Start of Semester=Blog Neglect
So, we’ve started the year off well in terms of moviegoing, seeing There Will Be Blood (what a title) and Cloverfield. There is more to see, obviously, and I’ll have my obligatory Oscars post up by week’s end hopefully. Let’s review these quick-like, shall we?
I’m a big fan of Paul Thomas Anderson. I loved the gritty realism of Boogie Nights, the Altman-esque sweep of Magnolia, and the sweetness of Punch-Drunk Love. What you will find in all of these films is also his ability to get great performances out of his actors. Sure, it’s easy to do with Julianne Moore or Emily Watson, but less easy with Tom Cruise or Adam Sandler, I’d argue. What is surprising for me about TWBB is the restraint, coming from the man who created the “scene that shall not be spoken of” to connect everyone in Magnolia. The first silent 20 minutes are powerful, and Anderson lets the enormity of the landscape and the struggle of Day-Lewis’s character against that landscape speak. This is a fairly quiet film, punctuated by outbursts and the eerie score. Paul Dano holds his own against Day-Lewis, who is just amazing. I’ve never heard an character speak like this, demonstrating the ingenuity and innovation of Day-Lewis in creating a character. The film is heartbreaking and evocative, and speaks to the eternal American struggle between Almighty God and the Almighty Dollar in interesting ways. It’s a great film, and I’d recommend seeing it on the big screen to truly see and hear the entire experience.
I’d likewise vote to see Cloverfield on the big screen, though it might also be interesting to see it on the small screen, what with its handheld camera angle perhaps being suited to that scale as well. We bought the hype completely and were chomping at the bit to see it. We both rated it a B/B+: it’s quick as all get out at under 90 minutes, so it’s not like you’re investing the 158 minutes of TWBB. Some have argued that the film is all style and no substance, but part of me thinks that is an unfair criticism; it’s a freaking disaster movie: what do you want? As a disaster movie, it works well: the prelude is perhaps 4 minutes too long, but does a good job of establishing relationships. And, once we get going, a good pace is established, varying between running, resting, reflecting, and just plain old tension. They do some good things to shake the genre up, which I won’t spoil, so it’s fresh beyond just the form innovations. I liked it, and I would recommend it.
