Oscars in Review-2007 No Country for Old Men vs. There Will be Blood

Oscars in Review-2007 No Country for Old Men vs. There Will be Blood

In this post I will review the Oscar's pick of best picture in 2007. I will be focusing on two films from this year, the Oscar best picture winner, and There Will be Blood, in 2007 No Country for Old Men won Best picture over There Will be Blood. The basic plot and themes will be listed with their respected film.

No Country for Old Men

In No Country for Old Men, a hunter stumbles upon a drug deal gone bad. He also finds two million dollars in cash and decides to get rich off it. Upon becoming a millionaire, he is pursued by a ruthless and compassion less killer, Anton Chigurh. It is a thrilling chase that makes a ballsy move with the last third of the movie. Personally I love the last third of the movie, but there are many who do not enjoy it. It is a amazing and chilling film that takes the viewers on a wild and disturbing ride.

Themes of the film:

• Violence and the nature of violence
• Fate
• Evil

Javier Bardem did an amazing job in No Country for Old Men as a killer with no sense of compassion.

There Will be Blood

There Will be Blood is a dark character study of a man that is consumed with greed. It involves the southern California oil boom around the turn of the century. The main character Daniel Plainview is an oil man as he clearly states and finds lots of success with the black gold. This oil man, clashes with a young preacher from a nearby church. They have many disagreements and moments where they try to 1-up the other. Daniel Day -Lewis delivers possibly the best performance in the last 15 years as Daniel Plainview in this American epic.

Themes of the film:

• Greed
• Family
• Religion

Daniel Day-Lewis's Oscar winning performance is nothing short of legendary as Daniel Plainview.

Oscars for 2007 said that No Country for Old Men was the years best film after the academy voted. Why did they choose this though? Some believe that a big part of it was the different and unique ending, switching to Sheriff Bell as the main character as the last third of the movie and gave up on a traditional Hollywood ending. Very true to the source material from what I have heard which in some people's opinions is a good thing, others are worried about the film being good. I think that being loyal to the book is a good thing but being a solid stand alone film may be more important. The great thing about this movie is that it does both. Many think being able to pull off this different style ending captured the academy's attention and this is probably true.

Now, is that what made No Country for Old Men win over the epic oil drama? I think not, there may have been a few reasons No Country for Old Men won instead, but one reason in particular, which I think had a greater effect than the ending. The long 2 and a half hour run time is not filled with exciting at the edge of your seat moments accompanied by great acting. It has the great acting, just not the constant heart-pounding moments. Instead There Will be Blood relies on quiet (sometimes loud) storms of intense dialogue. When looking at the history of the Oscar's best pictures a trend seems to emerge. I see the trend begin in 1991. With Silence of the Lambs begins what I see as the time in which Oscars selected more thrilling films. Before 1991 many more intense and not as action heavy films were selected for Best Picture. Now of course this is not constant through all the years, but a general trend. Since 1991 more thrilling films have won, films such as Silence of the Lambs, Braveheart, Gladiator, Lord of the Rings, The Hurt Locker, and Argo to name a few, previous to that there was a lot more dramatic films that won. What I am trying to say is, over time the academy has changed a little bit in terms of what types of films they like. If There Will be Blood was made back in the 70s or 80s I do believe it would have won most years over No Country for Old Men if it had still been made the same year. Although, not in years like 72, 74, 78, or 86, but a number of others.

Since the academy, in my opinion, has started to lean towards a more thrilling side of movies instead of very dramatic films, is the primary reason why No Country for Old Men won over There Will be Blood. Although No Country for Old Men is a great movie, There Will be Blood is better. It deserved both the best picture and a award for music, along with Daniel Day-Lewis's award (which he got). No Country for Old Men still deserved the wins for Supporting Actor, Directing, and Writing, but not for Best Picture. The academy really should have kept with the more dramatic and dialogue based films over the years. Instead they have turned towards what keeps them on the edge of their seats. Now the recent films to have won are not bad in any way, they are almost all very good, but the academy choosing these over more deserving and intense films that deal with more important topics and themes should not happen. But, seeing as this is a possible trend in the decision making for Best Picture, this is a explanation for why No country for Old Men won over There Will be Blood. Now once again, No Country for Old Men is in no way a bad film, quite the opposite, it is a great film. This is just why, in my opinion, No Country for Old Men won over There Will be Blood.

One of my favorite magazine covers, they even predict their academy wins.

Also the reason why the other best picture nominees were not talked about was because in my mind they really had no chance versus these two. They are good films, but not on the level these two were. In fact, these films are 2 of the best films to come out in the 2000-2010 time period. The other nominees for 2007 would not make that list. Hope you enjoyed, if you have a different opinion or have a different reason tell me why.