will remain up there in the ech-

elons of the greatest displays of acting

ever put on film. Except for one, he is in

every single scene of the movie and to say

he carries it over the finish line of great-

ness would be an understatement of the

highest magnitude.  

This might be sacrilegious for some but

the performance equals Al Pacino's

Michael Corleone in 'The Godfather'. It is

easy to compare the two due to their many

similarities. Both movies are about the rise

and care-taking of a business. One deals

with oil while the other deals with the

influence of powerful figures (among other

things) but by the end - both deal with the

universal currency of blood. Anderson's

film is far less violent on the surface but

that only tends to make the premise all the

more chilling. The Corleone family only

used their legit business as a front for their

crimes while Daniel Plainview used his

crimes as a front for his legit business. Our

protagonists become so embroiled and so

obsessed with their work they become lost

to their loved ones and to themselves.

Their businesses only end up prospering

for this loss and by the end both films ask a

simple question - is the price of success the

loss of one's soul? It is a realization that

takes days, sometimes weeks to come to

light but it's one of the many reasons that

make these films so great.    

Daniel Plainview is not a bad person,

not at first at least. The opening 15 min-

utes is dialogue-free and only captures

Plainview's almost inhuman determination

to reach his goals. His work ethic is evident

but his complete disregard for human life

is a characteristic hidden deep beneath the

surface. 

Ambition is a word that speaks to all of

us differently. What drives us comes down

to not only the purpose but the costs as

well. Plainview is obsessively ambitious

and the only thing that grounds him is his

child. It is his enigma, his lone light in the

blackness that is his work. The oil boom of

the early 20th century was one of USA's

most prosperous time periods but for the

men behind the rigs - a single misstep

could mean the end. Plainview knew this

There Will Be Blood

A cinematic powerhouse 10 years on 

---

23

FRIDAY

JUNE 2017

of course but he also knew that he had the

skills to excel at this job. Nevertheless, in a

cutthroat capitalist industry, your skills

can only take you so far. So when

Plainview ploughed on determined, some

parts of me applauded the tenacity and

drive of the human spirit. While the other

parts silently protested at the lives being

thrown away at the expense of one man's

bank account. Like all great art, it doesn't

judge or preach to you its creator's opin-

ions - it leaves them up to the audience.

Let's get back to comparisons to 'The

Godfather'. One of the reasons both films

are so highly regarded is because both are

much larger than the sum of their parts.

Not only are they pristine capsules of their

time periods, they also embody the corner-

stone of drama - the loss of one's humani-

ty. Michael Corleone and Daniel Plainview

begin their stories in a manner the charac-

ters in the story and the audience alike can

relate and respect. Yet it takes a series of

events to push them to their breaking

points and all those traits we've come to

admire have morphed and twisted itself

into something different but eerily recog-

nizable. 

Michael's breaking point comes when

his new wife in Sicily is blown up in her car.

After that incident, Michael knows that

there is no coming back from this and that

if he is to survive in this world he has put

himself in, he must become as ruthless as

his enemies. For Plainview, it was the acci-

dent at the rig that permanently disabled

his son. His attempts and subsequent fail-

ures to restore his child slowly break him

and ultimately led him not the destruction

of his business but of his own humanity. 

It is here that Daniel Day Lewis truly

begins to shine. Mere words cannot aptly

do it justice. Lewis manages to convey

sermons of inner dialogue with nothing

but a stare and he leaves you question-

ing his motives until the very end. Here

was a man whose love for his child was

his one redeeming quality but the

moment that love was tested - he aban-

dons it. This regret eats at Plainview

from the inside but to what extent? If he

truly wished to see him well then why

did he reveal to him the truth of his

upbringing at the end? None of these

answers are very clear. They are masked

under an acting  performance so morally

ambiguous, so deeply ingrained in the

human psyche that revealing them my

thoughts on them would be revealing

too much of myself.

The film may revolve around

Plainview but is not only about him. It

speaks volumes about the expansion of

US capitalism and the similarities that

still ring true till this day. Religious over-

tones are another major aspect of the

movie but on this re-watch, I felt it only

provided a background dressing for the

perplexity that is its main character. The

film is also a sort of Western but without

the cowboy heroics or overreaching

tones while the cinematography and

soundtrack are so Kubrick in nature I

wasn't the least surprised to see PT

Anderson state him as a major influence

on the film. The recipe for a genuine film

'classic' may not all share the same ingre-

dients but you can just tell when you

have the right dose. 'There Will Be Blood'

will not only stand the test of time but

I'm confident it will grow even higher in

stature when it is revisited on its 20th

anniversary. 

Both films ask a

simple question

- is the price of

success the loss

of one’s soul?

---