Drainage: "There Will Be Blood," Revisited

I had another viewing of "There Will Be Blood" this evening, and I have to tell you, either I am going completely crazy, seeing things that don't exist, pulling tragic pieces of evidence out of the thin, smoky air--or, there's something going on in this script besides oil, greed, and the Bible. There's something big and deep, and it's hardly palpable enough to grab onto.

Why do I say all this? I don't know. Every since I saw this movie, it has haunted me. My lack of understanding and yet desperation toward knowledge, toward meaning. It haunts me the same way "The Waste Land" haunted my English 507 lecturer. She'd pain, she'd toil, and she'd beg us for answers. It was stupid, of course, because she was the one with all the answers, but she was so desperate that she began turning to her students for just a drop of understanding. We all wrote papers, and we all tried. But, of course, an undergrad's paper on HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME isn't going to carry any real relevance. It may gesture to something that, in its purest state of being, holds the meaning of everything--in the poem, in the world, in the universe, in time, everything. The name of God, even. But these types of things cannot be refined enough. They can't be made into something hard that we can see and touch. It's almost as if T.S. Eliot was in touch with something golden, something completely disarming. Srsly. This is how I feel about Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood." I'm not a PhD trying to milk anything from anyone. According to most people, film students in particular, I don't know dick about film. Fair enough. A Family Video/Sundance 608 education can only take you so far. But I do feel that there's something that lives inside "There Will Be Blood," and it's something that cannot be distilled into an essay. I won't attempt to solve the story, to so much as pretend that I have any real inkling of what's going on here. I can only ask questions and pose astronomically ridiculous theories, and I have to get them out in writing somewhere. So here goes.

FYI, this column contains SPOILERS. If this concerns you, I suggest you see the film and then read my weirdo interpretations. There's nothing worse than a spoiled milkshake.

QUESTION: Is Eli Sunday real?
-Everybody else seems to think so. Sometimes, I do, too. I can't, however, abandon the idea that Eli Sunday is not real. That he is, in fact, some strange manifestation, an imprint of Daniel Plainview's past, of a self that Daniel used to know but now blames for the damage in his current life. Eli rarely appears in a scene without Daniel. Even the church scenes involve Daniel to some extent, and Eli's only scene without Daniel is the scene in which he attacks his father at the dinner table. Eli's outburst is strange, but it does seem to resemble one of Daniel's earlier outbursts...on Eli. Both Daniel and Eli shove their victims to the ground and focus their energy on that victim's face. It could be a coincidence, but I can't accept that. Similarly, both Eli and Daniel receive baptisms during the film. Daniel is baptized by Eli in the Church of the Third Revelation. Eli is "baptized" by Daniel after asking about the $5,000 he is owed--his face thrown into the dirt as Daniel promises to "bury [him] in the ground"--rather than, perhaps, to raise him up to the Lord. Anyway, I have a lot of difficulty organizing my thoughts on this theory. Mostly, it's still a work in progress.

QUESTION: Is Daniel Plainview the devil?
-A lot of people have been throwing around Biblical interpretations of "There Will Be Blood," in many cases, as if it's a regular Jesus allegory, complete with magical lion or street-crossing turtle. Well, maybe not, but you get the idea. Many folks have become preoccupied with the name of Eli's church. They've also become obsessed with Eli as the false prophet, Paul as the real prophet, whether or not Paul exists, and whether or not Eli is (??I don't get this??) the father of illegitimate daughter Mary, and that this sin is somehow responsible for his crazy repent in the end (right before he gets bludgeoned). I, however, choose to focus on a seemingly cliche argument in the way of Biblical interpretations. It is not, cliche, however. Hear me out. Daniel is the devil, though not in the traditional sense. He is not the fiery, red-tailed demon, the one that masquerades as a snake or slips through your lips in the form of a lie. He's not Milton's Lucifer either, but rather, he's a new variety of super villain. He is the devil in the sense of Oil Man--tall, gritty, dripping black goop from every pore. His strengths? Cunning, knowledge, manipulation. His weaknesses? Envy, greed, women, an inability to trust. His face is like leather. His hands are stained black. He limps through the night like a broken scarecrow. He sleeps on the floor, and he sleeps hard.

In the Stephen King short story "The Man in the Black Suit," a young boy is met with the devil while fishing in the woods. The devil is described as a tall man dressed in a black suit. The man has a large mouth, bad breath, eats a fish raw, and he says terrible things. He tells the young boy that his mother is dead and that he is going to eat him. Later in the story, the devil chases the boy out of the woods and all the way home. I could not help but think of this story during the ending scene of "There Will Be Blood." When Daniel tells Eli that he is just an "afterbirth," that he "slithered out of [his] mother's filth." When Daniel says, "I told you I would eat you," while chasing Eli around the bowling alley. The way he's gnawing into a piece of meat while Eli confesses out loud, "I am a false prophet. God is a superstition"--this all makes me think of the devil in King's O. Henry winning story. The chase, the eating, the horrible propositions. This linked to Daniel's greed, his insatiable envy, his disdain for the human race. His limp, his snare. I believe he is the devil.

QUESTION: Why is Daniel's past left a mystery?
-Whenever presented with a character, especially one as complex as Daniel Plainview, it is not only important to question that character's present motives, but also those motives derived from the past. But what is Daniel Plainview's past? We learn very little about him. We know that he was born in Fon du Lac, WI, that he had one sister and, perhaps, a half-brother. We know his parents are dead, that he lived on a farm, and that there was a house near the place he lived that he very much loved at the time. We know that now, to see that beautiful house again would make him sick, but we don't know why. We see Daniel's sympathy toward the Sunday daughter Mary, the way he reacts when H.W. tell him that Mary's father beats her if she forgets to pray, but we don't know why. We assume that Daniel is unmarried, but we don't know, and we don't know if he's ever been married. We assume he's never had any children of his own, but we don't know. We do know that he adopted H.W., and most of the time, it seems that he did so only to create the illusion of a family business, but aren't there moments that suggest that, somehow, Daniel did love H.W.? Flashback scenes especially, those shown near the end after Daniel reduces H.W. to the "b*stard from a basket." We usually cannot tell, however, whether Daniel's love for H.W. is actually love, or if it is a desperation for that family business--the one that cannot exist without an actual family, the one that has made so much money on oil. In any event, Daniel Plainview's past is left mostly a mystery. Any time he is questioned, he responds "I don't want to talk about those things," or he creates a hasty subject change. He manages this by commanding every situation he takes part in. This must mean something, though, about his past. What causes him to avoid talking about himself? What is the cause of his perpetual state of distrust? Of his sympathy toward Mary Sunday? His need for a family member? His seeming sexlessness? The greed? The envy? Most movies would, of course, reveal these things to us in the form of intermittent flashback, or, perhaps, all in one ending reveal. Paul Thomas Anderson, however, has chosen to leave these things unanswered, and this dangling ambiguity, this blurred imperfection, is one of the things I love most about "There Will Be Blood." The story seems to thrive on letting its audience wonder. Not all audience members will choose to wonder. Not all of them will understand that they have to wonder in order for the movie to come together. It is in this instance that "There Will Be Blood" could be called everything from 'disorganized' to 'blatantly pretentious.' I think, however, that it is more a mystery than anything. It's more mystery than it is Bible talk. More mystery than it is Capitalism. More mystery than period drama, than character sketch, than anything. It's the mystery of Daniel Plainview, because he goes crazy, he commits murder, he says and does terrible things--but we have no idea why.

QUESTION: Did any of this really happen?
-It's the age-old enigma. It was all a dream! Seriously, though. I think that, if "There Will Be Blood" is the case, it would be okay, since we never actually find out that it was all a dream, that it is left painstakingly ambiguous, and that the only people who truly think that it's a possibility are me and maybe a couple of other weirdos like me that are just looking for a way out of this ceaseless state of PERPLEXED. Think about it. You don't have to agree with me, because you'll probably think I'm crazy, but at least let this insane idea skim the surface of your ability to analyze.

Those first few scenes. The horror movie-esque drone from the orchestra, that red-hot view of those hellish mountains. And then we see Daniel Plainview, silver-miner, geologist, hacking away, all alone, countless feet below the ground. He finds a rock. He spits on it. He loses his tools to an explosion. He falls off the ladder, into the mine. Blackness.

This blackness is so strange to me. It's different than any other moment in the entire film. When the picture comes back, we're met with Daniel, flat on his back, gasping for air, at the bottom of the mine. My question for you is: Could it be possible that everything that happens FROM THAT MOMENT ON happens only in the mind of Daniel Plainview? Is it possible that Daniel does not survive the fall, that he's broken his back, and that what happens next is a mere glimpse into what could have been? A dream tainted with the plight of his past--his broken faith, his nonexistent family, a lack of women, impostors left and right, and, this brings me back to my first question in this column, Eli Sunday--a projection of his former self, all the things that have gone wrong so far condensed into that severe, human manifestation that comes just before death. I notice all of these things due to the prevalence of parallelism throughout the movie: paralleled phrases, actions, events. Toward the end, Eli shouts, "Daniel Plainview, your house is on fire!"--mirroring the actually house fire started by H.W. nearly thirty years earlier. Daniel repeats the phrase, "Three wells producing. Five thousand dollars a week," in the end, while talking about Paul. He described himself with that same phrase earlier in the film, while talking to prospective sellers. Both he and Eli experience their own 'baptism:' Eli's in the mud, Daniel's in the church. The only scene in the film that ever escapes the command of Daniel is the scene in the Sunday home when Eli attacks his father, accusing him of letting Daniel take over their family--a scene commanded by Eli and yet, somehow, owing all of its furor to the sadistic Mr. Plainview. Similarly, there are multiple moments in the movie in which Daniel, even when surrounded by other people, seems completely alone. When he attacks Eli after being confronted about the missing church donation, the men standing around the scene do nothing. At one point, a phantom voice says Daniel's name, but that is all. It's almost as if they are merely the backdrop of a dream, and they have no lives or feelings outside of the scenes Daniel has set in place for them. Also, in the very last scene, the scene where he kills Eli, the butler comes downstairs with a particular calm about him. Even after seeing Daniel hunched there, beside the splattered brains of Eli Sunday, he says only, "Mr. Daniel?" to which Daniel replies, "I'm finished." One of the greatest last lines ever. Because maybe, just maybe, he is finished. This is the end of a long battle with himself, those last burgeoning moments before death when your life flashes before your eyes, and you're made to question everything you've ever done and said and stood for. And upon murdering Eli, some means is brought to a hostile end. And how are we to know? Who are we to question what happens right before you die? And with that end comes another quick cut to the black screen, a jovial jaunt on the violin, and the same four words that anchored us into this mess, "THERE WILL BE BLOOD."

To conclude this crazy array, I just want to mention something I read recently. Right now, I'm reading a book by one of the strangest, smartest writers I've ever read. His name is Haruki Murakami, and the book in question is filled with the ominous and the unexplained. Even more so, however, it is filled with some very intelligent musings. One of those musings is this: "Works that have a certain imperfection to them have an appeal...There's something in it that draws you in...You discover something about that work that tugs at your heart--or maybe we should say the work discovers you." This is the way I feel about "There Will Be Blood." All of these things, these bewitching elements of the unknown, the missing links in the final pattern, these are what make the movie great. Besides the fact that it's a beautiful period drama with an excellent leading man, and that it won Oscars and will be remembered for years to come--it's the imperfections in "There Will Be Blood" that cause us so much wonder. It's the questions with no answers that keep us searching, and it's a piece that keeps us searching that gives reason for applause.

Anyway, I want your theories. If you're reading this, and you've seen this movie, I know you have theories of your own. Please share. In the meantime, I drink your milkshake. Slurp. I drink it up.

The Over & the Under: Part II

THE OVER:

1. Scarlett Johansson
-Last Decent Role: Nola Rice, "Match Point" (2005)
-WTF was she thinking?: "Scoop" (2006); I guess this proves that just because it's Woody Allen, it doesn't have to be quirky-awesome to the max.
-Recent endeavors that aren't helping matters: "Anywhere I Lay My Head," an album of Tom Waits covers that is, according to Allison Stewart of the Washington Post, "what would happen if Mazzy Star's Hope Sandoval decided to release a solo album assembled by a group of carnival barkers and hobos."
-Why I think she's overrated: Well, six consecutive crappy roles aside, Scarlet did not show up to the the Cannes Film Festival premier of "Vicky Christina Barcelona" (another "we'll see" by Woody) because of some un-met ridiculous diva demands. Also, her recent engagement to king of dick and shit humor Ryan Reynolds seems to be taking center stage while the fact that she used to be considered a talented actress has seemingly disappeared altogether. She used to be deadpan, the kind of girl you could sit on a New York bench with and make fun of passers-by. Now she's mostly used-up, and even if she does manage an Oscar-worthy performance sometime in the future, unless she gets her act together, it's unlikely that the Academy will care.

2. Shia LaBeouf
-Last Decent Role: Kale, "Disturbia" (2007)
-WTF was he thinking?: "Indiana Jones" and the washed-up franchise--oh, I'm sorry, "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."
-Recent endeavors that aren't helping matters: Getting arrested for trespassing because he refused to leave a Wal-greens after close. Who do these people think they are? It's a Wal-greens, not the Chateau Marmont. I doubt the good retail workers of the greater L.A. area, the kind making $6.50/hr, are going to sympathize with an overrated movie star on a shaving cream-run/power trip. Gimme a break.
-Why I think he's overrated: Apparently, it is no longer necessary for actors to contribute to the art of performance before the good magazine writers of the world begin making predictions about their lavish, award-winning futures. Plus, I am fully convinced that the only character Shia LaBeaouf is capable of playing is himself: a horny, over-privelaged nancy whose perpetual incredulity does nothing but irritate every living being in his midst. Zero sympathy, Shia. Zero sympathy.

3. Angelina Jolie
-Last Decent Role: Mariane, "A Mighty Heart" (2007), though I feel this might be pushing it. I'd go so far as to say that she hasn't had a truly good role since "Girl, Interrupted" (1999)
-WTF was she thinking?: Any number of movies, my favorite being the up and comer "Wanted." It's like "Gone in 60 Seconds" meets "Girl, Interrupted," and while I will admit to liking both of those movies, I have absolutely no desire to see their completely unrelated and unneccessary spawn.
-Recent endeavors that aren't helping matters: Being pregnant, yet again, with Brad Pitt's weird love-babies. Also, "Atlas Shrugged," to be released to a vast audience of very bored Libertarian types later this year.
-Why I think she's overrated: Ange used to be one of my favorite actresses, but lately, she seems to have resigned herself to Brad's favorite mignon, part-time actress in bad, mostly animated features, and full-time ceaseless regular to the tabloids. As it turns out, Angelina Jolie IS one of those actresses that wins an Oscar and then drops off the radar. I don't know what happened to that daring woman who played Lisa Rowe nine years ago, the one with the exotic looks and intimidating chops, but I wish she'd either disappear completely or make a long-term comeback. One's career cannot exist forever on a cover of US Weekly alone.

4. Quentin Tarantino
-Last Decent Flick: "Kill Bill: Vol. 2" (2004) which, I have to admit, is pure genius.
-WTF was he thinking?: Producing "Hostel: Part II," as if Eli Roth holds any true relevance to the oh-so-innovative world of contemporary horror (#5 on this list).
-Recent endeavors that aren't helping matters: That whole "Grindhouse" fiasco. Tarantino may think he's so good that he can do whatever he wants (like produce bad sex, guns, and gore horror starring actors like Michael Madsen and the intermittently employed Rose McGowan), but a few stylized CSI episodes aside, he hasn't proved much of anything yet.
-Why I think he's overrated: The name Tarantino has become its own genre in recent years. Words like 'tarantinian' and 'tarantino-esque' have swept descriptions of stylized violence from L.A. to Amsterdam, and one might think, were one to be unfamiliar with the recent plights of Mr. Tarantino, that he was a regular Orson Welles. "Pulp Fiction" proved that his cult, pop culture tendencies could be contained into great filmmaking, and then "Reservoir Dogs" pioneered an entire movement of indie blood shed. THEN, he gives us a duo of fantastic movies called "Kill Bill," and then...he disappears? Or, well, he pops up here and there with his big, fat name beneath executive producer, one far-off project called "Inglorious Bastards," but that's about it. He is the vanishing genius of our time, and it's so sad that he's on my list of most overrated humans in the film industry. But he is, and I hope that, in the coming years, he proves me wrong.

5. Eli Roth
-Last Decent Flick: ?
-WTF was he thinking?: Perhaps that he was something new and exciting? That torture porn is some kind of excuse for horror genre innovation? That the same formulaic crap can be used over and over again for films that seem like they should be different but are really all exactly the same? That "Cabin Fever" did for leg-shaving what "Psycho" did for shower-taking? Omg, I didn't come up with that last one. Eli said that about himself once on E!.
-Recent endeavors that aren't helping matters: "Hostel: Part Deuce." No sequels, please, Eli. Yours tend to come off as 'hum drum' and can't even scare a twelve-year-old with asthma (No offense, Nate.). Also, apparently Lindsay Lohan called him old once. Burn!
-Why I think he's overrated: I think it's preposterous that Eli Roth is credited, by anyone, for ever introducing something new and exciting to the horror genre. It's a widely accepted fact that, yes, stylized gore can be scary or innovative (think "The Night Watch" or "Sin City"), but excessive, fakey gore is simply an excuse for not writing good material. The scare factor comes in all forms, but with our society's current inundation with ruby red corn syrup, fake guts that are funnier than frightening, and everything that Tarantino did with gore in "Kill Bill," it takes more than Eli Roth to get our hearts pumping. A constant triggering of the gag reflex does not equal adequate fright. It equals annoying. But, perhaps I shouldn't be saying all this. Eli is probably reading this right now, and later this week, he'll issue a statement to TMZ.com about how funny it is that people think he's an insufficient filmmaker. He does that sort of thing a lot.

6. Reese Witherspoon
-Last decent role: June Carter, "Walk the Line" (2005)
-WTF was she thinking?: "Rendition" (2007); Nobody wants to go to the movie theater to watch the unfolding political agenda of any over-privelaged entertainer. Look, you already have millions and millions of dollars. Just do your job and entertain.
-Recent endeavors that aren't helping matters: Jake Gyllenhaal? Srsly. I haven't heard squat about the little Phillipe kids in at least a year, but every day there's a picture in US Weekly that suggests she's shipped them off to boarding school in the Forest of Dean. Both she and Jake have apparently traded good careers for paparazzi-laden smootch fests. Bleh.
-Why I think she's overrated: Well, she super cute, and she's Elle Woods. She won an Oscar (well-deserved), but I don't understand why so many actresses seem to think that, once you've won an Oscar, the only way to go is Rom-Com central? Like Hilary Swank, who is not on this list, but she might be someday if she pulls that "P.S. I Love You" sh*t ever again. Anyway, I just don't think that, besides "Walk the Line" and maybe "Election," Reese has proven herself beyond the bubbly blond with the too-cute smile. It's like, she won an Oscar and suddenly she's Julia Roberts. Not even a little bit, missy.

7. Jake Gyllenhaal
-Last decent role: Jack Twist, "Brokeback Mountain" (2004)
-WTF was he thinking?: See previous overrated ranking's answer
-Recent endeavors that aren't helping matters: Showing up in the tabloids. AT ALL. Jake is that guy that we've always felt close to. The boy nextdoor, apple pie, sad blue eyes, an honest voice. But the mere idea of him traipsing around L.A. with overrated actress Reese Witherspoon blows my mind. Jake Gyllenhaal was supposed to be one of those actors that stayed away from all that, a main reason that former gal-pal (and current alcoholic) Kirsten Dunst kicked him to the curb.
-Why I think he's overrated: I feel that, contrary to what many people might think, Jake Gyllenhaal is rather...one-dimensional. His characters are often vulnerable, usually naive, always handsome, and easy to take advantage of. Perhaps the roles are to blame, the directors, the casting directors, but I really think that if he were a good actor, he'd take control of the situation and say, "I'm sick of being doe-eyed shy guy," whip out those balls, and impress us. I still haven't given up on Jake, having loved his performances in both "Brokeback Mountain" and "October Sky," but I will soon if he continues to fail me, or worse, falls beneath the burgeoning, lipsticky shadow of current love interest Reese Witherspoon. We all saw what happened to Ryan. Poor guy.

8. Halle Berry
-Last decent role: Leticia, "Monster's Ball" (2001)
-WTF was she thinking?: Oh, god. "Catwoman."
-Recent endeavors that aren't helping matters: Absolutely RUINING X-Men 3 by demanding that Storm be given a stronger role in the storyline. Storm is extraneous. They should have cut her out and said she was off training X-kiddies in China or something.
-Why I think she's overrated: Halle Berry has given some interesting turns. I loved everything about "Bullworth," and she won an Oscar for "Monster's Ball." Unfortunately, aside from those two instances, the extent of Berry's performance aptitude rarely ventures past the well-muscled beauty or the femme fatale. Most admire her for her beauty. They fail to see past the flickers in her eyes. They get obsessed with her recent fortune in fertility or the dresses she wears to award ceremonies. Ceremonies she's rarely seen from the stage. It is unlikely she'll ever return.

9. Cate Blanchett
-Last decent role: Sheba, "Notes on a Scandal"
-WTF was she thinking?: Anytime I see Cate Blanchett gliding around, her skin unattainably white and then over-rouged, her voice loud and possibly donning some nonexistent accent, I think to myself, "WTF is she thinking?"
-Recent endeavors that aren't helping matters: "Indiana Jones" and the curse of the aging unemployed--I mean "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." Seriously. What is with the wig. I hope it is a wig.
-Why I think she's overrated: Because it's almost as if the members of the Academy have entered a sacred pact forged in their own blood that requires them to nominate ol' Cate every single year she does anything at all. And it's not that she's a bad actress. She's wonderful, versatile, beautiful...but come ON. Like I've said all along: Angry Galadriel needs to give it a rest. I want more of the Cate that we saw in "Notes on a Scandal," less of that obnoxious character that yells and quivers and has a face painted white...sigh...but judging from her most recent mishap ("Indiana Drones"), I shouldn't get my hopes up.

10. Sean Penn
-Last decent role: Not "I am Sam," that's for sure.
-WTF was he thinking?: "All the Kings Men." Also, "Into the Wild," which directed. And not because it was a bad movie, but because Sean muddied it up with all kinds of bad eighties contrivance and a sickening quota of schmaltz.
-Recent endeavors that aren't helping matters: Well, well. Where do I begin?
-Why I think he's overrated: Because every single thing that Sean Penn makes, every last performance and screenplay and shot in a movie that he's directed needs a healthy dose of peer revision. Somebody needs to get in there and tell him that sometimes, things are better when they're not soaking wet with emotion. With blood and sweat and tears, the kind you can't wash off, not even with nine beers. And it's not that emotion is always bad. It's just that, after a time, everything that Sean Penn does feels bleary-eyed and under-revised. It's like draft one of a short story I wrote freshman year. Purply and losing itself in its own breadth. Vomit.

The Top Ten: Actors

These are my top ten modern actors, meaning, actors still alive and working rampantly today. Perhaps at a later date, I will create a list of my Top 10 actors of all time. That will take some serious thought, however. Not that this list did not. Anyway, here they are. I only commented on the Top 5. I do feel, however, that all of these men have careers that speak for themselves.

The List:


1. Robert Downey, Jr.
-Favorite Role(s): Terry Crabtree, "Wonderboys"; Tony Stark, "Iron Man"; Larry Paul, "Ally McBeal" (TV)
-Underrated Performance: Paul Avery, "Zodiac"
-Looking forward to...: "Iron Man" sequels and "The Soloist"
-That wry smile, that voice, the way he makes everything natural, as if he's bringing nothing but elements of himself. Everything's real with Bobby Downey. The life the he brings to every role. I think of the smallest things, like Larry Paul on "Ally McBeal," how he made half the women in America wish he'd sing them songs and leave them smiling next to snowmen. He's a quiet genius, and I love him. He's the kind of actor that doesn't let you forget that it's an art.

2. Mark Wahlberg
-Favorite Role(s): Tommy Corn, "I Heart Huckabees"; Troy Barlow, "Three Kings"
-Notable Performance: Dignam, "The Departed"
-Looking forward to...: "The Happening" and "The Lovely Bones"
-At first, he seemed an unlikely choice, but the more I thought about it, the more I liked the fact that he was an unlikely choice. Because Mark Wahlberg never fails to impress me. He continues to make good choices, to increase versatility while remaining well-abbed and deeply mysterious. He's the actor that seems like he should be one-dimensional but never is.

3. Michael C. Hall
-Favorite Role(s): David Fisher, "Six Feet Under" (TV)
-Notable Performance: Dexter Morgan, "Dexter" (TV)
-Looking forward to...: "Dexter," Season 3
-Obviously, he hasn't been in every movie ever. But I've seen all five seasons of "Six Feet Under," and it was enough to convince me. He's the unspoken king of subtlety. He's always the player with a secret, a very deep insecurity. Plus, he's fearless. Absolutely fearless.

4. Johnny Depp
-Favorite Role(s): James Barrie, "Finding Neverland"; Roux, "Chocolat"; Sam, "Benny and Joon"
-Notable Performance: Sweeney Todd, "Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street"
-Looking forward to...: "Public Enemies" and "The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus"
-Irreplaceable. It's hard to think of any single Johnny Depp role manifested by somebody else. With every appearance on the silver screen, he reinvents himself, and that's something that, as a human who truly loves the art of film, I simply cannot ignore.

5. Ralph Fiennes
-Favorite Role(s): Harry, "In Bruges"; Justin Quayle, "The Constant Gardener"
-Notable Performance: Francis Dolarhyde, "Red Dragon"
-Looking forward to...: More Voldemort
-Fiennes is truly terrifying at times. He can scare us and make us cower beneath the covers. He's the boogie man, a visceral nightmare. And yet, he's often quite likable. It's the fact that he can simultaneously scare and entice me. That's what makes me love him so much.

6. Tom Hanks
-Favorite Role(s): Carl Hanratty, "Catch Me if You Can"; Jimmy Dugan, "A League of Their Own"; Ray Peterson, "The Burbs"
-Notable Performance: Forrest Gump, "Forrest Gump"
-Looking forward to...: "Angels and Demons" and "Toy Story 3"




7. Terrence Howard
-Favorite Role(s): Jim Rhodes, "Iron Man"; Djay, "Hustle and Flow"
-Notable Performance: Cameron Thayer, "Crash"
-Looking forward to...: "The Crusaders"





8. Christian Bale
-Favorite Role(s): Bruce Wayne, "Batman Begins"; Alfred Borden, "The Prestige"
-Notable Performance: John Preston, "Equilibrium"
-Looking forward to...: "The Dark Knight"




9. Russel Crowe
-Favorite Role(s): John Nash, "A Beautiful Mind"; Det. Richie Roberts, "American Gangster"
-Notable Performance: Officer Bud White, "L.A. Confidential"
-Looking forward to...: "Body of Lies"




10. George Clooney
-Favorite Role(s): Michael Clayton, "Michael Clayton"; Chris Kelvin, "Solaris"
-Notable Performance: Fred Friendly, "Good Night, and Good Luck"
-Looking forward to...: "Burn After Reading"

Review: "Iron Man"

Yes, it's been a month since my last review, but a lot has been going on. I got into grad school and had to figure that whole thing out, and now I'm moving home for the summer. The month of April was quite lucrative in the life-progress department. But now, it's time to get back to my favorite thing in the whole world: movie talk.

...And what better way to dive back in than with "Iron Man," a superhero film that defies its genre and, in the end, turns out to be the most unique and, quite possibly, the greatest of its contemporary peers. Now, those of you who read my Daily Cardinal column, oh, a year or so ago, would agree that this is a large stretch for me, as my final article chronicled a vast, unfathomable love for the film "Spider-man 2." The lights have not left my eyes for this one. I still feel the same ache beneath my ribs for the plight of Peter Parker, his confliction, his torment over the girl nextdoor. The movie still convinces me with every breath it takes. But "Iron Man" has a certain amount of character that "Spider-man 2" lacks. That character lies in Tony Stark, played with suave, somehow sensetive precision by Robert Downey, Jr.--perhaps the genre's most unlikely choice for a superhero since...well...George Clooney, only this time, it worked out. And there were no nipples. Only chest plates.

If you don't know a ton of details about the Iron Man comic series, join the club. I think that the film does a great job of making this okay. The perpetually curious geek that I am, however, spent a few hours on Wikipedia Friday afternoon just getting to know the scrape and genius of Tony Stark. I read, with constant wonder, pretty deeply into the lore, and I learned that beneath the iron facade, Stark is a deeply troubled, weakened individual. Much like Bruce Wayne, Prince of Gotham and DC Comics, Stark lost both parents tragically at a young age. He spends most of his life collecting wealth, beautiful girls, and information, controlled by the manipulative grasp of family friend and Stark Industries board member Obadiah Stane. Tony Stark is a genius, having attended MIT at the age of fifteen. His company manufactures the cutting edge in military weaponry, and their latest endeavor, the "Jericho," is a multi-warhead missile that could, essentially, eradicate an entire metropolitan area in one easy step.

The "Iron Man" film, directed by the unlikely genius of Jon Favreau (so money he doesn't even know it), begins when Stark visits Afghanastan to demonstrate the ramifications of the Jericho Missile. He is accompanied by good friend, military officer, and Stark Industries Chief Aviation Officer James Rhodes (Terrence Howard), the morally astute babysitter type whom Stark separates from while riding away from the demonstration. When Stark's humvee is compromised, he is wounded badly by shrapnel from an explosion, kidnapped, and taken to an enemy cave. There he meets physicist Dr. Yinsen (Shawn Toub), a fellow prisoner who constructs an electricity-powered chest plate to keep the shrapnel from entering Stark's heart. When Stark is ordered to build a replica of the Jericho missile for his captors, he uses the time to build the Iron Man prototype instead--a bulky, anti-glam version that outfits similar to a rusty 1989 Buick La Sabre. The suit is powered by a miniature arc reactor, employing technology invented by Stark, not yet known to our mankind. Stark engineers the reactor as an improved replacement for the electric plate in his chest (aka glowing chest circle thinger). The reactor also serves as a power source for the Iron Man prototype, and eventually, via crude Iron Man suit, Stark escapes. Yinsen is, however, killed in the crossfire, and his death takes a profound effect on Stark, driving him toward an insatiable hunger for justice. Upon arriving home, Stark announces that his weapons division would no longer operate, and that Stark Industries would use its resources to conduct other kinds of technological advancement--Arc Technology, in particular. The decision angers Obadiah Stane (a foreboding turn by Jeff Bridges), who calls for Stark's injunction from the Board due to post-traumatic stress.

During his time off, Stark engineers the Iron Man we all know (and come to love--a fierce kind of love, if you're me). He employs the assistance of JARVIS the computerized butler (voice of Paul Bettany), several smart, heavily-clawed, mobile robots, and faithful secretary Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow). Most of the movie's funniest moments (and there are many) happen during trial and error sessions of the suit's flying aptitude. The sweet in "Iron Man," yes, the sweet, comes with the chemistry between Paltrow and Downey, Jr.--a delightful, 1940s newspaperman kind of chemistry that grows and develops but never gives us too much. And when Stark learns the awful truth about his kidnapping in Afghanistan, and the underhanded dealings of Stark Industries weaponry, Pepper aids him in his attempt to out the devious Obadiah.

Despite a power-packed trailer, the film itself actually spends most of its time introducing us to Tony Stark. Very little is dedicated to raw, "Transformers" caliber action sequencing until about the last twenty minutes or so. Even still, the CGI is breathtaking, even more effective in such small, intermittent doses. Stark's final Iron Man suit is painstaking in its details, fluttering and breathing like a second muscular physique. Aside from the suit, and the film's final scenes, "Iron Man" relies very little on its CGI. It is primarily made of keen dialogue and smooth, unique storytelling, lead by the impressive performance of Downey, Jr.. Stark has, perhaps, the most dabilitating weakness of all human superheroes: his life hangs in the balance of an arc reactor in his chest. Downey, Jr., originally cast due to his past drug addiction, embodies this and every weakness so fully that he seems born to play the role. He is filled with doubt, guilt, conflict at the empire built by his father. While seemingly jaded by the ways of the industry, Stark is as vulnerable as the beat in his chest, forever threatened by his own past, wanting so badly to make a difference. Pepper recognizes that, perhaps, she alone understandd his weakness. While the two do not share a traditional Peter Parker/M.J. type love story, they do share a moment or two. We're all glad for the restraint in the end. Two more sequels to go--there's pleanty of stolen moments to be had. Plus, "Iron Man" isn't actually like "Spider-man" at all. "Spider-man" is, essentially, a love story. "Iron Man" is about a man finding himself. Pepper Potts is simply there, in the meantime, to give him something to live for.

I very much loved "Iron Man." Robert Downey, Jr. consistently ranks in my top five actors, and I think he was, essentially, the only choice for the role of Tony Stark. Jon Favreau (who is consistently becoming one of my favorite directors) really had zero other choices if he wanted to make "Iron Man" a successful franchise, which I believe he'll do. There's just something about a superhero movie that relies heavily on compassion. We all need this kind of escapist entertainment, and this is the best kind--the kind that can both dazzle and relate to its audience. I suppose then, in the end, what truly sets "Iron Man" apart from "Spider-man 2" is that it doesn't attempt to give all that "with great power yada-yada-yada." It simply shows us the plight and development of a broken man and lets us decide for ourselves the man he'll become. My heart counts down to part two.