The MoFo Movie Club Discussion - There Will Be Blood

The message is placed in every frame...

And if you are faced with an insane individual armed with a bowling pin, you might run as well. I do think Eli's character was a coward in some ways, he fought back only when he knew he could take control of the individual.

I see your point, and can agree. I just think that the murder of Henry was 'self-defense' in that Plainview had opened himself to Henry, and was protecting himself by killing him. The murder of Eli is just Plainview gone mad. I still find him more pathetic than evil.




I think Plainview was trying to make a connection. Do you remember how he started to reach out to Henry just when it was apparent that H.W. was lost to him because of his accident? He wanted someone to share his business with.

__________________
If God had wanted me otherwise, He would have created me otherwise.

Johann von Goethe

All I have time to say on this subject at this present moment is…

I…DRINK…YOUR…MILKSHAKE!

__________________
Pumpkins scream in the DEAD of night!

You make me want to see this movie now.

I drank some of my daughter's chocolate milkshake in Alaska. I used a straw. It was very difficult for me to actually get it to pass through the straw because it seemed to collapse in on itself the harder I sucked. The way I was able to get a good taste of the milkshake was to take the straw out and suck on the bottom (opposite end) of it. It made me start to wonder why Daniel had such an easy time drinking Eli's milkshake.

One other thing I started thinking about (notwithstanding the earlier comment that "I drink your milkshake" was a direct political quote) was that I always ordered a chocolate malt(ed) instead of a milkshake because I always found it easier to pass through the straw, let alone the fact that it had more flavor. Now, did Daniel drink Eli's milkshake because it was the more difficult way to get what he wanted? Daniel does seem to occasionally do things the difficult way. I want to ask all the people who recall the beginning of the film, how in the hell did Daniel drag himself, apparently for miles, with a broken leg, up out of his mine and all across the rugged territory he had to navigate to get to lay claim to his find? I realize that he's a tough S.O.B., and I don't mean this early scene to be a flaw in the film. Maybe you can just fill in some of the details which we all miss from the time he's screwed to the time he makes it to the assayer's office. What do you think happened? I'd say it was as significant as anything else that IS ACTUALLY SHOWN in the film.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Well, this an interesting discussion so far between two groups who seemed to have seen two very different films with the same strange title. It’s a mystery to me how a film that is praised on one hand for its virtually silent opening scenes and the quite sales pitch when the protagonist first speaks is criticized by others as being “shouty.” I don’t recall Daniel Day-Lewis in this or Last of the Mohicans being particularly “shouty” in the Al Pachino method of acting.

A method actor known for his research of his roles and for remaining in character for the duration of shooting the film, Day-Lewis reminds me of the greats like Paul Muni who can just disappear into a role to the point that he looks and sounds different in each film he makes. For my money, he had the geologist-oilman pegged from the get-go in Blood.

The film is based—so loosely that the two story-lines seldom touch at any point—on socialist Upton Sinclair’s 1927 novel, Oil!, which was written as a third person narrative by the son, nicknamed Bunny, of an oil tycoon who because of the son's sympathetic feelings towards oilfield workers and socialists, clashes with his father. So it’s not surprising that the characters seem like throwbacks to the monopolists and robber barons and the Billy Sunday-Elmer Gantry evangelists of the Roaring Twenties.

I didn’t have a problem with the protagonist breaking a leg in a fall down the mine shaft and then getting across what looked like endless desert to the assay office. There’s no way in hell he walked to the mine site in the first place, which means he at least had a horse—maybe even a horse and buggy—tied up some place nearby that he could have hoisted himself aboard and rode into town. It’s okay to imagine that without having to actually see it.

What did bother me was the drill crew making the same mistake of going down into the cellar of the well to bail oil instead of standing on the rig floor and throwing in buckets tied to rope to pull back up. Less chance of getting crushed by falling objects or burned to death in an accidental fire.

Originally Posted by Powdered Water

Not long after his goldmine strike we see him again and this time he is actually among a group of people that are digging another hole and even then we get the feeling that while he is there and is obviously a leader of some kind he is also very isolated . . . Daniel is faced with the task of taking care of a Bastard son we begin to see Daniel's true colors coming to the surface. The look of utter disdain he gives the child and his subsequent use of alcohol to put the child to sleep just showed me that there is a very good chance this man is quite possibly evil . . . [Later we] hear Daniel speak for the very first time. Most would find him a charming and soft spoken individual that oozes confidence from his pores and tries to will people to listen to him, meanwhile a boy stands slightly behind him and to the side and most would think that this is obviously the man's son and perhaps this Mr. Plainview really is a "family man" and maybe he really can do all of the things he says. At one point he even introduces the boy as his son and partner. When the deal goes sideways he immediately goes elsewhere to try to get permission to drill for oil and this is where we learn the lengths he will go in order to succeed. . . .

Well, to me the character is isolated because he’s the boss and they’re the workers; he has used his knowledge of geology to find a prospect, then worked to obtain financing, get a lease, build a rig, and he has a plan to find oil and make money. They’re roughnecks working for wages to spend on beer and loose women payday night. At least half of them won’t even show up for work the day after they paid.

Plainview is not just the character’s name—it’s how he looks at things. He knows what he wants, and if royalty owners try to hold him up for more money or impose other conditions, he finds another prospect and moves on. It’s common practice not to let folks know you’re interested in property you’re wanting to lease. That’s like going into an auto dealership and telling the salesman up front, “I love this car and gotta have it.” Either way, you’re going to pay top dollar for your choice. Plainview did nothing dishonest in obtaining the leases. He made an offer, they made a counter-offer, he countered with another offer, and they agreed. Willing seller, willing buyer—it doesn’t get more democratic than that. After all, he pays the expense of drilling for oil and takes the loss if it comes up dry. They sell the mineral rights for a portion of the projected income if the well is a success; otherwise, they’d never develop it themselves and they still have the surface ownership if the well fails. The oilman gets the greater rewards because he takes the greater risk.

I disagree, too, that Plainview is “faced with the task” of taking care of the dead man’s son. There’s nothing that says Plainview has to do that. He could have taken the kid to the local sheriff and told him, “Here, find his relatives or put him in an orphanage.” Hell, he could have sold the baby if he could find someone who wanted him. Instead, he willingly takes on the responsibility. As for giving the hungry baby a taste of booze to quite him, Plainview knows nothing about raising no babies. And plenty of natural parents would do the same thing back then.

I totally bought Plainview’s devotion and love for his adopted son from the time we see him petting and kissing the sleeping toddler on a train. That’s a natural expression of a man who has no one else to love. There’s no one watching him; even the kid’s asleep, so this is an expression of his real self. And the boy reacts lovingly toward Plainview, which would not have been the case if Plainview was a neglectful or cruel father.

The charismatic preacher, on the other hand, loves and is loved by nobody—not the brother who he bad-mouths for telling Plainview about the oil deposit; not his father, who he calls a stupid old man—hard words from a supposed Christian who is commanded to honor his parents. Plainview recognizes him for what he is, and when he virtually orders Plainview to give him a major role in the official spudding of the well, Plainview perversely thwarts the young man’s plans. Wouldn’t have been any skin off Plainview’s nose to have done what the young preacher requested, but instead Plainview effectively shows him he can’t be dictated to. Of course, the preacher later gets his payback via Plainview’s humiliating “salvation” to get what he needs from the other property owners. That Plainview later humiliates the preacher by telling him how he has already gotten the oil from under the lease he’s trying to sell him is not surprising. Nor is it particularly surprising that Plainview then kills him in a drunken rage that is probably aimed more at his disobedient competitive son than at the preacher.

The fallout between Plainview and his son is the most interesting part of the film to me. I believe Plainview loved the kid and worried about his injury, to the point of attacking the preacher when the preacher kept asking for money while he was focused on the fact that his son had lost his hearing in the blowout. Should Plainview have left everything and gone with the boy to get treatment? Some fathers would have, but Plainview is an empire builder concerned with developing that oil field. It would have been better, of course, had he explained to the kid in writing what was going on instead of just abandoning him to a keeper on the train. But I never understood the kid’s later reaction is trying to set fire to his father and supposed uncle when he got back home. That was too harsh a reaction for being sent off to a school for the deaf, but even then his father reached out to him. It’s only later when the boy marries and decides to go into the oil business himself that the father turns on him. As he already said, he’s so competitive that he wants all his competition to fail, and for his son to get one barrel of oil that he doesn’t hold, even in a different country, is too much for him to stand. He’s disappointed that his son is going off and therefore reacts cruelly to him for the first time, mocking his sign-language and claiming—falsely I think—that he never cared for him. They were just too close earlier for him not to care, and once the kid is gone, we see him alone and drunk in his big house, no longer motivated to find and develop more oil. It’s the preacher’s bad luck that he blunders in trying to take advantage of Plainview at that particular time.

I don’t remember anyone actually drinking a milkshake in the film; maybe they did, but that’s not important. That’s just an easy explanation to a layman of how an offset well works. Oil doesn’t sit in neat separate little pools that correspond to fence lines on the surface. It exists within the pores of rock that often stretches for miles in any direction. If one leaseholder refuses to sell his lease, that doesn’t mean that oil remains beneath his lease, when a producer drills on all other sides and sucks the oil out of all of the rock deposit. That’s why Plainview didn’t ever contact the original property owner, much less apologize to him in order to get his lease, because he knew he could produce that oil without paying the old man his royalty. A good lawyer could have filed a court suit to win some compensation but the original owner died without seeking redress and the preacher didn’t have a strong enough claim.

I liked the fake brother, too, and the fact that Plainview was truly troubled once he figured out that he was a fake. He had too quickly accepted and opened up to the fraud, showing again that he was starved for a family connection in his life. Once he realizes he has been fooled, he’s angry about having been taken in and worried about what the phony may want or can get from him. The only way to repay the betrayal is to kill the offender.

Anyway, I enjoyed the movie primarily because of Day-Lewis’s excellent portrayal of the Plainview character and because the story was mostly correct about the early oil industry (although that cable-tool bit that killed one worker downhole was awfully small to have drilled a hole that size!).

Is it a great movie, much less the great American movie? Naw, not by a long shot. And it certainly isn’t an image of the American character or the role of business, oil, or religion in this country. You can not summarize a country of hundreds of millions of individuals so easily. But I did like the movie, much more than No Country for Old Men.

This is the only Paul Thomas Anderson film I’ve ever seen simply because his other film subjects just don’t appeal to me.

Very thorough and well thought out review, rufnek. Well done...

Well, thank you, Justin--kind words, indeed.

This Is One Of My Favorite Movies, Easily A 10/10 Movie For Me. Daniel-Day Lewis, Did Amazing In This And He Really Deserved That Best Actor Win For It. I Need To Watch It Again.

I think that the main character got so totally wrapped up in digging for oil and more oil, and into his business that he really didn't care at all what he was doing to the little boy in his care. When the boy received a head injury during a big oil explosion, the main character took care of and saw that the boy went to a rehabiitation center only after the minister of the church admonished him to do so.
It was clear that the little boy hated his adopted father, but had to wait until he grew up to really "get even", if one gets the drift.

It's interesting how you and I (and I'm sure others) got different interpretations from the same movie. If the minister ever said anything about getting medical treatment or rehabilitation for the little boy, I don't remember it. It may have happened but I just don't recall. I do recall that in what seemed like almost immediately after the blowout that ruptured the kid's eardrums, the preacher gets in the oilman's face demanding a royalty payment and the oilman, with more important things on his mind at the moment--and I think the injured child was at the head of that list--kicked the preacher's sorry butt. I also remember that when the preacher later got the power over him to insist on his public "redemption," he made the oilman shout out that he had abandoned his child. But wasn't that after he had already sent the kid away to a school for the deaf?

I've never really understood the kid's animosity upon his return. He couldn't have been gone very long, since he was about the same age and stepdad was still developing that same field. Obviously the kid took advantage of time since he learned sign-language somewhere along the way. And I saw no signs of animosity until out of the blue the kid tries to set the place on fire. But didn't that fire trail lead directly to the "brother's" cot and not the father's? That's how I think I remember it. If true, maybe the kid was ticked that the "brother" had taken his place in his adopted father's affections.

I'm still not convinced the boy hated his adopted father, even when he grew up, at least up to the point where they had that last big confrontation, and the father said all of those hateful things. It was the kid who sought the meeting, the kid who brought his new bride to meet his father, obviously hoping he'd at least accept her if not embrace her as a member of the family. And the kid tried to explain why he was leaving to try things his own way, but he bore no ill will to his adopted dad, because unlike the dad, he figured there was enough oil for everybody to get a share of the profits. They did too good a job convincing me early in the film of the mutual affection between the boy and man to convince me later that sending the boy to get the necessary schooling to be able to communicate or the adopted son striking out in the business on his own (on a different continent, even) was enough to provoke such an outburst on the father's part. That bit was out of character with all the rest of the film. IMHO, anyway.

It's odd, and I have no idea why, but I always get No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood mixed up. I haven't even seen either of them.

The one by the Coen Brothers is so much better.

Are we going to do a new movie soon?

I believe so. Tatty and I were going to try and hook up sometime this weekend. So if all goes well there may be a new poll up later next week.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

We're on the case, like a latter day Holmes and Watson, so worry not!

Where's me violin and opium?

__________________
"Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how the Tatty 100 is done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves." - Brendan Behan

I think it has to be a great movie, or at least a movie of great depth, to provoke so many people to have so many views to it; to have so many differing opinions.
I can see how some may find it hard to relate to Plainview as a real person in that he can seem like a person acting. I don't believe this is Day-Lewis acting badly but acting well; showing a mask, a front, only occasionally letting the true emotion show through.
We are asking if Plainview truly loved his adopted son. Isn't that a sign of a great movie; in real life we only get to see certain parts of people, we base our beliefs about people by their actions and words but never can truly define someone else's feelings and thoughts. Even if they told us how it is we know that they may not be telling the truth, or at least the whole truth.
My view is that Plainview tried to be a good man, the kind of man that other men wanted to be like; sticks to his word, looks after his men, is strong, a good father and has a strong sense of fairness, right and wrong, and isn't bullied but steps in to stop bullying. Yet, despite this, he is human and also believes he can hide behind these attributes whilst he pursues his own, single-minded ambitions and over these ambitions he needs to believe he is in control. I also believe that he cares for no-one, believes that no-one's life matters in comparison to his own.
He maybe took the dead man's son out of a sense of duty he felt, to live up to the standard he thought would be expected of him. Later though, we see him using the boy as a kind of gimmic, saying that he runs the company with him. When that gimmic, that means of helping to sell his services to the people of a new oil rich town, is damaged, he flips. I don't think that it was his love for the boy that made him attack Eli.
Everything that Plainview did was in order to enhance his own empire but he had the control wrested from him by having to submit to Eli. When he finally sees that his empire has no future he takes control back and "rights the wrong" of having to submit to such a man as Eli.
Those are my thoughts but, as in real life, we can admit to ourselves that we don't have the whole picture and may be wrong and that, surely, shows a great depth to the movie.

__________________
You think I'd speak for you? I don't even know your language.

How can people say it's not a wildly entertaining movie and then keep going back to watch it again and again and again. It's clear the movie tells it's events in a way where you will perceive them differently each viewing and that's exactly why it's a great film. The performances dictate a lot of how you feel about the different situations - it's also filled with a ton of iconic scenes , which is really what I think pulls people in to continue watching it multiple times.

Eventually around you're 5th viewing - you should admit that yes , it's a great movie.

__________________

I am resurrecting this thread because I just watched There Will Be Blood which was just great. Paul Thomas Anderson's masterpiece.


I loved the attention to the details of drilling for oil. This movie gave it the same kind of hellacious Plutonian romance that the they have with mining.

Daniel Day Lewis gives a mesmerizing performance. It has the kind of superhuman energy you find in stage actors while playing O'Neill. Paul Dano gives a weirdly satisfying and hemmed in stagy counterpoint to Day Lewis's naturalistic acting. I loved when you get to see him unleash his method and throw devils out of little old ladies. And where did Day Lewis get that wonderful antique American accent?

The through line is very simple. We learn how the character is unbending, enraged and filled with hate. It is not a psychological portrait as we don't learn what feeds his fury. We only see the corrosive and murderous outcome of it as he destroys everyone who gets near him. For what? For not being him?

P.S. What a great score! The music was gorgeous.

__________________
Louise Vale first woman to play Jane Eyre in the flickers.

Modern classic, is the way i sum it up in 2 words...

quite simple

__________________
My 100 ALL-TIME FAVE Movies

Not sure about the protocol for bumping up these old discussions, but just saw the film a few days ago and wanted to throw my inane ramblings into the mix. So bringing this over from my Movie Musings thread






You have to admire Paul Thomas Anderson. With There Will Be Blood he didn't just set out to make another film, it appears that he set out to make an epic. His aim was to produce an American masterpiece. Now whether you believe he achieved it or not, I think you at least have to admire the aspirations he had.

Anderson tells the story of Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), a silver prospector who stumbles into the world of oil and becomes determined to conquer that world, and crush all those who dare stand against him. Following a tip he heads out to a small town which hides an ocean of oil beneath it, looking to make his fortune with his son H.W. along for the ride. All is not plain sailing however as he clashes with a young, charismatic preacher (Paul Dano) and has to deal with an accident that leaves his son deaf. An incident that drives a wedge between the two.

Daniel Day Lewis gives a truly great performance as Daniel Plainview. Along with just his general performance he imbues the character with both a great voice and a really distinctive walk. However after all the praise and awards it earned him I was expecting it. So as a result the performance that really grabbed and surprised me was Paul Dano's as the young preacher, Eli Sunday. So much so that I consider it a shame he did not receive more nominations for his work. From the looks of him it might not seem like much of a rivalry can be had against the imposing character that is Daniel Plainview, but his performance makes Eli seem like a worthy adversary and protagonist; someone who is able to get under Plainview's skin. I particularly enjoyed when the character gets in front of his congregation and gets into the full swing of his showman persona, when he starts preaching and healing. It's just a shame for him he isn't around in the age of TV; he's a born televangelist. “Send me your money and you shall be saved!”


And it's just as well that these two central performances are so strong, as there are very few other significant roles to be found. For a film whose running time goes for more than two and a half hours that's quite surprising, and quite an achievement. It may not quite be a strict two-hander but it's not far off.

For long stretches the film can actually be quite quiet and subdued (for example for the first 15 minutes there is hardly a word spoken) but it doesn't matter due to the combination of the beautiful cinematography, stirring score and Lewis' strong, charismatic performance. All of which keeps your attention gripped to the screen.

The film can be seen both as a rather small personal tale, but also as something more epic in scope. While it is a story of greed, religion, family and in many ways how America was built on enterprise and religion it is also the story of two men, both dangerously ambitious. Though they seem set up to be polar opposites they are actually like two peas in a pod. You have the greedy oilman; a cynical capitalist who is driven by pride and a sheer contempt for everyone, leading him down a road of loneliness and misery. And opposing him you have the supposedly righteous man of God: a slick, sanctimonious young man who just loves his own voice, and is willing to denounce his faith in the end for his own financial well-being.


And when their respective egos clash there are fireworks each and every time. What really shows their similarity is the replaying of specific moments, but with the roles reversed – slapping each other, and their forced declarations to God. Both men revelling in their power over the other at the time, relishing seeing their opponent in a weak position.

By tying these characters so closely together it certainly isn't the most pro-religion film you'll ever see. In this story we see no difference between the greedy, competition-driven oilman and the healing preacher spreading the word of God. They are both snake-oil salesman promising a better world for the people they meet; as long as they either allow the oil business into their territory, or accept God into their lives.


At about the halfway stage the character of Daniel Plainview changes, as does the whole tone and direction of the film. Having appeared to be a fairly normal businessman who just has a drive to succeed up till this point: he then reveals himself to be a horrific, ruthless monster. A man who seems disgusted with anyone he meets; anyone who isn't him. A fact he himself admits. And I personally saw this as the reason for the fracture that occurs in his relationship with H.W. While he does appear to exploit H.W. predominantly as a prop at times to sell his business and himself to people, he did appear to care for him. However I think he saw H.W. as a chance to mould another version of himself, so that there would be at least one more person he could admire and relate to. And I think he wants and indeed needs this, as is showed by his very quick acceptance of his 'brother'. But when his son became deaf not only did he lose his prop but he saw that chance disappear. H.W. was now destined to be just like everybody else.

There are some truly wonderful scenes throughout, whether it be due to the visuals on show or the acting. For me the best and most powerful scene however is the accident and subsequent fire at the derrick. It's an incredible scene both for how it looks and what it tells us about the character of Daniel Plainview. When his son is thrown through the air he is genuinely concerned for H.W.'s wellbeing. He quickly leaves however to return to the scene of the fire. Now at first this can be seen as purely just trying to stop a possible catastrophe, one that could cost the lives of more people. But even after the fire is put out he does not rush back to his son's side as you would expect, he stays to relish in the discovery of the oil and his future wealth, and to bathe in the glory. As the sky turns black with smoke the light that it creates is incredible, creating a truly surreal and unique atmosphere. The eerie orange glow makes it feel like the very fires of hell itself are surrounding Plainview. And perhaps they are, as from here on out Daniel seems to be on a downward spiral.


Another of the great successes of the film is how it wonderfully evokes the early 1900s era in which it is set. The sets, scenery and costumes are all magnificent. Even all of the actors look like they just belong in that period. And the in-depth attention to detail given to the workings of the oil drilling just help to fully immerse us in this world that Anderson has created.

I now come to the ending which I am still a little conflicted about. The vocal sparring between Lewis and Dano is absolutely fantastic, one of the best dialogue scenes I've seen in a long time. However it then comes to the incident that ends the movie (won't reveal it here for anyone who hasn't seen it). On the plus side it is extremely memorable and powerful finale, as well as surprising. And it's always nice to be surprised by the ending to a film. On the negative side however I wondered if it just felt a little too cartoonish. I'm unsure if it works tonally with everything that has come before or if I find it a little bit jarring. I've been going back and forth about it for the last few days since seeing the film, and for the moment I think I've come down on the positive side of things..


Conclusion – At the start of this review I mentioned that Anderson appeared to be aspiring to create a masterpiece. So did he succeed? I'm not sure, and I'm certainly not going to state definitively whether he did or not after just one viewing. What I will say is that it's one hell of an effort, and a hell of a good film. One that I would have given the edge to over No Country for Old Men in the Oscar race.

__________________