“There Will Be Blood”: An Awesome, Timely, (Political?), and Perplexing Film. **SPOILERS**

[Mike03]

Was anyone else particularly haunted by this film? Even though "There Will Be Blood" works on the spectator in a more subtle way, I found this film nearly as mesmerizing, artistically thrilling, compulsive and visionary in its way as “Apocalypse Now” was in its way, for its time. There is a surreal, hypnotic quality to the entire work that I found stunning. Lewis’s performance is almost supernal; I felt that I had not seen anything like it since Meryl Streep’s depiction of Sophie in “Sophie’s Choice.”

However, like great films should, it left me filled with questions—many of them rhetorical; some of them not.

1. The political timeliness of the story and themes of greed, selling out, oil, acquisition by any means, betrayal (and counter-betrayal). Maybe this question is naïve, but is this the intention of the director—to use a period story to say something about the United States at this moment in history?

2. Even though the religious theme was prominent, I personally didn’t understand why it was necessary to include it in this film. What is the filmmaker trying to say about the relationship between the evangelist and the oil tycoon?

3. Related to question 2, why is the natural climax of the dramatic arc of this story for Plainview (the tycoon) to kill Eli (the evangelist)? Is this a symbolic way of asserting that even evangelism will not impede corporate greed, no matter how corrupt both of them are? Or is it something more down-to-earth or obvious that I’m missing?

Inexplicably, I found Plainview empathetic, in spite of the fact that he is just as—if not more--disgusting than Eli. And it’s not because Plainview’s more brutally honest about what he is and what he does, because Eli believes what he believes just as sincerely as Plainview believes what he believes. It seemed to me that as the film progresses, more and more clues emerge as to how he was himself wounded in exactly the same way he wounds his “son.”

4. On a practical note, do you think the boy is his son or not? (I think it is, based on early scenes in the film—but this is pure speculation.)

I'm on the verge of grasping the point this film is trying to make, but it keeps eluding me. It seems to be quite complex on many levels, and the moment I make an assumption or reach a conclusion, I remember some element of the film that would obviate my conclusion. That is probably the sign of a great movie.

I don’t believe that “Blood” is entirely without flaws; the third act, particularly the final scene, bewilders me for its length, rambling speeches and lack of focus. But I continue to think about it; maybe soon it will make sense.

I would be interested to know if the film resonated with others here.

[Bicoastal]

1. DRAINAGE!!!

[Mike03]

2. Thanks for the picture.

This is one DVD I'm buying the day it comes out.

[Lautremont]

9. I drink your milkshake. I DRINK IT UP!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. I loved it.

"1. The political timeliness of the story and themes of greed, selling out, oil, acquisition by any means, betrayal (and counter-betrayal). Maybe this question is naïve, but is this the intention of the director—to use a period story to say something about the United States at this moment in history?"

I don't think so. This movie will be saying the same thing 50 years from now that I do today.

"2. Even though the religious theme was prominent, I personally didn’t understand why it was necessary to include it in this film. What is the filmmaker trying to say about the relationship between the evangelist and the oil tycoon?"

No evangelist, no epic revenge.

"3. Related to question 2, why is the natural climax of the dramatic arc of this story for Plainview (the tycoon) to kill Eli (the evangelist)? Is this a symbolic way of asserting that even evangelism will not impede corporate greed, no matter how corrupt both of them are? Or is it something more down-to-earth or obvious that I’m missing?"

I don't think it's about impeding corporate greed, I think it's about impeding Plainview.

"4. On a practical note, do you think the boy is his son or not? (I think it is, based on early scenes in the film—but this is pure speculation.)"

Clearly adopted from the mine worker that was killed.

[lurky]

4. delete

replied to the wrong post.

[lurky]

5. "I AM the Third Revelation!"

I loved the movie.

I thought the conflict between the tycoon and the evangelist was brilliant. Basically, they are two sides of the same coin, IMO. They were both con artists appealing to people's hopes and fears to gain power.

I thought the whole movie was an amazing allegory for the history of the United States: the uneasy alliance between religion and capitalism to gain control over a land and a people. The same tension goes all the way back to the first colonists in this country, when you compare the pilgrims at Plymouth with the speculators at Jamestown.

You can see that tension today in the Republican coalition between the Wall Street conservatives and the Bible Belt conservatives. The Huckabees of this world should look at what happened to Eli in the movie and take note: the money guys are just using them to keep the people in line, and will discard them as soon as it is convenient.

[Mike03]

7. Excellent comment!

Damn, your insight seems to make a lot of sense.

Why do you think in the context of the story Eli is allowed to humiliate Plainview? Plainview seems to feel real remorse about abandoning his son, yet at the same time I felt that Plainview was insincere during that scene.

Maybe the question I mean to ask is, Do any of you think Plainview felt true remorse over the abandonment of his son?

Thanks for you excellent response!!

[Mandate My Ass]

8. Spot on

Just as the religious leaders of Old Europe glommed onto royalty, I felt the movie touched on all the ways unscrupulous people in the New World fleeced the sheep by preying on their need for survival and hope for a better tomorrow. Eli needed Plainview much more than vice versa, but when Plainview thumbed his nose at Eli, he wasn't entirely powerless.

For the OP, the kid was definitely not his son and I doubt he ever felt even a glimmer of remorse for dumping him the way he did. He took him back solely to escape the ongoing harassment of Eli. IMHO, It was damage control, nothing more. :shrug:

[leftofthedial]

6. just as in the bush gang

the bible thumpers and the murdering oil thieves used one another to fleece their respective flocks--their fortunes are entertwined--they are doppelgangers in a sense. In effect, they both die at the end of the film. Eli beaten to death, Plainview dying of alcoholism and now being guilty of murder.

not his kid


damned intense film--and funny as hell to boot