There will be blood starts off with almost 20 minutes of silence. We learn how the main character, Daniel Plainview, abandons silver mining for the oil industry. He meets a young man who tells him that his family could easily be fooled to sell their land, under which oil is flowing. Presenting himself as a familyman, a little boy at his side, the rest of the villagers are gulled into making leases for a far more timid price than what it is really worth, taking into account the possibilities of oil findings. The character of Plainview could easily be a pastische of greed and general contempt for humanity. Towards the end of the film, I really had some doubts about the dramatic turns of the story and the way the film repeatingly presented Plainview's actions of greed in different settings. The ending, however, convinced me that the story is not so much about a morally corrupt individual, but the film is, rather, an allegory of (American) capitalism, a form of economic (albeit human) exploitation, exemplified in the interaction between Plainview and the other characters. Some reviewers have bemoaned the very dominating role of Plainview and the lack of illustrations of the nexus of capitalist institutions. But it is, I think, wrong to see the viable alternatives as "a presentation of social history" OR "individual psychology". In that way, There will be blood is a challenging film. Almost any scene in the film can be, or so it appeared to me, read on a more general, metaphorical level. I won't indulge in puny interpretations here, but I doubt that it is a mere happenstance that Plainview's kid is deafened in the accident on the derrick.
In an industry ruled by self-made men and the American dream, There will be blood is a rare phenomenon. I tried to come up with some Hollywood productions that deals with the subject of capitalism, but I can't recall any films like that from the last twenty years. Except for American Psycho (but is that Hollywood?). I haven't watched Syriana. Any suggestions?
4 comments:
I can think of several: Fight Club is an obvious one. What was the one with Micahel Douglas about wall street? It's been ages since I've seen that one, but it certinly dealt with capitalism.
Syriana is more about Amreican foreign policy, and, obviously, oil, but not so much capitalism per se IIRC.
It think there are quiet a few, but there will be blood is still remarkable. Not the least because no matter how horrible the Plainview character is, the real capitalists (the standard Oil People) are still worse.
Yeah, you're right. Fight club is an excellent example, so is Wall street (the M. Douglas movie you're probably thinking of.). The Gordon Gekko character - "greed is good!" is, of course, a classic.
Hi Writer person
1)Thanks for a wonderful blog.
2) What do you mean by: "I won't indulge in puny interpretations here, but I doubt that it is a mere happenstance that Plainview's kid is deafened in the accident on the derrick."?
I don't get it. What is the "deeper" meaning of Plainview's kid going deaf? (Otherwise i agree with your review - and I get an urge to watch the movie again, even if it is a very difficult one to watch.)
- Alberto Juantorena
I was thinking of how the kid's inability to hear could be interpreted - if one is really up for an allegorical reading - _in relation to_ the way capitalism and greed "makes us deaf" (in a moral sense).
For me, these associations popped up when I watched about the quiet scenes that were to convey the deaf world in which the kid found himself. These scenes conveyed a form of quiet observation. I thought about this as a contrast to Plainview's _moral_ deafness - he could, in a literal sense, hear others speak, but he treated others as mere tools for achieving his personal objectives (= business).
In a later scene, the kid, now grown up, visited his father. He was accompanied by his assistant. He told his father that he would pursue a career of his own, he wanted to start his own company. Plainview wanted to hear nothing of that (he wanted no competitors). "You cannot speak", he said to his son. And that made me think of the way powerful tycoons and businesspersons, in much more subtle ways, try to convince less powerful actors that "they cannot speak", that they have no authority to speak, no mandate.
Capitalist "speech", in the film, was all about bribery, deception, bargaining (cf. the relation btw. Plainview & Eli the preacher - both tried to bribe each other into "speech", confessions, deals, contracts, etc.).
I am rambling, of course. Perhaps this point is way too far-fetched.
Post a Comment