There’s actually not that much blood, in there will be blood. But it’s awfully menacing nonetheless. I came out with this feeling as to why people *really* want this to be a Great Movie, to win an Oscar if not all of them. To give the film meaning. If you’ve seen it, you desperately want it to have some real meaning because, the consequences, otherwise, are troubling.
On the surface, There Will be Blood is a movie about the evils of capitalism vs the evils of evangelicalism (no third options are presented). Great liberal hot buttons to be sure, but there’s no actual debate as to the actual merits/demerits of these ideas as this is a movie about characters (two monstrous, screen chewing characters) not about ideas. This is debating by critiquing the person rather than the idea. The notion of this movie as constructive social commentary falls through.
What’s more PT seems to be saying that should you fall in to one camp you may be pleasant on the surface but, fundamentally, you are creepy, maniacal and flawed human being. Should you fall in to the other camp, you may be pleasant on the surface but, fundamentally, you are creepy, maniacal and flawed human being. Not second option is presented.
There is only one character in this movie, Plainview and the preacher are the same. All other characters are little more than scenery in There Will be Blood, consistently represented with no effective free will of their own.
In PT’s world, all people are either evil, or inconsequential. Pick one.
This is why the movie cries out for validation on some/any other basis. Critics want it to represent a valid and relevant social allegory, or failing than to stand as solely a Great example of acting and film-making craft
Because if, in your mind, you can’t safely compartmentalize it as a Great Film then you’d have to consider this film, like the character of Plainview himself, as nothing more than an adept but otherwise sad –if not crazed- extended, bitter embodiment of the patheticism of you and me every other ordinary human.
And that could get under your skin.
For the record, I liked No Country for Old Men a little better.
Link: theatrical trailer
Forgive this extremely long comment. I’ve seen this one twice now and I love it (but not quite as much as No Country). I think Plainview is a representation of the W.R.Hearst or Howard Hughes (or the fictional C.F. Kane) type of person, who is full of an unstoppable drive to achieve, but also completely incapable of relating to others.
Like Heart, Hughes and Kane, he clings to the one thing in the world he loves and who loves him back unconditionally–his “son”. This is also complicated by Plainview’s relationship to religion, something he avoids throughout the movie. He claims that he is fine with all faiths (and therefore none?), but notice how quick he is to pull away his hand when Eli tries to pull him into a prayer?
God is the one thing he has no power over, so when –SPOILER– H.W. loses his hearing, Plainview sees this as a betrayal from God. His son lashes out at him in anger–his love is no longer unconditional–and Daniel sends him away. This explains the way he blows up at the Standard Oil man who tells him to look after his son as well as the moment he breaks when screaming to God: “I abandoned my boy!”
This also explains the final moments when he believes that his son abandons him, which leads to his terrible tirade and his anger at his son, himself and God is transposed to Eli who shows up at, let us say, an inopportune moment. This is his final downfall, as he realises when he say “I’m finished.” There is probably no escaping his actions there.
What is the blood of the title, I wonder? Oil? Family Blood? Eli’s Blood?
Forgive this extremely long comment. I’ve seen this one twice now and I love it (but not quite as much as No Country). I think Plainview is a representation of the W.R.Hearst or Howard Hughes (or the fictional C.F. Kane) type of person, who is full of an unstoppable drive to achieve, but also completely incapable of relating to others.
Like Heart, Hughes and Kane, he clings to the one thing in the world he loves and who loves him back unconditionally–his “son”. This is also complicated by Plainview’s relationship to religion, something he avoids throughout the movie. He claims that he is fine with all faiths (and therefore none?), but notice how quick he is to pull away his hand when Eli tries to pull him into a prayer?
God is the one thing he has no power over, so when –SPOILER– H.W. loses his hearing, Plainview sees this as a betrayal from God. His son lashes out at him in anger–his love is no longer unconditional–and Daniel sends him away. This explains the way he blows up at the Standard Oil man who tells him to look after his son as well as the moment he breaks when screaming to God: “I abandoned my boy!”
This also explains the final moments when he believes that his son abandons him, which leads to his terrible tirade and his anger at his son, himself and God is transposed to Eli who shows up at, let us say, an inopportune moment. This is his final downfall, as he realises when he say “I’m finished.” There is probably no escaping his actions there.
What is the blood of the title, I wonder? Oil? Family Blood? Eli’s Blood?
I enjoyed NCFOM a bit more as well. I’ll be happy as long as Atonement doesn’t win the main prize. It was OK but not amazing. cheers.
Thomas P’s comment is the first I’ve read that delves deeper than the surface of this movie…bravo!
I felt that the movie was more of a depiction of the battle between religion and capitalism which ultimately ends with religion being defeated. Instead of being two sides of the same coin, it is more of a transformation from one belief system to another wherein we weigh the various strengths of each and realize that both are “false prophets”, but Capitalism wins because it appeals to man’s basest instincts of avarice, greed, and selfishness.
Plainview, as his name informs us,does not have his mind clouded with superstition or promises based on faith alone. He operates on a singularly self possessed level where he eventually abandons his humanity in pursuit of his goals. Plainview abandons his son (family) because the child is of no more use to him in his pursuit. He falsely adopts religion only to achieve his current goal. His brother was meant to ameliorate Plainview’s dissonance between his goals and his humanity by dealing with “people”, which Plainview utters with comtempt as an epithet. When he discovers that his brother is an imposter, he has to kill him to remove the threat to his empire. And of course, there is the final scene wherein Plainview (capitalism) mariginalizes Eli (religion) by humiliating him, and ultimately killing him. Hence Plainview’s last words “I’m Finished” Capitalism wins..but the victory is hollow since Plainview has lost his humanity in the process.
We can easily draw inferences about today’s world from There Will Be Blood. The loss of family, the alienation of “brothers”, the use of false religion and the loss of humanity in the pursuit of money and power through the vehicle of OIL.
Perhaps There Will Be Blood is ultimately a call for sanity and humanity in our dealings in today’s world and an exposure of the flaws inherent in a system based entirely of the promotion of self-interest. That is actually an uplifting message. (I wonder if anyone in Washington gets that)
Thomas P’s comment is the first I’ve read that delves deeper than the surface of this movie…bravo!
I felt that the movie was more of a depiction of the battle between religion and capitalism which ultimately ends with religion being defeated. Instead of being two sides of the same coin, it is more of a transformation from one belief system to another wherein we weigh the various strengths of each and realize that both are “false prophets”, but Capitalism wins because it appeals to man’s basest instincts of avarice, greed, and selfishness.
Plainview, as his name informs us,does not have his mind clouded with superstition or promises based on faith alone. He operates on a singularly self possessed level where he eventually abandons his humanity in pursuit of his goals. Plainview abandons his son (family) because the child is of no more use to him in his pursuit. He falsely adopts religion only to achieve his current goal. His brother was meant to ameliorate Plainview’s dissonance between his goals and his humanity by dealing with “people”, which Plainview utters with comtempt as an epithet. When he discovers that his brother is an imposter, he has to kill him to remove the threat to his empire. And of course, there is the final scene wherein Plainview (capitalism) mariginalizes Eli (religion) by humiliating him, and ultimately killing him. Hence Plainview’s last words “I’m Finished” Capitalism wins..but the victory is hollow since Plainview has lost his humanity in the process.
We can easily draw inferences about today’s world from There Will Be Blood. The loss of family, the alienation of “brothers”, the use of false religion and the loss of humanity in the pursuit of money and power through the vehicle of OIL.
Perhaps There Will Be Blood is ultimately a call for sanity and humanity in our dealings in today’s world and an exposure of the flaws inherent in a system based entirely of the promotion of self-interest. That is actually an uplifting message. (I wonder if anyone in Washington gets that)
Well that was a nice review of the film. Thank goodness this reviewer chose not to compare the film to one of Kubrick’s films. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to compare this film with the works of S. Kubrick but it does indeed attempt to approach it. I must clearly state however, that it’s attempted style-copy fails in each attempt. I’m going to blame its failure on the editing and mismatched musical soundtrack.
The editing of the film usually done these days under strict control of the director, almost seemed to intend on lengthening the runtime just for the sake of being able to add the word “epic” to the list of adjectives used for it’s description.
The scoring for the film I contend was an attempt to rip off the production company by producing “loops” of percussion and noise that didn’t sync to anything other than the composer’s mood or “feeling” established at the beginning 3 or 5 seconds of each scene. That there are many 2 to 4 minute scenes speaks to the amount nauseating repetition within each scene and occasionally these “loop-tracks” would span several scenes without any changes. So the composer spent about one one-hundredth of the time and effort that would normally be required to produce a typically “good” scoring of a film of this length.
As is I can produce all these scores myself on my computer at home in a $5,000 studio in about 2 weeks time. Many of the “loops” additionally contained recognizable sound effects from very inexpensive instrument and effects CDs available on the web for well under $100.
Either problem if remedied would bring the quality of this film indeed much closer to a Kubrick level of standards. If the scenes were edited down to a more reasonable length the soundtrack would require less repair as a result and if even only the soundtrack were scored professionally the scenes might not cause the tedium that had me wanting to walk out of the theater on many occasions.
Additionally, reviewers of this film could add interest and intrigue by mentioning the real world counterpart that the Daniel Plainfield character was indeed based on. Of course that would require them to do a bit of research – gawd forbid.
Well that was a nice review of the film. Thank goodness this reviewer chose not to compare the film to one of Kubrick’s films. I think it’s a bit of a stretch to compare this film with the works of S. Kubrick but it does indeed attempt to approach it. I must clearly state however, that it’s attempted style-copy fails in each attempt. I’m going to blame its failure on the editing and mismatched musical soundtrack.
The editing of the film usually done these days under strict control of the director, almost seemed to intend on lengthening the runtime just for the sake of being able to add the word “epic” to the list of adjectives used for it’s description.
The scoring for the film I contend was an attempt to rip off the production company by producing “loops” of percussion and noise that didn’t sync to anything other than the composer’s mood or “feeling” established at the beginning 3 or 5 seconds of each scene. That there are many 2 to 4 minute scenes speaks to the amount nauseating repetition within each scene and occasionally these “loop-tracks” would span several scenes without any changes. So the composer spent about one one-hundredth of the time and effort that would normally be required to produce a typically “good” scoring of a film of this length.
As is I can produce all these scores myself on my computer at home in a $5,000 studio in about 2 weeks time. Many of the “loops” additionally contained recognizable sound effects from very inexpensive instrument and effects CDs available on the web for well under $100.
Either problem if remedied would bring the quality of this film indeed much closer to a Kubrick level of standards. If the scenes were edited down to a more reasonable length the soundtrack would require less repair as a result and if even only the soundtrack were scored professionally the scenes might not cause the tedium that had me wanting to walk out of the theater on many occasions.
Additionally, reviewers of this film could add interest and intrigue by mentioning the real world counterpart that the Daniel Plainfield character was indeed based on. Of course that would require them to do a bit of research – gawd forbid.
I enjoyed NCFOM a bit more as well. I'll be happy as long as Atonement doesn't win the main prize. It was OK but not amazing. cheers.