Eric D. Snider
There Will Be Blood
Movie Review
"There Will Be Blood"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: A-
Rating: R
Released: Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Directed by:
Cast:
We get to know early-20th-century oilman Daniel Plainview pretty well over the course of "There Will Be Blood's" 2 1/2 hour running time, and there's no question that blood is important to him, in both its literal and metaphorical senses. He's willing to shed it when necessary (i.e., when it suits him), and he puts a lot of stock in the blood shared between family members. "If it's in me, it's in you," he says to his brother of a character trait he has, one that there's no reason to assume would be genetic. Plainview's son is adopted -- which to Plainview means he might as well be some stranger off the street.
But in Paul Thomas Anderson's sprawling, engrossing, multi-layered adaptation of Upton Sinclair's "Oil!," Daniel Plainview (played with characteristic intricacy by Daniel Day-Lewis) is most obsessed with a different kind of blood, the black, viscous kind that runs through the veins of the Earth and gives life to civilization. When you control that blood, you control the world.
Plainview seems to know this instinctively. In the film's dialogue-free first 15 minutes, we see him as a grizzled miner in 1898, then building his first well in 1902, and ultimately in 1911, where he's a successful businessman. He goes from one California town to another and leases property where he believes oil can be found. True to his name, he speaks plainly and openly to those he does business with. What most of them don't know, unfortunately, is that he's a snake. He lies with breathtaking ease, as if it's just as easy to formulate a complicated falsehood as it is to simply tell the truth. For him, it probably is.
Tipped off by a wayward son of the Sunday family, Plainview and his little boy, H.W. (Dillon Freasier), descend on the small town of Little Boston. The Sundays have a large, barren ranch with oil underneath it, and Plainview promises that as he mines it and builds a pipeline, he'll also build schools and churches and bring roads and water wells to the town. It's in everyone's best interest that he essentially buy up every piece of property in sight. Sure, they could drill for the oil themselves, now that they know it's there -- if they had the equipment and the know-how and the men to do it. Plainview has all that. They need him.
Plainview is not a religious man (except when it benefits him to pretend to be), which puts him at odds with most of the town, particularly Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), a spiritual teenager who makes his father promise not to lease their land until Plainview pledges to give $5,000 toward the construction of a church for Eli to preach in.
Eli is widely viewed as a healer and a prophet, earnestly plying his spiritual gifts. He is a natural enemy to Plainview, who believes everyone is as big a charlatan as he is himself, and who furthermore doesn't want anyone else in town to wield power or influence. "I want no one else to succeed," he says with a laugh to one of his associates. "I hate most people."
An accident at one of the wells leaves young H.W. nearly deaf, which makes him even less useful to Plainview. (Did Plainview ever even give the poor kid a name, or just initials?) Plainview has generally been compassionate to his adopted son, if not what you'd call "loving," but he's too busy to be burdened with a deaf kid -- especially one who's not even his real son, for crying out loud. He is furious when Mr. Sunday (David Willis) dares to suggest how he should raise his family, though it's worth noting that he did the exact same thing to Sunday when he first came to town.
Comparisons to "Citizen Kane" are inevitable, for reasons on the screen and behind it. On the screen, we have a story of a flawed, wealthy man who rises to great power and lets it destroy him. Behind it, Paul Thomas Anderson, like Orson Welles, is a wunderkind, revered by peers twice his age. He understands the technical elements of filmmaking as well as the storytelling elements. He was Robert Altman's right-hand man, and widely believed to have been at least a co-director on his final film, "A Prairie Home Companion." Anderson may well become one of the greatest filmmakers of the 21st century -- if he doesn't follow Welles' path and flame out early, that is.
Paul Dano, who barely spoke as the Nietzsche-emulating teen in "Little Miss Sunshine," more than makes up for it as the verbose, fire-and-brimstone Eli Sunday. Eli's sincerity and godliness are apparent -- I take him at face value, though I note that other viewers find him duplicitous and egotistical -- but they don't prevent him from standing up to Plainview ... and that means Dano is standing up to Day-Lewis. It's a testament to Dano's strength that the battle isn't as one-sided as you'd expect. (The two also appeared together in the little-seen "Ballad of Jack and Rose.")
Day-Lewis is well known for his selectivity when it comes to making films, and for his deep commitment to the few roles he does choose. He is not often known for being a lot of fun to watch, though. His characters tend to be nearly as serious as he is. So it's a refreshing change to see him get wild and woolly as Plainview, whose fearsomeness and villainy are electrifying. It doesn't matter that the film is 158 minutes long. I could watch Daniel Plainview rant, scheme, lie, and connive for hours.
Grade: A-
Rated R, one scene of strong violence; otherwise pretty mild
2 hrs., 38 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 16 comments
December 31, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Dear Mr. Snider,
I have seen this film and largely agree largely with your positive review. However, it is irresponsible of you to give away a MAJOR plot point that is revealed only at the end of the film (i.e., Daniel Plainview's true relationship with his son, H.W.). It is important to that film that no one in the audience actually know this until the end. Please do your readers a favor and either delete or re-write the four sentence in your review or put a note that says "spoilers ahead" to give people fair warning.
December 31, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Stuart, I think you missed something. We know all along that H.W. is not Plainview's son. We see him first as an infant belonging to one of Plainview's workers. When that worker is killed, Plainview takes the baby.
January 19, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Daniel Day-Lewis will win the Best Actor award come Oscar time. I sat there in the multiplex stunned with amazement. I could sum There Will Be Blood in one word...
WOW!
January 24, 2008 at 1:18 am
Just saw “There Will Be Blood” and I have some questions that I would like someone smarter then me to tackle. Why might the Sunday family names be Eli, Paul, Mary, and Abel? With my limited biblical knowledge, I cannot think of any allusions that this movie might be referring to; however, it is hard for me to believe a heavily layered movie such as “There Will Be Blood” would have these names (as well as the family’s surname “Sunday” being a holy day) just to highlight the families religious zeal in such a superficial manner?
[SPOILERS]
My second question, does anyone have any theories about the movie’s themes? My personal opinion is that this movie is about power. The most prominent figure who represents power is Daniel who claims to his half brother Henry that he has a “competitive drive” in him that makes him treat people the way he does. Daniel is so competitive for ultimate power that he loses it and horrendously alienates his son, in the final scenes of the movie, when Daniel finds out his son is going to own a drilling business in Mexico; hence, become one of Daniel’s competitors. Paul is a “wayward” son who sells out his families secret oil stash in order to make a quick buck and it is later found out that he became a somewhat powerful oilman himself. Eli wields religious power over the town, in which one scene practically shows the town following Eli with their heads down (blindly), as if they were sheep following a sheep hearder. Abel was a major pushover which was very apparent when Eli took over the “negotiation” process with Daniel. Also, it was quite apparent when the Sunday family was having dinner; Abel and Eli at the heads of the table, but it became obvious who was the head of the family when Eli jumped on his father and belittled him in front of the family calling him “stupid.” Such a pushover is Abel that the only person he can exercise power over is his young, innocent (Virgin Mary?) daughter, whom he beats.
January 24, 2008 at 11:16 pm
I basically got one theory towards the end of the movie...
Money doesn't lead to happiness.
January 25, 2008 at 4:45 pm
To John S:
I just saw There Will Be Blood and it seemed to me to be a Faustian Bargain: gain the world lose your soul. The fun part was to see the theme equally laid onto the so called religious Eli character. On the macro level it looks like a blow to the concept of savage Capitalism (see current corporate greed and monopoly) and the Greed of organized religion - which both get a beating and "amen" to that.
A poetic film with a strong point of view. Bravo!
February 3, 2008 at 5:27 am
[**SPOILER BELOW**]
I was disappointed. I found the movie disjointed and lacking any clear theme. There's loose concepts of money, greed and capitalism destroying Plainview. But Plainview is not a noble, virtuous fella seduced by oil into a conniving, ruthless, manipulative and deceitful anti-hero. He's that way from the outset.
It's unclear how money and power change him at all. As he tells his brother, he's always been bitter at humanity and only seeing the worst in them. Those views don't become stronger with greater wealth and influence. His ruthlessness doesn't grow b/c of money & power. Yes, he kills his "half-brother" but only because he's enraged: it's not greed that causes him to kill, it's anger that Henry deceived him.
There's of course the running theme of corrupt and phony organized religion occasionally conflicting with Plainview's capitalism. But to end the movie by exposing Eli's "false prophet" status and humiliating and berating him literally to death seems to end the story on a subplot.
IMO, the Plainview character does't really develop throughout the movie so much as reveal the more of the same qualities.
February 10, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Spoiler Beleow: Daniel Day Lewis is one of the best actors of the 20th century, "PERIOD"! He literally deserves the Academy Award for every film he decides to act in. That being said, "There will be blood" without Lewis is an average film at best. The moral of the movie is simple, Money doesn't buy happiness.
February 21, 2008 at 11:36 am
I saw this film as I saw Mitt Romney: all the ingredients for a successful film/candidate, but it/he still did not click as authentic. Just because the plot underscores the woes that befall he who is driven by greed and brooks no interference in his search for wealth, it did not create the gripping, life-changing film that appeals to me (Ordinary People, Diner, As Good As it Gets, Lars ATRG to name a few). I suppose I am in a small minority is so stating, but TWBB was a waste of my time and money.
March 4, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Why do people always need an underlying, predictable theme in a movie, otherwise they're not happy? To quote the person above, "I found the movie disjointed and lacking any clear theme." Okay, so? What's the problem, you will not understand the movie unless predictable themes are laid out for you? Yes, he was that way from the beginning, and that is what I found to be the best part. Isn't everybody getting tired of good, noble, righteous men (who I dont believe exist in real life), who get corrupted by "evil" money, (as if we didnt all need money in this world to survive)? I know I am, that is why TWBB was one of the best movies I've seen. It doesn't sugarcoat humanity's flaws and blame it on money.
March 6, 2008 at 7:25 am
Marcos, do you truly believe that seeing this film was a waste of time and money? If so I can only imagine the thousands of dollars and those of time as well that you've blown with most of the garbage/movies that are made. I hope it's not so.
I too expected a bit more from TWBB but I believe that's due largely to the fact that I saw No Country prior to it.
Also, whenever two movies are released around the same time and wowed over
(TWBB more so for DDL's performance than picture) the way these two were
most of the general public reacts the same way, expecting one to be as great as the other. You didn't mention No Country but is it safe to assume you saw it in close proximity of the time you saw TWBB?
In my opinion A waste is a bit much.
DDL towered in this role. Although some didn't see any I enjoyed seeing a bit of Bill "The Butcher" Cutting in Plainview.
March 6, 2008 at 8:47 am
The first five minutes of There Will Be Blood reminded me of a mining moive I can't find.
Does anyone know the name of the movie about two guys who go mining for gold/silver and end up trying to kill one another? The bad of the two is determined with greed to find gold where there isn't any and the other guy loses it and they try to kill one another. This would have been in the '70s or '80s.
One late scene in this unknown film shows the better of the two falling down a mine shaft into mud down below. He screams, "Mud! There's nothing down here but mud!" and flips out.
The opening music of There Will Be Blood sounded much like Kubrik's The Shining. Any takers?
March 27, 2008 at 3:23 pm
finally got to see the infamous There Will Be Blood... Daniel-Day Lewis' performance was top-notch. He takes well to the overbearing, violent father-figure role -- he also did this in Gangs of New York.
April 13, 2008 at 9:07 am
SPOILER ALERT
From what I remember, all scenes in the movie feature Daniel Plainview, either he is a witness/close by or we are witnessing him...all except when Eli tackles his father at the dinner table.
This obvious exception to the rule must have larger meaning. Why would the director keep this one scene in if the POV is different...it is a bit jarring, and intentionally so...did anyone else notice? Any theories?
April 22, 2008 at 11:14 pm
All of the obvious takes on the film mentioned above are true. The script, direction, acting, cinematography, and music were fantastic. But, the key to the story is in the name of Eli's church, The Third Revelation. Reading the first three chapters of the Book of Revelations will clear up much of the so-called disconnection many feel about the film.
Check for: the Alpha-Omega, those with ears shall know the word, those who will be known by two names, and the one who shall take the right name.
And then rewatch the bowling alley scene very carefully. Listen to everything that Daniel Day Lewis says.
Anderson did a great job. It's a cryptic piece of film making.
"I am the third revelation!"
June 9, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Just saw this last night thanks to Netflix!
I'm a little confused on Eli's character:
It's Paul Sunday that comes to Daniel to tell him about the oil...
It's Eli Sunday that's still there in Little Boston...
Are they the same person? Like split personality? Or are Paul and Eli two distinct and separate people? My wife and I think that Paul and Eli are the same (physical) person with two separate personalities...