A Critical Analysis of There Will Be Blood: Intensional Godhood
Monday, January 28, 2008 10:37:18 PM
After reading many reviews of P.T. Anderson's seminal new film There Will Be Blood, I am disappointed to see how much misinterpretation there is. Where the themes of greed, godlessness, capitalism, hatred, and revenge are certainly present, they are peripheral, and recent oil politics have led critics to miss a central theme that ties all those issues together: the loneliness of godhood. I will explain the four different meanings of the film's title to show that that loneliness is what drove anti-hero Daniel Plainview to his tragic end.
*SPOILERS*
A Hopeless Perspective
Daniel Plainview is a complex character, and for reasons not entirely clear, we know that he is exceedingly mistrusting. But we should begin with his name. The surname "Plainview" describes this lack of trust. He can't or won't try to see deeper into people. He says "I don't need to look past seeing them to get all I need," and considers people commodities, not comrades. Pride in his own ability leads him to hate other people's incompetence, which he can't stop himself in finding in abundance in all men. When he looks at people he sees "nothing worth liking". The only exception was a child, whom he adopted as his son, but more on that later. He confesses to Henry: "I can't keep doing this on my own with these... people." He is telling us that doing things with "people" he can't trust is a terribly lonely feeling.
His first name "Daniel" means "judgment by God" and "God is my judge." There is a double meaning here. Plainview is judged by God by the end of the film, punished for his hubris, but he also subconsciously fancies himself to be a judging God. He screams at Eli, proclaiming "I am the Church of the Third Revelation." He tells Henry that he wants to "to rule and never, ever explain myself." This God complex is important to the irony of the ending, and we'll get to that.
As a surrogate god, Plainview believes deeply in the power of his words, that things will be the way he says it, because he says it. He introduces himself to the audience with talk of his promises, telling them what he will do for them, matter-of-factly as if saying makes it so. "...If I say I'm an oil man you will agree." A normal person would have said "...If I tell you I'm an oil man, you'd probably agree" or even "you'd have to agree." Plainview leaves them no choice; it is already so.
When he meets Tilford of Standard Oil, Plainview flies into a fit, yelling over and over "You don't tell me how to raise my family." His threat to Tilford is revealing, as he says "...I'm gonna cut your throat." He will silence him. When he successfully wins the Union Oil contract, he proudly proclaims "I told you I was gonna do." To override Plainview's voice is to override his power, which he cannot accept. It is no accident that he speaks almost entirely in the indicative (and sometimes seemingly declarative) mood throughout the film.
At the conclusion of the movie, the very last words uttered are "I'm finished." It is a sad ending, with a joyless Plainview still vainly thinking he has the power of speech, declaring the film over by saying so, yet at the same time giving us the double (colloquial) meaning that he is "finished." His life is ruined, and he's literally destroyed his future by committing a murder before a witness. He completed his stated goal of making sure that "there will be blood" and it has left him "finished." The title and last words (which are brought back together with the reappearance of the title as the ending music kicks in) are incredibly pregnant with meaning and fate.
Saying Is Believing
Here we find out the meanings of the title There Will Be Blood. First, the literal meaning is that there will be violence in this story. Plainview can and will kill to achieve his ends. The second meaning is a statement from Plainview, telling us that there will be blood, making it so by saying it. He already has the intention to spill blood to achieve his ends. Thirdly, and most importantly, the title is a statement from Plainview where he is trying to create kinsblood, or family, for himself. "Will" means that he is trying to will it into being, making it so by claiming the boy he found to be his son. It is a sad, desperate call for family when we know one cannot just make family by demanding it verbally. This vanity is what this film is about.
His son H.W. most likely represents the Jesus analogy to his God complex. "[HENRY] Where is his mother? [PLAINVIEW] I don't want to talk about those things." Plainview wants the child to be like him, so much so that H.W. could be interpreted as derived from YHWH, the holy Hebrew name of God meaning "He is." I won't get into the specific religious etmyology of the name, but suffice to say, Plainview wants to be reborn in his son. Predictably, the worst happens to his son: the boy becomes deaf. Plainview has lost all his power over his son, and cannot raise him in his own image. Instead of his voice, he must speak to his son now through actions. As he turns his son away from him at the very end, he tells H.W. that his blood does not run in him. His fairy-tale of being a "family-man" falls apart.
The desperation with which Plainview seeks "blood" to ameliorate his loneliness is as pitiable as it is foolhardy. When Henry appears, claiming to be his long-lost brother, Plainview refuses to accept him until the man says he has no ambition, which finally lets Plainview have someone close but whom he will not compete with, unlike his son at the end. He calls Henry his "second breath," and uncoincidentally gets rid of H.W. at the same time he gains Henry as a brother. Although they become fast friends, Plainview kills Henry when he turns out to be an imposter. Plainview can't accept family that isn't blood, or isn't created by his own accord as H.W. was. "Well, if it's in me, it's in you." But it wasn't in Henry.
That shortsightedness costs him all forms of family. Interestingly, one of the last things Eli says to him before being murdered is that they are brothers-in-law now, just as the last thing Plainview asked of Henry was "do I have a brother?" But in the relationship with Eli, his fatal flaw is revealed. One cannot have family without trust. To Plainview, Eli is a false prophet, and he makes him confess so much. Eli also has a gift with speech over men, and Plainview cannot accept that.
The greatest insult he bore was Eli making him declare he had abandoned his son during the baptism, which Plainview never forgave. "I drink your water, Eli... Everyday. I drink the blood of lamb from Bandy's tract." He had violated Plainview's voice, and therefore his power. Plainview would do the same to Eli for revenge. In essence, Eli is like him, albeit without his skill and ruthlessness. Eli raves at his father, "Do you think God is going to come down here and save you for being stupid? He doesn't save stupid people, Abel." Fundamentally, two distrusting men of competitive hearts can not be brothers. Perhaps he killed Eli because of, not in spite of, Eli calling him his brother.
Reaping The Conclusion
This brings us to the tragic irony of the film, and the fourth meaning behind the title. Plainview fails to resolve his loneliness with his distrust, sabotaging himself with the desire for others like him. All the people who could have been family to him, albeit not family in blood, he ruined. There Will Be Blood is telling us that there will be sacrifices (blood of lamb). "Give me the blood, Lord!" cried Plainview, but in demanding so, he loses "adopted" blood, people who could have been as good as family to him, along with his dream since childhood of building a house filled with children. His arrogance in speaking in the indicative mood to not just get his way but almost "procreate" his wishes upon others does not change the fact that he's mortal and human.
God has judged him proud, and punishes him with loneliness. Further irony is found in the fact that the person he judged most correctly was Eli, an image of his own hubris. And yet he's compelled to keep sacrificing these salvations because of his competition, his hate. This is God in a mortal. In the Bible, God gave us Jesus, but in this film, Plainview can not make the sacrifice. H.W. must be in his image, or there will be no H.W. He doesn't love, he wants, and thus fails to achieve godhood. Where Eli is false in God's name, so too is Plainview in God's image.
One thing I must address is the misconception that this film is about capitalism. Sure, capitalism exists in the movie, but it's not Plainview's driving motivation. Capitalism's emotional equivalent is human greed, as the word itself means the accumulation of "capital," defined as sanctioned wealth or property. Plainview is not primarily a greedy man. Greedy people choose personal gain over personal values and loved ones. Plainview, however, goes out of his way to choose a more strenuous (and dangerous) long-term gain (with Union) over an easy short-term gain (with Standard Oil), inarguably to prove his worth. He also desperately wants to bring someone he can trust and love into his business, to dominate, but also to share with. These are not consistent actions with simple avarice.
Watching the film again, I trust you will find how striking the glorious cinematography captures Plainview's loneliness, from the opening well scene, to the hauntingly destitute derricks, to the shots of empty landscapes and solitary trees. While I'll admit this wasn't a perfect film, and not quite a PT Anderson film even, it is one of the finest character studies in recent memory, pulling strings from Altman and riffing on Kubrick even down to the Kubrickean bowling alley set. There are still many more things to discover in this film, which is really the Citizen Kane of our time not just 'cuz it's fun to make that comparison, but because they are moral tales about falling from trying to achieve some form of godhood. Even while it is unwatchable for some, it is satisfyingly interesting, because there is a bit of Plainview in all of us.









1 2 3 4 Next »
Anonymous # Thursday, January 31, 2008 2:25:10 PM
Anonymous # Friday, February 1, 2008 1:53:42 AM
Anonymous # Friday, February 1, 2008 7:56:11 AM
Anonymous # Saturday, February 2, 2008 4:26:45 AM
Anonymous # Saturday, February 2, 2008 8:30:13 AM
Anonymous # Saturday, February 2, 2008 8:32:19 AM
Anonymous # Saturday, February 2, 2008 11:17:49 AM
Anonymous # Sunday, February 3, 2008 8:42:39 AM
Anonymous # Sunday, February 3, 2008 9:41:27 AM
Anonymous # Sunday, February 3, 2008 10:04:35 AM
Anonymous # Sunday, February 3, 2008 11:07:55 PM
Erica Lyn Ruppericarupp # Monday, February 4, 2008 11:12:28 PM
I felt the same things walking out of the theatre and later on in the night but I'm sure I couldn't have articulated it as well!! I was even thinking to myself, "I wish I knew more about the bible and bible names! I know "Paul" "Daniel" and others meant something important."
I would love to pick your brain more about this movie!!
There seems to be discussion of if Eli and Paul were one person or two. At first I thought it was just one person and "Paul" was just very smart. Then "Eli" brought up Paul front of the family so I thought...ok, they really are twins? Does anyone have any ideas on that?
Also, what do you think the significances were when H.W. lit the fire to Henry's bed? Was this just a warning his "father" because he had looked through his diary and realized he was a phony? Or was there something else I missed?
And finally, the last line in the movie. "I'm finished." Is this saying that his quest for blood is over? He is announcing there will be no more blood (of course, violence related, because he killed Eli) but also that there will be no more family to find? No more people around him? He's killed his impostor brother, he's run off his foster child and now his longest, and dearest friend?
Anyway, I just loved this movie. The more I think about it the more I love it even more. This review has made my mind explode!!
So thank you!
Erica Rupp
Lorenzo Wangnoisewar # Tuesday, February 5, 2008 6:59:31 AM
Thanks for the comments!
1. Regarding Eli vs. Paul, I think you can see what you want in it (Cain vs. Abel?) but in reality it's probably nothing more a story-telling flaw. PTA has said that it was simply a case of getting Dano to play both when they originally had another actor slated. In other words, mostly trivial.
2. I haven't thought about the fire much, and I would need to watch the movie again for evidence, but I suspect the fire is metaphorically related to the fire that ignited at the oil well. H.W. tried to set Henry's bed on fire probably to warn his father he was a phony, not being able to communicate well anymore. The fire at the oilwell happened when H.W. lost his hearing. I leave you to interpret.
3. Thank you for pointing out an important part of my essay that I forgot to include! That final comment "I'm finished" is one of the most important supports for my argument above, and I've added it back in. In short, this goes back to Plainview's belief in the power of speech, thinking he can "end" the story with those words.
Anonymous # Thursday, February 7, 2008 7:24:43 PM
Anonymous # Thursday, February 7, 2008 9:23:58 PM
Anonymous # Saturday, February 9, 2008 11:01:07 AM
Anonymous # Sunday, February 10, 2008 7:14:24 PM
Anonymous # Wednesday, February 13, 2008 8:04:17 PM
Lorenzo Wangnoisewar # Friday, February 15, 2008 6:24:13 AM
The reason I didn't want to get into the recurring themes of around oil specifically was because I didn't want to draw any more attention to it. There has been a lot of over-interpretation of the importance of oil in the film. I see it as more of a barometer of Plainview's character arc. The richer he becomes, the less you see of it, and the more of his character comes to light.
Therefore I don't think the oil itself plays a crucial role. PTA probably thought the same, considering the name of the movie against the name of the original book Oil!. In fact, he has mentioned that he hadn't even intended to adapt the book entirely when he started, but wanted to just go off the first few chapters.
But you are right, there is clearly a tie between blood, oil, and water. I just loathe the ignorance of catchphrases like "blood for oil," so I chose to downplay it and talk about the wealth of non-oil subjects the movie has to offer.
Anonymous # Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:08:40 AM
Anonymous # Tuesday, February 19, 2008 6:04:07 PM
Lorenzo Wangnoisewar # Tuesday, February 19, 2008 10:46:06 PM
While I disagree with your take, I definitely like it. However, I didn't mean to imply that he felt remorse at the end. The "I'm screwed" meaning of the statement is ironic, not an admission, and the "I'm finished doing what I intended" meaning is proof of monumental hubris. It isn't done 'til he says so, so to speak. So we are actually in agreement on his self-absorption.
Anonymous # Friday, February 22, 2008 7:15:50 PM
Anonymous # Sunday, February 24, 2008 9:32:09 AM
Anonymous # Sunday, February 24, 2008 8:34:47 PM
Lorenzo Wangnoisewar # Tuesday, February 26, 2008 7:13:37 PM
I've extended my essay with a better explanation for why greed and capitalism are not too important:
One thing I must address is the misconception that this film is about capitalism. Sure, capitalism exists in the movie, but it's not Plainview's driving motivation. Capitalism's emotional equivalent is human greed, as the word itself means the accumulation of "capital," defined as sanctioned wealth or property. Plainview is not primarily a greedy man. Greedy people choose personal gain over personal values and loved ones. Plainview, however, goes out of his way to choose a more strenuous (and dangerous) long-term gain (with Union) over an easy short-term gain (with Standard Oil), inarguably to prove his worth. He also desperately wants to bring someone he can trust and love into his business, to dominate, but also to share with. These are not consistent actions with simple avarice.
Anonymous # Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:52:39 AM
Lorenzo Wangnoisewar # Wednesday, February 27, 2008 6:32:25 PM
The best thing to do is to look for evidence in the film itself:
1. Compare how much Plainview speaks of wealth versus how much he speaks of accomplishments (done or to be done).
2. Ask why Plainview rejected Standard Oil and at what point in the conversation he flew into a rage (it wasn't during the haggling).
3. Note how Plainview gloats not about the amount of his Union deal later to Tilford, but to the fact that he did what he said he'd do, and how he made a fool of Tilford. He never even mentions if was more or less money.
4. In general, find his most extreme moments and see if desire for wealth was ever a galvanizing factor.
You are right in that his love for his boy does not exclude his love of money, and he does want to validate himself, but that validation is exactly my point! Those megalomaniac historical figures needed a much greater motivation than wealth, and many (like your example) were born inherent to it. I'd even say wealth is only a validation to him. Even at his wealthiest point, the film never shows him indulging in the pleasures he possesses besides shooting them, but hunched over his desk mulling ever more achievements. People like him are like Howard Hughes or Warren Buffet, where wealth is just a symptom of their character.
He doesn't hate people because of his greed, he hates people because of his pride. Conversely, he loves his boy precisely because he applied so much of his effort into him. Recall the last scene where there become estranged, it certainly wasn't over money, regardless of amount.
s8nznme # Wednesday, February 27, 2008 10:20:51 PM
Plainview loves HW. When Plainview tells HW he’s not like him and tells him to blow off, but why did PTA edit in a moment in their lives when they were obviously showing affection for one another? That was apparently a dream that Plainview was having while he was in that drunken stupor in the bowling alley. What was the point to that? I think Plainview definitely felt some heartache in that dream, i don’t know, what do you gather that was all about.
Another thing, why couldn’t they communicate with a note pad or something? i saw a bunch of ledgers and Plainview always had 2 pens in his shirt pocket.
Lorenzo Wangnoisewar # Wednesday, February 27, 2008 11:32:50 PM
But it's not the practicality of it that matters (sure he could write a note), so much as how he stubbornly insists on doing things his way, and that's a recurring theme. The interpreter at the end is very symbolic of the break in communication between them, which ends his "education" of his child, which results in H.W. going down a different path. This is Plainview's punishment, his Babel.
It is no coincidence that H.W. loses his hearing at the same time Plainview strikes oil.
Thanks for these comments, I'm going to have to work yet more stuff in to the essay! Very helpful
s8nznme # Thursday, February 28, 2008 12:26:02 AM
Anonymous # Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:18:49 AM
Anonymous # Thursday, February 28, 2008 5:12:00 PM
Anonymous # Saturday, March 1, 2008 5:09:00 PM
Lorenzo Wangnoisewar # Saturday, March 1, 2008 10:16:29 PM
I really don't think that is the case, and even the YHWY interpretation I made is admittedly a stretch. If anything, Bush is a Christian soldier to a fault, hopeless addicted to those ideals and enforcing them against the muslim "fascists." I see no connection there to TWBB, and the "depravity" you see is highly subjective, but even then completely unrelated to Plainview's fatal flaws. Bush does not hate his father, is highly religious, and doesn't like getting his hands dirty. Plainview is more likely a democrat than a zealot.
On another note, the Bushes are not really the oilmen that the media has built them up to be. Fact is, they made modest amounts of money doing it, and GW made virtually nothing, needing several bail-out investors (not the public, but private funds from friends). He made his fortune investing in the Texas Rangers... netting him only about $15 million by the turn of the century. At best, he's doubled it by now.
Only $30 million? Isn't that corrupt and rich? I suggest you take a peep at the public tax documents of the various democrats in the public eye. They're hardly poor either... esp. John Kerry, who probably spends Bush's net worth on his home entertainment center.
Anonymous # Monday, March 3, 2008 1:11:22 PM
Anonymous # Monday, March 3, 2008 1:12:27 PM
Anonymous # Monday, March 3, 2008 3:56:33 PM
Anonymous # Monday, March 3, 2008 6:42:43 PM
Anonymous # Thursday, March 6, 2008 5:48:28 AM
Anonymous # Wednesday, April 9, 2008 4:02:50 AM
Anonymous # Thursday, April 10, 2008 11:27:27 AM
Anonymous # Monday, April 14, 2008 12:49:05 AM
Lorenzo Wangnoisewar # Monday, April 14, 2008 1:14:43 AM
I really want to answer your other questions but I've only watched the movie once and don't feel my memory is qualified. What you should ask about #3 is what HW was trying to communicate with the fire (particularly what he was trying to tell Plainview).
Anonymous # Sunday, April 20, 2008 7:57:11 PM
Anonymous # Tuesday, May 6, 2008 1:59:53 AM
Anonymous # Thursday, May 8, 2008 7:12:38 AM
Anonymous # Sunday, May 11, 2008 11:54:10 AM
Lorenzo Wangnoisewar # Tuesday, May 13, 2008 7:27:48 AM
1. The story of Lucifer, the light bringer, the morning star, as his name implies, was about a fall from grace, primarily because of envy and pride. Plainview, while proud, isn't nearly as envious of a greater being. In his mind, he is the greatest being. There is no conflict between him and God.
2. If you expect Eli to represent God, then like Lucifer's story, he should be a better man, and ultimately the one who punishes Plainview. This is not the case. Eli is flawed, false prophet, and Plainview's punishment comes from his own doing (or arguably the machinations of the real God).
If Eli is, as you say, an "instrument of God" sent to test Plainview, then that is clearly the story of Adam and Eve, where their failure of God's test led them to Original Sin.
Now, you may be asking why the distinction? Aren't they both stories about a fall from grace? Well, there is a huge difference between Lucifer and Adam. Lucifer was cast out by God (unfavored) for trying to be better. Adam was punished with original sin for disobeying God's will.
In the movie, there was no direct God "nemesis" for Plainview to contest with, nor any to cast him from heaven (Plainview is never in heaven, he is on the dirty, harsh Earth the whole time, literally). There is no evidence that Plainview thinks himself better than God, only better than his fellow man. In other words, he believes he *is* God. I don't see much evidence for Plainview realizing he is the Devil, as he stays arrogant and unrepentant to the very end.
Anonymous # Sunday, May 18, 2008 3:07:12 AM