andylangager.net

# # #
Ok? Well, honestly I didn't enjoy the movie that much. Maybe I need to watch it again. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was very well made, but I thought it could have been much better. I gave it two out of five stars on my Netflix review.

All things considered, I'm a fan of movies with plots. Yes, the movie has a story, but not a plot. A plot is moving from point A to point B to point C with a protagonist and an antagonist (even if the antagonist is himself). This is why I don't like a lot of "biopics" (The Aviator, Ali, Pollock -- Lawrence of Arabia and Amadeus are exceptions that I like).

There are a lot of movies without plots that I enjoy, but this isn't really one of them. The movie is a character study of a character who is a bit perplexing. He appears to hate people, all people, except he shows genuine feelings toward his "son" H.W. Yet, he seems to use him as a means toward an end at times. The relationship is a bit schizophrenic. After H.W. goes deaf, Daniel doesn't seem like he can deal with it. He feeds him booze to sedate him and keep him out of his hair. But he seems to still care for the boy despite himself. It doesn't really get resolved with much satisfaction to me.

More frustrating to the audience, is that early on there is no reason not to like Daniel. We want him to succeed, not because he has done anything good, but because he hasn't done anything bad. When he beats Eli in the oilfield, we finally see his bad side. We aren't sure who to root for. We just sit back and watch, and hope that Daniel will come around for the better. Daniel isn't entirely in contempt of people. When he learns one of his workers has died ("Did I know him?" "No.") he shows concern. He wants the man's belongings to get back to his family. It doesn't seem to be a show for the sake of his image; I don't think the townspeople could do anything even if they didn't like him.

I'm just sort of typing and typing here because there is so much to say about the movie (just because I didn't enjoy it doesn't mean it isn't worth analyzing) Couple more points:

The film is very Kubrick-y. From the opening scene I thought this (and other seem to agree). The symmetrical framing of the shots, the score, and especially the final shot. If you showed me this movie and said Kubrick wasn't dead, he directed this new movie, I would probably believe you. The only thing that is noticeably different is the missing Kubrick lens "feel."

The idea that the film is an allegory for what is going on now in America and its relationship with oil hasn't quite solidified for me. Is it the Bush's relationship with us (note the "H.W." character''s name)? Bush's relationship with religion and oil? America's relationship with the Middle East? Capitalism vs. Religion? Socialism in general? I get the feeling the movie isn't quite sure. "Investing too much of yourself in something" might fit -- it doesn't have to be religion or oil.

How I would have made the movie: I would have developed Daniel's relationship with the townsfolk. In the movie as it is, he promised them a school, roads, money to the church. We don't see what he actually delivers on. I would have made Daniel deliver on some early promises and the townsfolk get more and more uneasy as he slowly stops. In fact, after stopping with the infrastructure improvements of the town, he actually starts to take advantage of the town more and more, all the while becoming more and more rich. Eventually, the townsfolk are about to practically knock his mansion down and drag him outside but there is some kind of disaster with a derrick and the entire town burns down... showing how everything would have been better off without Daniel and his money. I'm not sure what happens to Daniel. I was thinking he sacrifices himself to save a kid from the fire, but that might be too cheesy.

I think "Dogville" is a pretty good companion film to this one; dealing with a newcomer to town and how relationships change over time. Check it out if you haven't seen it.