For those who have seen "There Will Be Blood" [2007] *MASSIVE SPOILERS THEREIN*

[Tenebrae]

For those who have seen "There Will Be Blood" [2007] *MASSIVE SPOILERS THEREIN*

***SPOILER ALERT***

I recently discovered this fantastic piece of cinematic art, and I absolutely loved every minute of it

When I went to read the critics, however, I was surprised to find that the general consensus, while justly praising Daniel Day-Lewis' incredible performance as well as the stunning visuals of every scene, was that it was a "dark movie" featuring a "villain as the main character".

I did not see it like that at all. To me, Daniel Plainview is quite a heroic figure. He is driven, ruthless, and independent. He is also humble, very hardworking and highly intelligent. He is loyal and responsible to his workers and his family, and shows a great deal of physical courage in the face of adversity.

Speaking of which, he faces a tremendous amount of opposition. His business is new and it shows. He has to battle against the pettiness of his fellow Americans and the greed of wealthy corporate owners who, unlike him, have never worked a day in their life yet still want to reap the benefits of HIS efforts. At every corner, he must face dishonesty, weakness and treachery; he is lied to by all, because they want a piece of his hard-earned success without putting in the effort.

Most of all, his greatest battle and the theme that runs through the whole film is against superstition. The confrontation between this man of reason, who has both feet firmly planted in the crude reality of the American soil, and that caricature of a false prophet, this disgusting, pathetic leech of a man that is Eli Sunday (played by Paul Dano) was EPIC to say the least. Eli lies, puts on shows, manipulates the masses. He encourages weakness, deceives his flock and maintains them in the dark ages. Daniel Plainview is, on the other hand a rational man, who speaks plainly and brings wealth and development to this arid Californian town. Unacceptable for the fanatical and hypocritical Eli who wouldn't turn down the money, yet will not accept to lose the little amount of power he has accrued. In an incredible scrne, he ends up humiliating Plainview in front of a crowd.

He thinks he has won. But Plainview was right all along, and he forgets nothing. When the leech comes back crawling, willing to cast away the most sacred of his so-called beliefs for a little bit of money, Daniel knows he has won. And in an incredibly satisfactory moment of Nietzschean brilliance, he shoves it in his face before splitting his head in half. His last line before the end credits roll is: "I am finished". A lot of critics seem to have interpreted this in the sense of "I lost". But in my opinion, it is quite the opposite. This man, armed only with his willpower, and through hard work, has triumphed over superstition, deception and pettiness. He has succeeded, and his victory is now complete. I see his words more along the lines of "My work is now finished".

To me, Daniel Plainview, far from being a villain, is a Nietzschean hero, the archetypal Übermensch. He is also the poignant portrayal by Daniel Day-Lewis of the American man of that era, who has become educated and confident enough to make it through the harsh reality of his time unburdened by false idols.

I'd be curious to hear your thoughts about this amazing character. Do you agree with the majority of the critics, and see him as a villain? Or do you think, like me, that he is much more of a heroic figure? Or do you have other interpretations to offer?

 

[pdfclszxcmbnvgh]

I saw him more of a villain. Great actor.

 

[TMF Jeff]

I didn't see Daniel as a villain (until the very end of the movie, when I think his single-mindedness has ruined him) but I don't think he was a hero either. I saw him as a person whose obsession ultimately destroyed him.

I saw his loyalty to family as really being loyalty to himself. Once his son stopped being useful to him he discarded him, and you can see at the end that when his son returns, that there is no love between them at all. To me that indicated that they never bonded again after the accident. And while the accident wasn't literally Daniel's fault, it was a casualty of his business nonetheless. I felt it was the movie showing us the cost of Daniel's world, how it breaks everything around it.

And I interpreted his adopting the child as being primarily a cynical move, in that he felt having a son would make him more acceptable to townsfolk in the areas where he needed to work. While he does take a fatherly approach to teaching him the family business, the movie also makes it clear that his son is a tool - he immediately becomes part of Daniel's "pitch" when he tries to convince people to let him drill their oil.

But once the child became an inconvenience, he put him aside and in the film we never see him think about or care about his son again (at least that I can recall, having not seen the movie in a long time.) Once he stops being a useful tool, Daniel doesn't appear to have any interest in him at all.

The relationship with the fake brother was a little more complicated because he did seem to treat him very well until he discovered the deception. But I didn't see it as any kind of demonstration of virtue. He didn't have to murder him, after all. It's not as if the guy was trying to kill him. Daniel was just angry at being betrayed and chose to take the most violent possible action in response.

But I think the end of the movie is where it's made clear that he has allowed his obsession with power to make him into something less than human, especially in his physicality with the way he cavorts around the bowling alley like a fairy-tale troll, and murders Eli - who was certainly not a good person himself, but just like with the fake brother, was not trying to physically harm Daniel.

Committing murder with ones own hands when it's not in self-defense is definitely not a heroic act, and Daniel does it twice. In both cases he doesn't HAVE to kill anyone - he just chooses to, because he's an amoral and violent person.

At the end he was hateful, selfish, and barely seemed human - if you watch it again, observe his body language and facial expressions in the final act of the film. I think it's pretty clear that the movie is condemning what he's allowed himself to become through his single-minded obsession.

At that point, I think he is a villain. And if I was going to define the movie, I'd say it's the story of how an American pioneer allowed his ambition to corrupt him. He had the opportunity to become what you saw in him - a self-made man of means and education. But he gave in to his darker impulses and allowed them to corrupt him. Indulging in small cruelties and petty revenges eventually became literal murder.

I don't think you could really call either of his killings anything other than murder, and I don't think you could call murder anything but a villainous act.

So having written this, I've now talked myself out of my original point of view - Daniel may not have started out as a villain, but over the course of the movie he makes a series of choices, and takes a series of actions, that turn him into one.

 

[Tenebrae]

I didn't see Daniel as a villain (until the very end of the movie, when I think his single-mindedness has ruined him) but I don't think he was a hero either. I saw him as a person whose obsession ultimately destroyed him.

I saw his loyalty to family as really being loyalty to himself. Once his son stopped being useful to him he discarded him, and you can see at the end that when his son returns, that there is no love between them at all. To me that indicated that they never bonded again after the accident. And while the accident wasn't literally Daniel's fault, it was a casualty of his business nonetheless. I felt it was the movie showing us the cost of Daniel's world, how it breaks everything around it.

And I interpreted his adopting the child as being primarily a cynical move, in that he felt having a son would make him more acceptable to townsfolk in the areas where he needed to work. While he does take a fatherly approach to teaching him the family business, the movie also makes it clear that his son is a tool - he immediately becomes part of Daniel's "pitch" when he tries to convince people to let him drill their oil.

But once the child became an inconvenience, he put him aside and in the film we never see him think about or care about his son again (at least that I can recall, having not seen the movie in a long time.) Once he stops being a useful tool, Daniel doesn't appear to have any interest in him at all.

The relationship with the fake brother was a little more complicated because he did seem to treat him very well until he discovered the deception. But I didn't see it as any kind of demonstration of virtue. He didn't have to murder him, after all. It's not as if the guy was trying to kill him. Daniel was just angry at being betrayed and chose to take the most violent possible action in response.

But I think the end of the movie is where it's made clear that he has allowed his obsession with power to make him into something less than human, especially in his physicality with the way he cavorts around the bowling alley like a fairy-tale troll, and murders Eli - who was certainly not a good person himself, but just like with the fake brother, was not trying to physically harm Daniel.

Committing murder with ones own hands when it's not in self-defense is definitely not a heroic act, and Daniel does it twice. In both cases he doesn't HAVE to kill anyone - he just chooses to, because he's an amoral and violent person.

At the end he was hateful, selfish, and barely seemed human - if you watch it again, observe his body language and facial expressions in the final act of the film. I think it's pretty clear that the movie is condemning what he's allowed himself to become through his single-minded obsession.

At that point, I think he is a villain. And if I was going to define the movie, I'd say it's the story of how an American pioneer allowed his ambition to corrupt him. He had the opportunity to become what you saw in him - a self-made man of means and education. But he gave in to his darker impulses and allowed them to corrupt him. Indulging in small cruelties and petty revenges eventually became literal murder.

I don't think you could really call either of his killings anything other than murder, and I don't think you could call murder anything but a villainous act.

So having written this, I've now talked myself out of my original point of view - Daniel may not have started out as a villain, but over the course of the movie he makes a series of choices, and takes a series of actions, that turn him into one.

Thank you so much for this wonderfully detailed reply. I do not have the time right now to reciprocate, but I wanted to drop you a note to tell you that not only do I very much appreciate you taking the time to write such an interesting response, but also that I shall be back to this post whenever I can catch enough time, to properly let you know my thoughts.

 

[HallKogan]

I haven’t seen this, but it sounds like something I need to check out. Your description of this film reminds me of A Perfect Murder with Michael Douglas, Gywneth Paltrow, and Viggo Mortensen.

I won’t go into detail about the plot just in case you haven’t seen it. All three members of the principal cast play their roles brilliantly, and by the end of the movie, it’s debatable as to just who exactly the real villain of the movie is.