![]() ![]() This goes for thematically as well as aesthetically - each film is deeply idiosyncratic in how it chooses to approach the topics of greed, avarice, and their consequences. Though connected, Anderson and the Coens' visions of brutality are far from interchangeable. But then again, few things are more provocative than the fear instilled in us by one Anton Chigurh. the "bastard in a basket"? Did salvation ever exist for him, if far, far off in the distance? In the scene where Eli Sunday baptizes Plainview, who exactly is manipulating whom? These are all things we are left to ponder throughout Anderson's film, maybe making There Will Be Blood a more provocative feature. For Plainview, there are things we are left to wonder. Maybe we know that Chigurh is beyond saving after all, the level of danger he evokes is compared to that of the bubonic plague in the film. However, for what Chigurh might maintain in authenticity, Plainview certainly makes up for in his unfettered charisma. This isn't surprising given Chigurh's effortlessly soulless demeanor - he feels more like a force of nature than anything resembling a human being. A 2017 psychiatric study found that Anton Chigurh is cinema's most accurate portrayal of a psychopath to date, out of a list of nearly 400 films. Yet, if it's realism that one values most from a film, perhaps it's No Country that they might turn to. Meanwhile, Paul Thomas Anderson's film also made huge sweeps at other major award shows, with himself and Daniel Day-Lewis winning big at the SAG, BAFTA, and Golden Globe Awards.ĭue to both Day-Lewis's and Bardem's career-defining performances, it would be unfair to say that one character is objectively more nuanced or compelling than the other. Although No Country went on to win more Oscars in 2008, with a monumental sweep that included wins in the Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor, Best Director, and Best Writing categories, either film still received eight nominations total that year, with There Will Be Blood featured in three of the four aforementioned categories. Firstly, either film has acquired a staggering amount of accolades and critical acclaim over the years. There are countless reasons as to why this question has not yet been resolved by cinema experts or the general public alike. But which movie is objectively, quantifiably, and unequivocally better? ![]() Of Earth's many unanswered questions, by far one of the most important is, which was truly the best film of 2007 - and, dare I say, the 21st century - There Will Be Blood or No Country For Old Men (sorry, all you Jesse James contrarians)? To this day, both films continue to remain the stuff of legend, sitting primly at the helm of film bro letterboxd lists and the IMDb top 250. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |