Letters to the Editor
-
The royal "we"
Never trust a reviewer who habitually uses the first person plural in reviews. This sign of arrogance and solipsism is the hallmark of Ms. Zacharek, and of her god-mentor Pauline Kael, who was just as capricious, reflexively contrarian, and guided by whim claiming to be the voice of the film viewer. This kind of faux-populism/mind reading/projection does nothing to obscure the grinding of personal axes.
Ms. Zacharek is very intelligent, and occasionally, like a blind squirrel, stumbles across an acorn of truth. But her mannerisms and critical twitches grate like fingernails on a blackboard. And finally, she is tiresomely predictable.
-
The preacher couldn't match-up to the capitalist, that's all....
I thought TWBB was an extraordinary movie. I understand the point Zacharek is making however I believe it is misguided. I disagree that Day-Lewis' performance does not inspire conflicting sympathies within the viewer. I, for one, could see how much he loved his son, yet at the same time, what a monster he could be - he was absolutely full of contradictions! Where I think the problem lies is that it is difficult to balance-out Day-Lewis' performance and this is best illustrated in Plainview's scenes with the preacher, Eli Sunday. Frankly, those scenes left me feeling uncomfortable because I almost felt bad for Dano, the actor playing Sunday. I believe he was miscast. The role of the preacher should have been a bit more subtle but powerful, to counter-balance Plainview's mania. It was underwritten and one-note and could not hold it's own against Plainview. On the other hand, the scenes with Plainview and his son H.W. or his brother Henry are absolutely poetic. The scene in the restaurant where Plainview sits with his son, glowering over at the Big Oil perps for an offense made months before? Incredible. At the beach with his brother, with the waves trying to crash down and cool the obvious volcano that is about to erupt? You can see how Plainview gradually loses any shred of faith in the goodness of man, you see how his soul eventually turns black and burnt. Day-Lewis' performance is extraordinary. It's only that it's hard to balance out his performance with other performances/characters that are just as full-bodied, particularly the lead support. I believe that may the responsibility of the director, or perhaps casting to a certain degree? In any case, I do enjoy Zacharek's reviews. She adds a really unique voice to the typical movie critic round-up. It's evident that she really cares about movies, takes them seriously, which doesn't always seem to be the case.
-
I usually find Zacharek's articles tedious, overblown and overwrought....
however, as a longtime fan and unabashed worshipper of Daniel Day-Lewis, I am forced to agree with her.
Zacharek compares DDL's Plainview and Bill the Butcher unfavorably with his wonderfully realized characters in MY BEAUTIFUL LAUNDRETTE, THE BOXER and IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER. I would also compare them unfavorably with his Tomas in THE UNBEARABLE LIGHTNESS OF BEING, Hawkeye in THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS, even his uncharacteristically fey buffoon in A ROOM WITH A VIEW...and even lesser efforts like his Newland Archer in THE AGE OF INNOCENCE and--probably his most underrated performance--as John Proctor in the dreadful 1996 adaptation of THE CRUCIBLE (he's the only one worth watching in that film). All of these were far more natural, far more authentic than his incredibly self-conscious, overwrought, self-aware and self-important outings as Bill the Butcher and as Plainview. Hell, Plainview is such an obvious, artificial, over-the-top actorly creation that even the histrionics of Bill the Butcher pale in comparison.
I so hate to see DDL do this kind of thing. He's gone from an actor who seemed to do it effortlessly to one whose every gesture and word reeks of TOO MUCH OBVIOUS AND DELIBERATE EFFORT and attention-seeking.
-
Reality-based Liberal
I definately agree with some of what you are saying. A) The movie is about an industry, not exactly a man... some people do not like these sorts of approaches, and it could be easy to see how some people read that as "oh god, this is supposed to be some sort of EPIC."
you could say this is a point made shown by Plainview's early, open, affection towards his son which dissipates into his cold-hearted closure from his son. I do like what you say regarding thi s not being a character study, and in some ways, Plainview's history is a mystery, supporting your conclusion. We can derive some things. For example, his hatred of the preacher, which started with contempt, becomes rage once he hears that the young Mary is beaten for not praying. When it is later mentioned by the fake brother that he knew Plainview did not get along with their father, it is clear Plainview was a victim of beating, molestation or both as a child. But, yes, much about Plainview's personal fundamental motivations is hidden from the audience, and not just by Lewis, but also the framing of the story by the director.
-
Haven't Seen It But...
I see there are many people talking about Stephanie Zacharek's review here and what stuck out at me is how I disagree with the analysis of some Mr. Day-Lewis' performances. But what do I know?
What drives me crazy is when listening to people talk about amazing performances they seem fixated on a certain type of performance; a performance surrounding a character that we'd probably never meet in real life.
From my limited perspective, as a young student of this fine craft (3 years), an amazing performance is the performance given by Albert Finney in "A Good Year". The opening scene of the movie is magic, the performance is filled with a depth of life and experience that can't be faked. Moreover, he truly experiences something while telling his nephew a wonderful story. That's magical acting...
-
the end of the movie (spoiler incoming!!)
off-topic, yes, but I can't say I found the end of the movie in the least implausible. Melodramatic, sure, but the whole movie is a melodrama.
Many people complained about the ending, but I thought it was quite well set up.
When Plainview kills his fake half-brother, the end of the movie was foreordained. When we discover that Bandy knows when Plainview did, the end in plainly in sight.
Plainview wakes up in his mansion, with an epic hangover, to be greeted by a man he hates more than anyone in the world, perhaps (which is saying something). Likely Plainview is still drunk, and hung-over, at the same time. Naturally, he takes another drink, or two, at the sight of Eli Sunday.
His "son"--whom he probably does love, in some fashion--had just left him to become a competitor..something we know Plainview would find utterly intolerable.
On top of this insult, Plainview now has to deal with a hated enemy, begging him for money, while at the same time this enemy, not so subtly, implies a form of blackmail in the background, over the murder of the fake half-brother. It's all right there in a few carefully chosen lines.
Let's not forget that Plainview is probably living with intense pain all the time at this point, from his earlier injuries, and he's probably drunk most of the time to deaden that pain..and the pain of other things.
Plainview cannot bring himself to help the preacher-man, so he mocks him instead.. rages at him, and finally hits him with the nine-pin. Then, as preacher-man lays unconscious on the alley, Plainview realizes he's totally fucked: his earlier murder will out. He's drunk, hung-over, enraged, and grief-stricken all at once--filled with every kind of pain-- everything's lost..why not just finish it? go out in style.
And so he does.
It all makes perfect sense really.