There Will Be Blood: Sketches, Fragments, and Other Half-Baked Ideas

I'll admit it – I've become obsessed with Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood, easily the best film of the year. It's been burning inside my brain for weeks now, and I've spent countless hours dissecting Anderson's stylistic, thematic and directorial nuances, for I believe this to be that rarest of things – a perfect film. There isn't a wrong note, or single unnecessary moment, shot, or line of dialogue throughout. I've made several attempts at writing a proper review of the film, but just couldn't come up with anything sufficiently cohesive (or coherent, for that matter.) Though I've seen the film twice already, and have had some wonderful discussions with several other fans of the film, there are a handful of disparate threads regarding influences, allusions and allegories that I've not been able to tie-up. Rather than remain silent, I've decided to post some of these miscellaneous thoughts in the hopes of encouraging discussion. What follows are notes I've jotted down at various moments, thoughts that occurred to me while in the shower, or connections I thought of on the subway. I'd love to hear your thoughts and comments, even if it is to tell me I'm completely insane about any of this. I'm treating this as a work in progress, and I may add or remove sections over the next few days. [Note: Spoilers follow!] BUSH / POLITICAL ALLEGORY One question that's been nagging me is whether or not Anderson is consciously engaging in a bit of political allegory. With a film about an oil tycoon set at the intersection of industry and religion ("When ambition meets faith" is the film's official tagline), it's hard not to think of both Bush 41 and 43. Like Plainview and son H.W. (as in Herbert Walker, or mere coincidence?), the Bush father-son team also made their millions in the oil industry, and control of the precious liquid has resulted in actions that mirror Plainview's, but on a much larger, global scale. What almost convinces me of a political agenda is Anderson's inclusion of There is Power in the Blood, the Protestant hymn which George W. Bush stealthily quoted in his 2003 State of the Union Address, a wink and a nod to his fundamentalist base. Bush's line, "there's power, wonder-working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people" is an unquestionable twist on the hymn's repeated refrain, "There is power, power, wonder-working power/In the precious blood of the lamb." At the same time, however, There Will Be Blood speaks of the triumph of business over religion, which is certainly contradictory to the current state of affairs in Bush's America, where the two have become increasingly intertwined. When Plainview first speaks to the people of Little Boston, he employs standard political rhetoric ("the children are the future") and then unsurprisingly fails to follow through on his promises. After successfully obtaining the land from the pious Sunday (natch) family and cheating them out of a fortune, Plainview becomes something of an authority figure over the community, having power such that he can put an end to the beatings that patriarch Abel Sunday inflicts on his youngest daughter Mary for not praying enough – the first of his triumphs over faith, which will continue for years until he announces "I'm finished" after snuffing out the final vestige. But what are we to make of this ultimate triumph, nearly twenty years in the making? Anderson doesn't play favorites – there's equal corruption on both sides, and neither Daniel nor Eli are particularly worthy of our sympathy. Daniel's contempt for Eli's church is palpable, but he'll play the game, which includes public humiliation, in order to achieve his goals. Eli will in turn do the same thing. Is the final confrontation simply one man versus another, or do they represent something greater? Eli is a charlatan, and a self-confessed sinner. Is Daniel's destruction of the false prophet merely fulfillment of biblical prophecy? And where's the political allegory in this? (Sigh.) KUBRICK Anderson has always worn his influences on his sleeve, and just as Boogie Nights owes a debt to Scorsese, and Magnolia to Altman, I'm convinced that There Will Be Blood is his ode to Kubrick, and in particular 2001: A Space Odyssey (and to a lesser extent, The Shining). Thematically the two films couldn't be more different, yet there are Kubrickian elements throughout. Let's begin with the simple. MUSIC There are traces of Penderecki and Ligeti (two composers whose work can be found in several Kubrick films) in Jonny Greenwood's magnificent score. Compare Ligeti's pre-credit opening sequence from 2001 with Greenwood's track, Henry Plainview. Ligeti - Overture-Atmospheres Jonny Greenwood - Henry Plainview STRUCTURE Like 2001, TWBB is broken up into distinct, inter-titled sections which indicate leaps in time. Both films open with lengthy sequences that play out without a single line of dialog – 2001's The Dawn of Man, TWBB's 1898 – and both end with a discovery that results in advancement. The mysterious monolith in 2001 leads the apes the discovery of tools (which will ultimately lead man to space), while Daniel Plainview's accidental discovery of oil advances him from battered creature in a hole to successful oilman. (Yet as we later learn, a suit and wads of cash makes him no less a monster.) TONE/THEME Like many of Kubrick's later films, TWBB is filled with a sense of imminent dread, and fear. It's an extremely tense film, yet a slow burn, like The Shining. Societal alienation, a staple in Kubrick's work, is also at the forefront here. SHOTS (Unfortunately, I don't have a screener of TWBB, so I can't properly illustrate as I'd like.) The final sequence in TWBB is the only one not set on the plains, in a wooden shack, or in a hole in the ground, and the difference is as severe as the post-Jupiter scenes in 2001. There are two establishing shots of Plainview's mansion:

The first is vaguely reminiscent of the grand lobby of The Overlook hotel in The Shining. The second, of a bowling alley, calls to mind the room that Dave Bowman finds himself in after the Jupiter sequence. Speaking of that scene...

...here we find Dave Bowman who, like Plainview, is now an old man, alone in what appears to be a stately home. True, his meal is a bit more dignified than a steak on a bowling lane, but the similarities are interesting. Then there's the final scene of There Will Be Blood, which takes us right back to the opening of 2001:

Daniel Plainview dealing with his adversary.

A reminder once again that the title of this post does refer to half-baked ideas. Please feel free to contribute your thoughts below, or the number of a good psychiatric hospital.

Comments

[drbue]

In addition to Mr. Krubick I think that Mr. Malick's "Days of Heaven" plays with simular: pacing, shoting, and sustains of violent tension; this seems to be an influence, if it is, that has yet to be hit upon, but seems to TWBB's nearest cousin.

[Tim]

The fact that the last scene takes place in a bowling alley seems like a very distinctively Kubrickian conceit, incongruous but somehow oddly apt. Kubrick ( a very good chess-player himself) liked to structure confrontations between characters as games--Clare Quilty putting on boxing gloves to face Humbert in Lolita, the chess game with HAL, the card games and duelling in Barry Lyndon, the long verbal fencing match around the pool table in Eyes Wide Shut, etc. It also reminds me strongly of the bathroom conversation in The Shining, what with the striking symmetrical compositions and stark white-and-blood-red color scheme.

[David H. Schleicher]

What a great discussion. I, too, have not been able to wrestle THERE WILL BE BLOOD out of my mind after two viewings. It's strange how many have been afraid to tackle the political allegory aspect, but I think it's quite obvious and worthy of further discussion. One commenter mentioned maybe it related to Bush but also served as a premonition as we are still in that unholy alliance stage of religion and capitalism right now. I allude to this in my review of the film, but it only scratches the surface.

http://davethenovelist.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/a-review-of-paul-thomas-andersons-there-will-be-blood/

Again, thanks for discussing this film from that angle, and I think all of your Kubrick comparisons are apt.

-DHS

[Phil]

I have to completely agree with the 2001 connection. The instant I saw the opening landscape and heard the score I felt a serious connection. I did not think of the last portion of the film being connected to the 'captivity' portion of 2001 but I am sure they are connected.

Also the first 15 minutes or so of 2001 contains no dialog just like the opening 10 minutes or so of TWBB. I think you can also make a serious connection between the blackness of the monolith and that of the oil.

Lastly on a slightly different note I believe a lot of the film is supposed to be a parallel to the history of the American movie industry.

The movie starts off silent (the silent era), we even get a moment where we see a bit of oil on the camera lens, perhaps this suggests the immaturity of early filmmakers.

As well when Daniel and son arrive to the town where the Sundays live, we watch as the camera uses the town's train tracks as a dolly track while panning through the entire town. The town looks like an early Hollywood set, reminiscent of Buster Keaton or something.

As well much of the imagery of the actual Oil derricks and the tripod Daniel uses for surveying the geology reminds me of a camera/camera operator.

I am anxious to view the movie again so I can see if there are other parallels or if I am just nuts and this is coming from nowhere.

Feel free to shoot me an email if anyone has their own view on this (disagree or agree).

Thanks,
Phil

[Nicholas G]

An adopted son, recast with an older actor, returns to confront his broken father after years of mistreatment toward the end of the film.

I totally got the feeling that Blood had more parallels with Barry Lyndon than any other Kubrick film. The final freeze frame on the crippled Lyndon seems to pack the same punch as Plainview lying in the gutter.

[Chris LaRoche]

Anderson also uses the music of Arvo Pärt in this movie (The Piano + Soloist version of Fratres is front and centre during the 'deaf' scenes).

[susan lesser]

Dar All: i am really anxious to know which of Arvo Part's compositions was included was on the soundtrack. One writer( on another link) said it was Fratres but i recall seeing Sonata for Cello and Piano when the music credits rolled. Was it one or both or...? any reply would be welcome.thanks.susan

[Randy]

Geysey = Monolyth (penis in this movie, vagina in 2001)...

Plainview (nice name...and he has no apology about who he is...he has a plain view of humanity because he's truly authentic) is human nature manifest (Strangelove, 2001, Orange, Full metal, etc) and his obsession is innate. He doesn't speak much because he's too busy with self-talk striving to fulfill that obsession.

As Kubrick stuff, the desire to protect/survive/fulfill ironically turns to violence and as Kubrick he's trying to expose the truth about humanity.

Geyser blows (orgasm)...that gets celebration....draws blood from his 'brother' and Eli...that gets relief (bowling pin is a penis).

[Ben]

For me, the film plays tonally in much the same way as The Shining. As I took it all in, that Shining comparison just kept creeping back into my mind. I'll have to see There Will be Blood again to see if it all sticks.

[Dude]

2001?? I mean all good filmmakers have absorbed Kubrick as much as possible. But the film itself is totally unlike 2001.
2001 is an abstract work about human spiritual evolution.
This film is much more like Citizen Kane in that it 'shows how the sausage is made'. The kind of people that pull strings , and how twisted they have become and how they got there.

[cinemoose]

It would be hard to compare Paul Thomas Anderson with Kubrick. After all, Kubrick was a very meticulous director with a lot to say while Paul Thomas Anderson is barely competent filmmaker with nothing to say. As much as he would like, just imitating shots and camera angles of other famous directors will not give his film any resonance. That you have to earn the old fashion way, through hard work and good storytelling. I've written a rant about how a lot of people have gotten caught up by the hype of There Will Be Blood without really thinking it through themselves. Read it here: http://cinemoose.com/there-will-be-blood-and-the-emperors-new-clothes/

[brian]

Wow. What a brilliant film. And I'm so pleased I ran across this site.

The whole way home from the theatre all I could think about was the similarities to some of Kubrick's best work. It's clearly evident that PT Anderson was paying homage in full form with this film, drawing strong parallels from a stylistic and cinemagraphic standpoint. Elements of 2001 and The Shining were most evident in my opinion. From Kubrick's trademark compositional symmetry, to the forced perspectives, to the first person point of view, to the use of vacuous landscapes and interior environments, to the musical scores. The still camera filming the opening sequence, the scene where Daniel is centered in the foreground watching the drilling tower burn in the distance, and the final scenes that take place in the bowling alley were all vintage Kubrick. Amazingly I'm not even sure that in my opinion Kubrick's finest film Clockwork Orange, Kubrick was able to capture the tension and internal turmoil of the protagonist as well as Anderson does with Daniel in There Will Be Blood. That speaks volumes about the power of this work.

PT Anderson always pays homage to his sources of inspiration and in many ways in an overt way. See a direct pastiche of famed German photographer Andreas Gursky's supermarket images in Punch Drunk Love.

At the end of the day, Anderson delivering his own uniquely remarkable film and again proving his stature as one of the relevant filmmakers working today.

[lance]

Did anyone else pick up on the Odd Nerdrum imagery, specifically when Plainview and son are lying down together covered in oil and mud and Plainview sits up and gazes skyward?

http://i221.photobucket.com/albums/dd47/awk9876/art2.jpg
http://casoual.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/odd-nerdrum-dying_couple.jpg

[Brandon]

"An adopted son, recast with an older actor, returns to confront his broken father after years of mistreatment toward the end of the film."

I'd just like to point out that, Kubrick aside, the above statement, with a few words rearranged or taken out, describes every one of PTA's films (except maybe Punch-Drunk Love).

It's hard to differentiate the new from the old;
I'm of the opinion that PTA is a great filmmaker simply because all these influences seep into his work in a way that the audience can interact with them, whether he intended them or not. He is creating something new from lots of separate, old elements (I believe that is what some people define as "postmodern").
You know how some people call Quentin Tarantino an 'idiot savant' of cinema? PTA might be kind of like the same thing without the 'idiot' part.

[markw]

I just got back from seeing it, typed "there will be blood kubrick" into google and your review was at the top of the list. 2001 and The Shining indeed.

[yolande welch]

One of the best movies of all time and appreciate all the comments on this site.

Could you please tell me the title & composer of the classical music that was played in this
movie, especially at the very end.

Many thanks

[HarryTuttle]

Anybody noted the "quail hunting" reference: Plainview's excuse to secretly prospect the Sunday ranch for oil? Later on, Plainview "shoots in the face" his "brother". Dick Cheney anyone? This can't be a coincidence...

[Chuck]

Your comments are interesting. I disagree with your labeling of Plainview as a monster however. I think the character is complicated and it's slightly dismissive to attribute the motives for his actions to him being a monster.

[Hurley]

I just saw the movie on DVD and I'm a bit late to the party, but I'd like to pick up on the Kubrick theme. The first thing I typed into google after seeing the film was "there will be blood kubrick" and this page came up.

After reading your analysis and the comments posted I have concerns over the extent to which Anderson 'borrowed' from Kubrick. At what point does paying hommage to a great director go to far? Is this film an original? To me, it felt like new and exciting material packaged in an old box.

Greenwood's exhuberant, energetic score that closes the film was the last straw for me. Kubrick put his signature on this technique in "A Clockwork Orange." The ending felt too familar and really dulled the impact of the movie as a complete, independent work of art.

I still believe that this is a magnificent film. One that is easily called great. But, like Roger Ebert, I am not so sure of it's greatness.

[Angel]

Great blog! How can one person know sooo much about film? Looking forward to learning more.