I saw this film twice in the theater and I enjoyed it. I've had a few discussions with people about the film because there was so much hype around it and wanted to share my thoughts. If you haven't seen the film I suggest you read this afterwards otherwise you will not get the references.
Camera Operating / Photography
The camera moved in service of the story and not ego, which I think is a sign of maturity on the part of PT Anderson—even “Punch Drunk Love” was highly stylized and self referential in terms of camera operating. I thought the imagery had moments that were so delicate, especially in the beginning of the film when the images are carrying the storytelling. There were also moments that really drew strong allusions to classic cinema which made me feel that PT was trying to ascend to the status of a master. The 2 moments I can think of off the top of my head are: In the beginning of the film the tilt up from the oil well to the hills as the score goes eerily crazy (reminded me of the beginning of Kubrick’s 2001) and the burning up of the oil derrick at night (reminded me of Malick’s “Days of Heaven”) The violence of the fields being burned up in “Days of Heaven” was such a shocking contrast to the serenity that any film with night, fire, and silhouetted people is going to send me back to it.
Story/Acting
I think the leap from when HW was a child to when he was an adult, in the 3rd act, was a too jarring. The transition of when HW was a baby to a boy felt very natural because it was the beginning of the film and helped establish Daniel as a good person/protagonist but by the time we get to HW returning from San Francisco we know that Daniel is extremely conflicted between his inability to be intimate with people and his love for HW. This conflict is what drives the entire film and rather then seeing it play out we cut to several years later and see the results. I want the drama. I want to see the loving embrace when HW returns and later still see Daniel turning away from him.
The other issue I had with the story was the revelation that Paul, not Eli, was the chosen brother. If we had really believed Eli was in touch with god, a true prophet, then this revelation would have been amazing. Unfortunately we never see Eli connecting with god with sincerity—intensity yes but not with the sincerity of someone who truly believes and makes others believe. We see him as a sham and are already are in on the fact Eli wasn’t the true prophet; no surprises there. I’m not sure if this was a directorial decision or if Paul Dano wasn’t up to that level of acting. I must admit that Paul Dano’s performance surprised me. I had only seen him in “Little Miss Sunshine” and this performance was far beyond that one. Let’s face it anyone who is going to play against Daniel Day Lewis is not going to look that good, especially when Day Lewis is playing such an angry intimidating figure. I think Dano did the best he could which was far above what I was expecting.
On the topic of performance I think Day Lewis was amazing. He reminded of Al Pacino in “Scarface” because he was playing such intensity on the surface while shaping complex subtle undercurrents, which could easily be missed if you were just watching casually. The one scene that I can think of right off the bat was when Daniel is on the beach with his “brother” and discovers the man is an impostor. While I understood the scene it took seeing it a 2nd time to appreciate how Day Lewis was playing it. (Side note: In the case of “Scarface” it took me seeing it on the big screen when it was re-released to pick up on all the undercurrents. It’s a leap to compare the two because “Scarface” is such a pop culture phenomenon but there are similarities in the performances.)
Last Thoughts
Overall I think it’s a good film and definitely a pleasure to see on the big screen but it felt a bit fractured. It also revealed PT’s ambitions for an Oscar with ease, which were too on the nose—I prefer subtlety.
