This past year at the Academy Awards, there were two contenders that were nominated for virtually every major award being No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood. As opposed to writing individual reviews for both, thus creating two similar somewhat redundant entries, I felt a comparison between the two was more appropriate.
When I sat down to view No Country For Old Men, the hype was flashing through my mind like a million camera flashes going off at preset intervals. I had heard about the tense storyline and the outstandingly creepy performance by Javier Bardem as Anton Chigurh and was excited by the news. However, following viewing I was unsure of what it was that I just saw. Chigurh did not strike me as creepy. Interesting, sure, but not creepy. The only scene where I was just slightly moved was the coin toss scene. Chigurh just seemed cold, lifeless. I’d take Cillian Murphy’s Jonathan Crane for creep factor over Anton Chigurh any day. This is not to say that Javier Bardem’s performance wasn’t good. I believe he nailed it, but his character was not as frightening or unnerving as people had claimed.
All I had heard about There Will Be Blood was about Daniel Day Lewis’ performance as Daniel Plainview being quite spectacular. And on this point I’d have to agree. Plainview was a complex, intriguing individual that continuously surprised you throughout the film. The equivalent of Chigurh’s coin toss scene would have to be the oft parodied milkshake scene, which I found much more tense than the coin toss of No Country.
From a story standpoint, both are highly complex stories where, if you blink or become distracted but for a moment, you will be lost. Every tiny detail is of utmost importance. But they are written in such a way that the useful dialogue sounds like banter, and tends to be glossed over, thus missing some important point. Only upon further mental processing after the movie has ended will these details emerge, though it will only be a few. Full understanding of movies like There Will Be Blood and No Country will only come after multiple viewings, or really any understanding at all. That is one downside I find with these “higher art” movies. There’s just enough for you to enjoy what you saw, but at the end, you are still unsure of what it is that you saw.
They share the same gritty, earthy look and are set in the Texas area. There are many shots that look similar, usually landscape shots, though that would be due to the two movies being shot practically within shouting range of one another. From a technical stance, they are equal.
So how do I feel? Both left me with the same sense of “What?” when they were over. Both were technically impressive, so it really came down to the performances. Though I feel No Country perhaps had a slightly stronger cast, There Will Be Blood had Daniel Plainview was much more interesting and captivating than the blank faced Chigurh (though it is his blank face that makes him a little unsettling at times). Overall, I’d have to say There Will Be Blood would get my vote for the better film, even though I really don’t quite ‘get’ both.
