Skip navigation.

noisewar internetlainen - games, politics, and sarcasm

war and noise, the momentum and the medium

A Critical Analysis of There Will Be Blood: Intensional Godhood

, , , , , ,


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.

Que Formosa!"HILLARY THREATENED BY BLACK MAN"

Comments

Anonymous 31. January 2008, 14:25

Anonymous writes:

Exhaustive, precise and thoughtful. Enjoyed your analysis.

Anonymous 1. February 2008, 01:53

Anonymous writes:

I didn't read the above. Just want anyone else to know that this movie is trash.
With two good hours and a half hour of, uuhhh, where do we go now?
Laughable, anticlimactic ending. "Let's jump ahead 20 years and then, yeah, violence!"
Wasted a great (as always) performance by Lewis.
-KJ

Anonymous 1. February 2008, 07:56

David writes:

Are you mental? That was the biggest piece of shit I ever saw. I cannot believe that you spent countless hours dissecting that crap.

Anonymous 2. February 2008, 04:26

Andrea writes:

Some people should just go see Rambo. This movie requires some thinking, if you are not willing to do that, go see Alvin and the Chipmunks you dumbfuck.

Anonymous 2. February 2008, 08:30

Anonymous writes:

I have a few different names for this movie:

There will be Mustaches

There will be long Uncomfortable Pauses

There will be Millions of Sub Plots that have little to do with the story

There will be no dialog for the first 20 minutes

other than those titles I really liked this movie, however it had no spine to base the movie around. Essentially there was no reason for the movie. I am going to piss a lot of movie purists out there who think they are so much smartier than the rest of the world...... No Country for Old Men is 80 million billion times better than this movie. There is an example of a main story, but not being fully limited. IT told its story and the characters responses and ended. The was no opening and no closure to anything in this move. It was like we watched the middle of a larger movie with 40 minutes missing from the beginning and the end. There is Cinema, Film and art. This is film, and film is supposed to have a story structure.


also, Go Fuck Yourself Andrea and all of your elitist friends.

Anonymous 2. February 2008, 08:32

Anonymous writes:

(poster from above)

this movie made me feel good about spending the ten dollars to see this movie. Thank you.

Anonymous 2. February 2008, 11:17

irina writes:

people, we see the world with different eyes, and it is ok. stop trying to tell others what to think and feel and like. for some this movie is crap, for others it is a masterpiece. no one is trying to change your view. respect others' perspective and yours shall be respected in return.

there is no "right" interpretation of things.

Anonymous 3. February 2008, 08:42

Anonymous writes:

to poster above,

"there is no "right" interpretation of things."

so there is no basis for you making that claim.

Anonymous 3. February 2008, 09:41

z writes:

in the words of bill walton, if everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks. a true work of art isn't about a message or moral, the best art evokes some sort of emotion and alters your perception of the world around you. like this film or hate it, it's hard to argue that it achieves this goal.

Anonymous 3. February 2008, 10:04

Anonymous writes:

I liked your analysis, he was a very lonely man and the movie did a good job of showing that.

and your right there are a whole bunch of other things to look at.
wish i knew the story of the bible better, lots of allusions to it.

Anonymous 3. February 2008, 23:07

Anonymous writes:

"in the words of bill walton, if everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks"

well that is one of the more logically incorrect things I have heard today. The correct way to phrase it is "It everyone thinks the same then there is no dissimilar thoughts."

I like how some people pull moronic quotes out of nowhere and phrase it as it is some reflection of their own intelligence.

also this review was awesome.

ericarupp 4. February 2008, 23:12

I thought this critical analysis was enlightening and brilliant.

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

noisewar 5. February 2008, 06:59

@Erica Rupp

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 7. February 2008, 19:24

Anonymous2 writes:

1. I thought Eli and Paul were the same person. To me, Paul's (Eli's) initial visit to Daniel to tell him about his oil, represented Eli's greed - both for money and for new members of his congregation. Supporting this is the scene when Daniel and H.W. first visited the ranch "quail hunting". They exchanged a suspicious (albeit ambiguous) look upon their introduction to Eli.

This can obviously be interpreted a number of ways, but I think Eli and Paul being the same person gives the character of Eli a little more depth.

Anonymous 7. February 2008, 21:23

Anonymous writes:

please address the clear lack of male - female dynamic in this film and how it's non- appearance makes this clearly biblical. I bet upton sinclair didn't expect this awesome film. It was a joy to watch people leave midway through, the clear sign that it was truly a piece of genius.

Anonymous 9. February 2008, 11:01

zennn writes:

As the original poster of the article said, Paul and Eli are twins. They weren't supposed to be. Dano was to be Paul, and Eli was to be played by someone else. Basically, a few weeks before the movie started, PTA decided that Dano should just do both parts, and right them off as twins.

There is no metaphor or deeper meaning behind Dano playing two different characters.

With that being said, thank you for writing this. I've been scouring the internet trying to find an interpretation of the film that wasn't "This is the best thing ever because it is, and you have to deal with that."

I need to see it again, for sure, because your insights into the duality of the overall meaning of the film has really got me thinking again. When I left the first time, I was exhausted-- DDL gave one of the best performances I had ever seen, and I was awestruck. Yet I was not convinced of the story. Perhaps I was doomed from the start--I will probably always put this in comparison with No Country for Old Men. I didn't think the story was as solid as NCFOM's, but looking back now, I realized that the story was EVERY BIT as good, but just completely different.

Thanks for typing this out, I really do appreciate it.

Anonymous 10. February 2008, 19:14

hallo writes:

So I went to this movie last night, and as soon as my friends and I got out of the theater, one asked "what was it about?" I slapped him in the face.

I really liked the similarities between Daniel and Eli: greed, outspoken, broken family bond, self-loathing. It's definitely apparent in the ending though, that their views on what God is, has been detrimental to each of their lives' situations and perceptions of what the other stands for.

I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis of the movie, and you've convinced me to shell out more money to see it again. Is there some significance of the bowling alley (besides displaying Daniel's wealth)? I though it was kind of ironic he was sleeping, unable to wake up "in the gutter."

Anonymous 13. February 2008, 20:04

Anonymous writes:

Thank you for the great analysis, but I was also hoping to read more about the recurring themes of blood, oil, and water. Plainview blesses baby HW with oil, oil is the blood of the earth, Plainview is baptized with water when he's calling out for blood - and he baptizes Eli with blood at the end. In relation to your analysis above, Plainview could be more rich in oil than he is in family, or blood-relation. There's so much to talk about! This film was so amazingly challenging, rich, and complex, I have to see it again.

noisewar 15. February 2008, 06:24

@13

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 19. February 2008, 06:08

MattK writes:

I disagree with the idea that Plainview's life of luxury comes to an end after his slaying of Eli. The butler didn't seemed all that shocked. Do you really think that a butler working in close proximity for a nutjob billionaire would run to the police to turn in his boss? In the early 1900s? Such men in a situation like this would really be "above the law."

Also, I viewed the line "I'm finished" and the carefree way it is uttered as a sign Plainview's complete detachment from any positive human emotion . He feels no remorse. He brutally kills a man and them simply calls the butler to clean up the mess as if he just finished eating dinner. Just like he spits in HW's face at the end. His own self absorption has led him to the point that everything in the world is below him and not worth caring about.

Anonymous 19. February 2008, 18:04

Anonymous writes:

"i'll drink your milkshake" has to be the best line ever

noisewar 19. February 2008, 22:46

@MattK

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 22. February 2008, 19:15

jeff writes:

The movie is a metaphor of the business community and the evangelical community and the GOP manipulating each other.

Anonymous 24. February 2008, 09:32

tim writes:

movies, at the least, should be entetaining, and for some that's all they will choose to take from it. analysis is, at the least, a discursive way to give meaning to a film, if that's what you choose to take from it.

i personally agree with a lot of your analysis, but i think you are missing a lot by overlooking all the ties to the themes and ironies of capitalism.

Anonymous 24. February 2008, 20:34

Anonymous writes:

hey, i liked your analysis. for me the film was about greed. there is a strength in greed because it gives rise to a repulsion for weakness. despite how shocking that last scene was. there was something satisfying in seeing weakness crushed.

worrying, no?

to all the haters, grow a mind, stop swearing. people aren't moved by volume, they're moved by eloquence.

noisewar 26. February 2008, 19:13

@time & @24 & many others

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 27. February 2008, 11:52

Anonymous writes:

that's a good point but it isn't clear that the long term gain is smaller (in capitalism terms) than the 'easy short term gain'. There is many a good capitalist that would have made the deal with Union! As a result I don't think it's 'inarguably' to prove his worth - it could be that he just saw it as a way to achieve even greater future wealth. However the film does not make this clear either way from what i can remember. On your point about wanting to share his bueiness with 'someone he can trust and love' I still don't feel that this is incompatible with greed - after all, there are many megalomaniac, historical figures (perhaps like Henry VIII!) who want heirs only to validate themselves! Personally I feel that his relationship with HW was a combination of greed for a heir and true love. Looking forward to hearing your response!

noisewar 27. February 2008, 18:32

Your interpretation is absolutely valid, don't get me wrong when I say that this movie isn't about capitalism that I mean there is no greed in the man. However, it's my opinion that there isn't uncommon greed in him, in other words it isn't a degree of greed that significantly affects his character arc.

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 27. February 2008, 22:20

Great analysis, I generally agree with it, it really does solidify my assumptions.

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.

noisewar 27. February 2008, 23:32

Not sure what dream you're referring to, my memory is hazy, but the reason Plainview doesn't just write notes to him is simply because his power is in his voice. He's helpless without it, since HW is deaf. We aren't even sure how literate either of them are.

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 :D

s8nznme 28. February 2008, 00:26

I'm talking about the break within scenes from where we see HW getting blown off to where Plainview is passed out in the bowling alley. there is a quick flashback to where HW and Plainview are horsing around affectionately. I don't think that PTA would put that in there to reinforce a sad moment, Anyway, there's some key reason to that. I just can't stop thinking about it. i just saw this movie a few days ago. it's hauntingly real, and i'm just wondering whether i'm on the right track here.

Anonymous 28. February 2008, 08:18

Nick writes:

A splendid interpretation of the film and a fascinating read.

I think it's implied that H.W. is illiterate when he picks up the journal. Isn't he trying to read it upside down?

Anonymous 28. February 2008, 17:12

Anonymous writes:

that's right nick. great observation.

Anonymous 1. March 2008, 17:09

Benjamin writes:

I thought H.W. was a twist of the name George H.W. Bush, and you can take that thread and go practically anywhere with it!

The Bushes being oilmen, father-son hatred, but the father-son here is reversed, and you can easily argue the depravity of the Plainview Sr is like that of Bush Jr, and on and on....
I don't think that this is a necessarily a serious thread in the mind of the screenwriter, just allows another interesting layer, an indictment of the age, the one 100 years ago and this one now.

It's more interesting that the YHWY="He is" interpretation.

noisewar 1. March 2008, 22:16

@Benjamin

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 3. March 2008, 13:11

Anonymous writes:

od read about a good movie, thanks.

There are two moments in the movie that stand out from the very realistic approach in the movie:

1. Plainviews first attack on Eli comes totally unexpected and, to me, seemed out of character for the self-controlled Plainview that we had known until then.

2. When H.W. starts the fire.

These moments (especially the first) both annoyed and fascinated me. Annoyed me because they pulled me out my being sucked into the realism of the story and atmosphere, and fascinated me, well because a good twist to a story is always thought provoking... but i'm not quite sure that these are good twists.

Does anyone have good explanations as to why these incidents occur the way that they do - totally out of the blue with no prior building up of the characters that would justify the "appropriateness" of such erratic behavior.

Plainveiw does "crazier" stuff at the end of the movie, but that is much more justafiable and in line with the development of the character and story.

Anonymous 3. March 2008, 13:12

Anonymous writes:

Sorry, I meant "Good read", not "odd read"

Anonymous 3. March 2008, 15:56

Anonymous writes:

Watching this movie was like watching concrete dry on a wet and cloudy afternoon.

The whole "twin thing" seemed last minute and poorly done.

The story could have been told in an hour, just as effectively, but droned on like a self-absorbed illuminate thoroughly enraptured by his own voice and holding the audience hostage while he revelled in his own ability to grasp the deeper meaning of things.

Anonymous 3. March 2008, 18:42

Daniel writes:

Great review and comments.

HW lighting the fire to me was a cry for attention and love from Plainview especially since he was now competing with a "brother".

The way Plainview treated HW from the very beginning of the film was not exactly the model of a nuturing parent. The fact that Plainview let HW watch the drilling from a dangerous place is evidence of the lack of concern on Plainview's part. The mixing of whiskey with milk was more evidence of this.

I think the fact that HW lost his hearing is in part symbolic of his self preservation from Plainview and that he had to find his own way. The fact that HW wanted to go into the oil business himself showed that even to the very end he wanted to be loved by Plainview, but of course Plainview would not accept the "competition".

There is much more to say about this movie.

Anonymous 6. March 2008, 05:48

Anonymous writes:

Bush's greatest fault is his complete inability of introspection... That is Cheney's, and Condi's, and Rumsfeld's... That and the fact that he's a complete f*cking dunce who has way too many people's hands up his ass in the White House.

I, too, thought there was a definite metaphor for the two sides (religious and the staunch, economic, Ayn Rand conservatives, oh and the morons who are in the working class and still vote for these assholes) of the conservative GOP movement in America.

Also, if you ever listen to Warren Buffet, he's one of the most down-to-Earth and honest individuals. He'll openly admit that he thinks people who have plenty should give to those who have none. He's a man that measures himself on achievement, not unlike Plainview, but also seems to have a very grounded sense of community and, dare I say this in America!, working together to make sure everyone who's honest and hard working can have a decent life! With all those lavishes like basic health care and a home to call their own...

Anonymous 9. April 2008, 04:02

Anonymous writes:

Fascinating analysis by all.

I have to agree that The Will Be Blood has little to do with capitalism and is far more elementally based on the themes of inner turmoil and contradiction within all of us.

In my opinion the most powerful component of this film was the way in which the symbolic duality between these intertwined characters was staged.

I saw Daniel and Eli as manifestations of the same personality. Very much in the same way Kurtz is the embodiment of Marlow's hidden dark shadow in Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

Eli IS the evil, self-loathing, brutality, and hatred within him. And I saw the final scene in which Daniel confronts and kills him as the acceptance and then resolution to his inner turmoil. By proclaiming, "It's Over", has he in essence exorcised the demon within?

Anonymous 10. April 2008, 11:27

David, Sweden writes:

Great analysis - I will probably re-read it. I was very happy to read an article focusing on what I think is one of the main themes of the movie: lonlieness. I would never say that people finding "capitalism commentary" in it are wrong, 'cos it's certainly there, but I just don't find it equally interesting as the aspects of lonlieness, and to some extent, religion. To me, Daniel almost is the personification of lonlieness taken to extremes - his violent and misanthropic behaviour is, to me, the natual outcome of someone who is both physically and mentally lonely. How wonderfully the cinematography illustrates this, and what a great movie TWBB is. Thanks.

Anonymous 14. April 2008, 00:49

Barb writes:

#1 A comment from s8nznme referred to the dream/flashback scene after Plainview tells HW he’s not like him...s8nznme says it's "a moment in their lives when they were obviously showing affection for one another." However, if you look closer at the flashback, you'll see HW being playfully loved by Plainview, and then suddenly physically pushed away while HW has a questioning/upset look on his face. I thought this was a flashback by HW as he re-lived the times his dad did a love/hate thing on him, and that he was finally understanding it now that he knows he's not Daniel's son.

#2 Re. Plainview's last words: "I'm finished." That brought to mind Christ's last words on the cross: "It is finished." (John 19:28-30).

#3 What did it mean when Plainview asked before visiting Bandy house how many people lived there, and I think he also asked how big it was, and then when visiting looked in the window with a kind of "uh-huh" look? Sorry, but such details keep bugging me when I can't understand them.

#4 Also is it possible that HW saw something in the diary that revealed that Plainview had no children and that's why he started fire?

noisewar 14. April 2008, 01:14

Thank you Barb, your comment #2 just confirms for me Plainview's arrogance.

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 20. April 2008, 19:57

Anonymous writes:

absolutely wonderful analysis

Anonymous 6. May 2008, 01:59

Sluggo writes:

Thanks for such a delightful analysis. It articulates and clarifies a lot of things that I only had vague feelings about as I was watching the movie.

re: the dream / flashback scene -- It seemed pretty clear to me that in the two scenes, the moment that Plainview relaizes that HW is acting in an other-than-submissive manner towards him (taunting him with the hat), he lashes out -- at the end of the first scene and in the second scene, Plainview manhandles HW rather roughly, and he then stomps off to his derrick, leaving an upset HW to look on afterwards.

Anonymous 8. May 2008, 07:12

Anonymous writes:

Good read, but I respectfully disagree about the ending, and about the "I'm Finished" portion.

I took it as he has finally distanced himself from everyone, like he said he would. He had gotten rid, for lack of a better word, of his 'son,' and had finally broken the last tie with, for the most part, the last person - Eli.

Anonymous 11. May 2008, 11:54

LARS writes:

I was also immensely intrigued by this film, and I really enjoyed your anlaysis and the many points and interpretations made by other writers on this thread.

I am a bit surprised however no-one mentioning the religious overtones and strong parallell this story has to the old testament story of Lucifer, and his downfall.

I am not saying that this allegorical interpretation is the one and only explanation, but I see it as an important aspect, connotation, also contributing hugely to the powerful effect this film has.

Like Lucifer Daniel Planview want's to be great, God's equal. He want's to have it all. While Lucifer was an angel wanting to be god, Plainveiw is a man wanting to be god. They both however end up being punished by god, becoming litteraly devils, because of not submitting, kneeling to god, letting go of their riot, rage, and pride.

They are hence punished for their hybris, arrogance, greed, selfishness and different sins of all kinds. At the end of the film Plainview realises what a devil he is, thats why its finished, no salvation, he is without love - absobed with hate and the hell that he is in. Because he ends it all when he takes the bitter and bloody revenge on gods own messenger. There will be blood also refers to his one doom and following punishment in hell.

Remember the essential and deciding pivotal point midway through the film where Eli asks Plainview to arrange it so that he Eli can bless the oil-well. Up to this point God has made luck and fortune go Plainviews way.

Plainview however now chooses (for a mysterious reason - though it is in his nature) to defy this wish, instead he makes the sister girl Mary (the one and only important female in this film, maybe so the symbol of sin, Eva and the apple) do this and therefore he offends god (through his messenger Eli). The punishment also follows naturally straight there after, first the death of some of his workers, and then the deafening of his son. But then again instead of accepting the might of god, and for example falling to his knees, submitting, begging for foregiveness, supporting the church, taking care of his son, Plainview continues a riot against god, he is even hitting, taunting and humiliating his messenger, and thereby losing himself even more.

In this film Eli is moreover the instrument of god to test Plainview. A test Plainview fails, because he simply doesnt choose the right things to do, he doesnt elevate himself from the lower motivational centres within him to see the bigger picture. He says he doesnt like to explain himself, he doesnt find connection among others, he's too ambitious, too competetive, to selfcentered.

The Eli - Paul duality and the alcholism of Eli towards the end, may show that he is also only a human, and tested by god, but mailny it underlines the point of being there to test Plainview.

As I saw the film I was a bit annoyed at one point because the film seems to enhance and strengthen christian myths and the old testament god-concept, and what I see as "misconseptions" concerning male-female.

Because I am not for a dogmatic, fundamentalist religious worldview, and when artistic expressions tend to solidify such religious beliefs I have a resistance towards it.

However more than because of religious overtones the the film is intriguing and great because of what it says about human character, and the psycology of evil and bad behavior. Much is to be learned from it.

Lars

noisewar 13. May 2008, 07:27

Interesting take Lars. While there are certainly many parallels, I have to point out two things that make this very different from Lucifer's story:

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 18. May 2008, 03:07

pockets writes:

this might actually be one of the best movies ive ever seen and am really happy with your review. i too was looking around to read other people's thoughts on this flick and i came across yours. i agree with a lot of what you've said...there are so many dynamics to this film its amazing. i watched it twice and i caught so many things i missed on the first viewing. i recommend a second viewing to everyone who watched there will be blood.

in the first half of the film, i loved the dynamic between Eli being the crooked preacher and Daniel being the somewhat crooked oilman. but as the movie progresses and as Danial encounters more and more people, you realize theres more to the story than just his relationship with eli. when i watched it a second time, i realized in the beginning, at the dinner table for the first time Eli comes off as just a sweet kid who wants money donated to his church. But the scene where he gives that exorcism to the old woman leaves both Danial and the viewer with the exact same thought: "what the hell?!" i found that amusing.

and i have to disagree with people writing Danial off as some evil guy. i dont think hes evil at all, and he only punishes those who have done something wrong to begin with. altho he goes farther in his punishments than anyone else would, theres still a reason for it (killing the imposter brother, screaming at the oilman who told him to take care of his son, Eli at the end of the movie). his flaws come with his competitive nature, to the point where he would "abandon" his child (lol sorry for the cliche).

How to use Quote function:

  1. Select some text
  2. Click on the Quote link

Write a comment

Comment
(BBcode and HTML is turned off for anonymous user comments.)

Type the two words displayed in the image below:


Smilies