
As summer 2009 comes to an end, I can't stop thinking about 2007--my favorite movie year of the past couple decades.
As has been written extensively elsewhere, there was much to love about 2007. Future cult movies such as The Ten and Idiocracy were released (side note: I know that Idiocracy was released theatrically in 2006; but when the theatrical release consists of one theater in the middle of nowhere and some bum’s asshole, I use the dvd release as the official release date). An entertaining documentary about the Helvetica font was released (that’s right, you heard me). Old timers such as Mike Nichols and Sidney Lumet continued to impress. Richard Kelly released his long awaited, psychotically epic failure Southland Tales--truly a thing of ugly beauty.
One of my biggest movie complaints of recent years has been the move toward the middle. Just as fewer masterpieces get made, so too do fewer epically bad movies get made. With Southland Tales, Richard Kelly proved that it was still possible to make a piece of shit so profoundly, ambitiously and awe-inspiringly awful, that I have but a glimmer of hope for the future of film.
Just as Southland Tales fell far short of whatever insane mark it was aiming for, so conversely did a slew of 2007 pictures not only achieve greatness, but could also be named among the best films of the decade: No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood, Zodiac, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, Once, Superbad, Ratatouille, Persepolis, The King of Kong, Hot Fuzz, Eastern Promises, and Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (Fuck all the haters. I love this flick) to name a few. Of the movies just mentioned, a good third have the best photography of the decade. If forced to choose, I would have to name No Country for Old Men as my favorite, but Zodiac, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, and There Will Be Blood would tie for a close second.
What with the downturn in the economy and the slew of recent auteur driven passion projects under-performing at the box office (Inglourious Basterds being one of the few exceptions), I doubt we'll have another year like 2007. [I have a terrible record when it comes to making predictions of this sort, but fuck it, I did it anyways.] Averse to taking such risks in the future, the folks with their hands on the purse strings will rather fund the sure-fire blandly audience pleasing fare of The Transformers and G.I. Joe variety. Interesting, off-beat, clever, personal projects will always get made, of course. I just don't see them getting backed by well funded studios at any point in the near future.
It's a situation in many ways reminiscent of the late seventies end of the New Hollywood renaissance. For many years the young auteurs had been given the keys to the kingdom, free to make whatever fanciful art-pictures they desired. Because these flicks kept their producers' wallets happy, producers continued to fund these flicks. After a string of ambitious box office failures (Sorcerer; New York, New York; Heaven's Gate), however, the tap was all but cut off. Hollywood opted instead for the easy, middle of the road blockbusters.
But I digress.
Of all the flicks released in 2007, few had scenes that equaled the bravura opening of Anderson's There Will Be Blood. The almost dialogue free fifteen minute opening sequence would no doubt have made Sam Fuller proud. As the director Fuller stated in his autobiography, "If a story doesn't give you a hard-on in the first couple of scenes, throw it in the goddamned garbage." You gotta grab the viewers by the balls right from the get go if you want them to sustain any kind of interest in your film. Not only does There Will Be Blood's opening grab a viewer by the balls, it also strokes the shaft, which in turn paints a map of Hawaii on the movie's tits.
Set to Johnny Greenwood's beautifully haunting score, prospector Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis) mines for gold at the bottom of a nearly endless pit. After climbing out into an almost alien terrain, he dynamites further into the shaft. When climbing back down, a board snaps and he falls, breaking his leg. Lying at the bottom of the pit, he discovers gold. Using all his might, he pulls himself up through the pit and eventually through miles of barren landscape, landing in the closest town, where he gets his leg mended and lays a claim. This is just the beginning of an arduous journey toward becoming an oil barren.
As stated in previous posts, I have always stood in awe of those directors who are able to tell stories without the use of dialogue. As much as I enjoy me some good-ass dialogue (and Anderson's films abound with this), I am primarily a visual person. If a director is not able to show rather than tell, of what goddamn use is he or she as a filmmaker. There Will Be Blood's opening sequence represents one of the best examples of silence in film that I have seen. Anderson takes us through every arduous point of Daniel's journey toward becoming a self-made millionaire. We are put in his shoes. This crucial opening scene informs Daniel's actions throughout the rest of the film. Rightly or wrongly, he feels that he has more than earned his place at the top of a soulless capitalist throne.
Perhaps this opening scene is too good. As great as the rest of the movie is, it almost pales in comparison to this sequence. I still would have enjoyed this flick absent this scene but I don't know that I would consider it among my favorites. Although There Will Be Blood was not my favorite film of 2007, no other picture of that year matched the filmmaking chutzpah on display in Anderson's movie.
[The opening:]









