There Will Be Blood (2007)
There Will Be Blood IMDB Link
Directed By: Paul Thomas Anderson
Written By: Paul Thomas Anderson
Starring: Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier
In one of the first shots of the film you see a very clear homage to Stanley Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey. Daniel Plainview, bearded, tired and disheveled squats in the frame in the exact composition of an ape in the beginning of A Space Odyssey. This is more than just homage as it helps to set up the idea of the film; Kubrick’s film is about the evolution of man and Anderson’s film is about the evolution of the business in our young country and the type of men who built this country.
The film portrays a man who represents the men who have an overwhelming drive to succeed, a religion of rationality, a belief in themselves, a trust in their brain, the ability to do and a competition in them that is never satisfied. To this day we have Daniel Plainview’s in business behemoths like Steve Jobs. P.T. Anderson sets up this character beautifully in the first 15 minutes of the film where hardly a word is uttered. We see a man put his body through tortures and then drag it for miles just to get a couple of bucks. We see him use this cash to build a business and we ultimately see him build an empire. And along the way with his selfish motivations to succeed he in turn helps out the community a great deal bringing irrigation, crops and education. Maybe it’s because I just read Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” but so much of this film seemed to echo similar ideas and helped me to understand the character of Daniel Plainview more.
His battle with the religious character Eli Sunday (Paul Dano) is a battle that many of these men must deal with every day. While they have the balls and ambition to put forth their entire life’s savings on the decisions of their brain and knowledge they must also see others let go of rationality and put their hopes on chance. This distinct difference in philosophy is what causes them to clash so. Does this make him a better man? Well that’s something to be discussed and the portrayal of Plainview isn’t exactly very high on the morality scale. Interestingly, on the pinnacles of his professional career come the lowest points in his personal life.
When people talk about the relationship with his son and how it is negative I give them a curious look. While Plainview isn’t the best father, you can clearly see he loves his son with all his heart and did whatever he thought was best for the boy. There are multiple moments in the film that are done simply to relay the idea that he loves this son and he is very important to him. To a man like Plainview, actions speak louder than words. And while it might seem like I’m just glossing over Daniel Day-Lewis’s superb performance as Plainview, I believe that my awe in it is shown in how I don’t see him playing a part but is in fact Daniel Plainview.
I am a big fan and follower of P.T. Anderson. You can see his respect and joy for previous filmmaker’s in his films. Boogie Nights could be considered a complete homage to Scorsese and I believe There Will Be Blood is his take on a Kubrick film. The final scene alone is very Kubrick and probably one of the greatest end scenes every captured. Not only does the film tackle interesting characters and ideas that we rarely see in cinema, he captures it with such finesse and ease that he almost makes it look easy to tell a story in such a masterful way.
It’s also his amazing use of sound in his film that sets him apart as a film maker and it is important to note that the soundtrack done by Jonny Greenwood(Radiohead’s lead guitarist) is not only unique and distinct but also complements the imagery very well. There Will Be Blood is not only an exceptional film but one that will most likely enter the short list of films I find myself constantly returning to. Even upon my fourth viewing did I notice even more. Not only that but it will most definitely be a film that will be remembered for a long time.
Filed under: Drama, Recent | 5 Comments
Tags: movie review, objectavism, P.T. Anderson, plainview
Links
“When people talk about the relationship with his son and how it is negative I give them a curious look. While Plainview isn’t the best father, you can clearly see he loves his son with all his heart and did whatever he thought was best for the boy.”
You’re nuts. You can’t see why people view his relationship with his son as negative? As Ebert puts it well in his review of the film, Plainview never does anything but use his son as a prop, to make himself seem more appealing to the people he’s looking to swindle.
When his son is disabled by Plainview’s own shoddy operation, he totally deserts the little boy because he’s embarrassed by having a crippled boy in his family. Plainview hates weakness in other men, and when his own son becomes ‘weak’ he despises him, too, like flipping a light switch.
I’m going to beg to differ although I can see many people viewing their relationship in the manner you described. On multiple viewings you discover the little nuances in the film littered without to show his love for his son. Before he looses his hearing there are many scenes that show Plainview treating H.W. more than just a prop and really embracing him as if he was his own son.
From the silent but meaningful exchange on the train to their “hunting” expedition where you see his fatherly philosophy in giving the child the tools to succeed in life rather than spoiling him.
After he becomes deaf you see Plainview holding him close the whole night whispering to him softly. There are also several scenes of Plainview nursing his son, kissing him on the forehead. It isn’t until his “brother” comes that H.W. is in full depression and sets fire to their house. Yes, Plainview clearly struggles at being a father but he did what was the only logically right thing to do at that time and send him to a school where he can get the proper education. You can see Plainview walk to the car knowing what he’s done was hard but the only logical option.
Later when H.W. comes back Plainview is the happiest he is in the film. He was clearly waiting for this moment and even when H.W. tries to beat him in anger he looks on him lovingly. He has no problems with public perception because he takes him to a nice restaurant. We don’t see much of the raising because it cuts to the future where we see his philosophy has worked, almost too well. H.W. is fully fluent in sign language, is clearly intelligent and even found a woman to love for the rest of his life. Instead of his son using his father’s empire to his advantage he has too much of his father’s attitude on earning for yourself, making a claim in this world, being one of the men who create and doesn’t wait on others to do for them in him. Yes, Plainview shit’s on him with extremely harsh words but I think it’s because he knows that H.W. will always love him and it will in turn help him even more as he goes on his solo endeavor. For Plainview it’s all about the rational love rather than fake moral ones. And while I can definitely see many people disagreeing with his methods as they aren’t very emotionally appealing, his methods are still the way he shows affection and I really can’t see him not loving him.
You make good points. But Plainview was clearly embarrassed by having a handicapped kid– the very scene you bring up to show he’s not embarrassed (the restaurant scene) is, in fact, the scene that illustrates the fact.
He brings the kid out to the restaurant, has an awkward time with him, and then uses being out in public with his kid to prove wrong his competitor, the one who shamed him for deserting the kid in the first place.
Plainview waltz’s up to the competitor and makes a big to do about the fact that he brought his deaf/mute kid out in public with him (as though that should be a big deal for a father), and then tells the guy that, since he’s out enjoying lunch with his son, the guy was obviously wrong about Plainview not being able to run an oil company and raise a handicapped kid at the same time. Once again, this is Plainview using his kid as a prop to ‘win’ against someone else (that competition in him).
In fact, I would go so far as to say the only reason Plainview even brought the kid back from the special school was because he wanted to prove this other oilman wrong, wanted to have this metaphorical winning moment– you can picture Plainview formulate this very moment in his mind as he storms away from the other oilman after their first conversation. He decides he’ll bring the kid back just to prove him wrong.
This being a movie, Anderson has the moment actually play out. That’s the reason this scene is in the film. And Anderson makes it clear what a sad, pathetic move it is by Plainview, as this is one of the moments in the film where Plainview doesn’t look powerful, but instead embarrassing.
I’m a little late on the conversation but I just watched the movie for the first time, and I had already read all these comments, so while watching the film I was thinking a lot about his relationship with his son.
I think he clearly does love his son. As B points out, early in the film there are many moments deliberately to show their relationship and his love for the boy.
The turning point is when H.W. loses his hearing. But Plainview’s reaction is one not of shame but of frustration at his own impotence. He has never met an obstacle he could not overcome, but no amount of success or money can bring back his son’s hearing. It is the only thing in his life that has ever made him feel weak, and he doesn’t know how to handle it. He sends his son away not because he believes it will be best for H.W., but simply because he can’t stand to be confronted with his own weakness any longer.
At the end of the film, when H.W. declares that he is leaving, Plainview is devastated, and he once again is powerless to change the situation, which is why he lashes out at him so cruelly.
Yeah, you’re right. The first time I saw the film I thought of Ellis Wyatt, one of the heroes of Ayn Rand’s best-selling book “Atlas Shrugged.”