Don't take it from me, but, honestly, this was a great year for the movies. I didn't love everything rewarded during last night's Oscar telecast (did "Once" really need ALL that music?). But the movies I did love, I loved like crazy.
At the top of the list for me is the oil epic "There Will Be Blood." Daniel Day-Lewis won best actor for his portrayal of the film's Daniel Plainview, who, Day-Lewis said in his jagged and slightly poetic acceptance speech, "sprang like a golden sapling out of the mad beautiful head of (writer and director) Paul Thomas Anderson."
"There Will Be Blood" has been compared, rightly, to "Chinatown" and "Citizen Kane". But I'm fascinated by its use of religious themes and its treatment of faith, including its harsh representation of Eli Sunday's "Church of the Third Revelation." So, I looked up S. Brent Plate, who teaches religion and the visual arts at Texas Christian University, and recently co-edited "The Religion and Film Reader."
Plate wrote an essay called "There Will Be a Nation," that compares "There Will Be Blood" to D.W. Griffith's classic, and that I highly recommend. Here's a transcript of our Q & A....
ME: I've poked around the web a bit and it seems that in discussions many people thought that religion was represented cynically, grotesquely. You think so or is that too simple?
PROF. PLATE: A particular revivalist and fundamentalist religion was cynically represented (as it is, importantly, in Sinclair's novel). But P.T. Anderson also knows about the power of myth and ritual, and is keen to include such facets in his films. I mean, lets face it, every other successful Hollywood (and independent) writer/director is drawing on millenia of storytelling powers, and those powers have traditionally been the privilege of the religious groups.
Religions know how to tell damn good stories, and this is why they survive. And this is why its so useful for novelists, artists and filmmakers to draw on religious aesthetics (like rituals and myths) to relate the worlds they wish to relate to their audience. Look at the number of successful films that have drawn quite directly from the basic structure of a Hero Myth, and you'll see why these religious stories are important. "Gladiator" and "Finding Nemo", "Braveheart" and "Shrek", and dozens of others, are all structurally hero myths.
Anderson is critiquing a certain kind of religion. I don't doubt that. But he's also using religious categories with which to do it. Myth can critique myth. Thats the power of these religious stories.
ME: This is a film with not one but two pretty heavy confessional scenes. One confession in a house of worship, the other in a house that greed built. Are both religion and capitalism indicted in this movie?
PROF. PLATE: Yes. Both are indicted. But there's also a precursor scene in the movie. Early on, Daniel is in the oilfield, talking to has associates and Eli Sunday walks up, asking for his money. Daniel slaps him around, throws him down, and then smears (let's say "baptizes") his face with oil. It's a religious action that draws from a scene very early on in the film in which Daniel "anoints" his newly adopted son with crude oil across his forehead, not unlike an Ash Wednesday crossing, or puja to a Hindu goddess. So, these scenes begin with an anointing with oil of "H.W." by Daniel, which later becomes a baptizing/humiliating with oil of Eli by Daniel, which turns to a baptizing/humiliating with water of Daniel by Eli, which ends with a bloody murder of Eli by Daniel.
All these scenes must be seen in a connection. Oil is blood is water is oil, and round about again.
ME: I loved your reading of the biblical brother thread in the film in your essay. Why do you think Paul Anderson did that?
PROF. PLATE: Here, too, twins -- brothers, doppelgangers, shadows -- make for great stories, and (that's) why they keep showing up in religious traditions around the world. Think of Thomas Anderson, played by Keanu Reaves in "The Matrix", a made up name, and one thinks quickly about "Paul Thomas Anderson," a given name. "Thomas," which itself means "twin" (the apocryphal "Gospel of Thomas" makes intriguing illusions to Jesus and Thomas being twins), and "Anderson" literally means "son of man." That P.T. Anderson was given such names might have made him think.
I may be digging too deep here, but I actually give Anderson credit here, and think he's thought through all this. I mean, come on, he's got an initial novel by Upton Sinclair with a basic storyline. He follows some of it, but not most of it. We've gotta ask, what didn't he follow and why? Daniel Day-Lewis plays "Daniel Plainview" in the film (the novel has his name as J. Arnold Ross) just as Day-Lewis is quite famous for somewhat "becoming" the characters he plays. Meanwhile Paul Dano plays "Paul Sunday" and "Eli Sunday" who seem to be twin brothers (the books names them "Paul" and "Eli" and they are brothers but not twins and and their last name in the book is "Watkins" -- opposed to the "Sunday" which is quite obviously a direct reference to the great early twentieth-century evangelist preacher "Billy Sunday.") Their father is "Abel" (also so named in the book), a famous brother.
These mythically tellings of siblings/twins/dark sides work because it is every one of us. We're all ultimately split, confused, about what to do, who we are, and where we should go.
ME: I felt like the movie was sort of a cautionary tale about the corrupting power of ego and individualism. But you said in your review that it was more than just about individualism, but about a nation. What do you mean?
PROF. PLATE: Well, what we've got here (the US) is a nation built on a myth of individualism. By "myth" I mean its full positive sense in that myth provides a sense of identity, connection to the past, to tradition, but also orients us toward the future. We simply can't live without myths.
So, we've got a nation founded on the idea of the individual, the self-made man. There is no better filmic representation of this than Monty Python's "Life of Brian." Brian is a reluctant messiah figure, around the time of Jesus, who people coincidentally begin to follow, looking for answers. There's a hilarious scene in which people have gathered at Brian's window to seek advice. The crowd wants answers, ways to live their lives. Brian says, "You are all individuals!" And the crowd responds, "Yes, we are all individuals!" The irony is wonderful. When everyone parrots the same thing, it paradoxically denies the very individuality people believe in! (check out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQqq3e03EBQ ) When masses of people stand up and say "I am an individual," then they are reciting a creed, an agreed upon doctrine by many people. Of course, this is just what occurs in contemporary US life, everyone believes themselves to be individuals.
So, yes, its about the ego and individualism, but its also damning of that very nationalistic mythology that says we are individuals. And it is especially condemning of those that are "more equal" than the rest.
ME: If you were teaching this film five years from now would you teach alone or teach it in a cluster of other films?
PROF. PLATE: Nice question! I think I'd teach it alongside "Birth of a Nation", for reasons i state in my article on the topic. I'd also show it alongside The Matrix. Its about mythology, and about how we collectively make meaning of our lives in response to the stories and questions and answers from old.
Email Me | Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Comments (11)
Yes, "Once" needed all that music, because, um, it was a musical.
April 29, 2008 11:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on April 29, 2008 11:37
In the conversation about the importance of brothers in the movie, I found one thing absent: a discussion of Cain and Abel. I can't quite work through the complications of it — of Anderson's representation or the complex original — but it's worth some thought.
For me, There Will Be Blood is a needed companion-piece to Magnolia, a film whose thesis was the lack of connection, of meaning, in life and people's seemingly intertwined existence ("It's just something that happens"). It embodies this nihilistic philosophy in Plainview and has him let loose - he is Individual ambition, feeling no affinity for people he doesn't share blood with, though they are could-be sons and brothers, fellow humans at least. He is Cain, cutting down any competing Abels, and asserting that he is nobody's keeper.
Blurring the lines of blood relation is one of Anderson's key thematic accomplishments. Plainview only wants to be connected to people he thinks he's obligated to care about — the almost touching beginning scenes with his "brother" — and abandons "these... people" to which he thinks he isn't connected to. The epilogue scene with H.W. underscores it: he abandons his son because he thinks the son is false: they are not connected by blood.
I would like to think Anderson is arguing that all are "brothers," thereby eliminating the capitalist and individualist strains that trade care of humanity for care of self or narrow family definitions. It's fitting that Eli Sunday's last line is "We are brothers," and after his death — when Plainview has destroyed all human affiliation — Daniel says that he is finished.
February 26, 2008 3:53 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 26, 2008 15:53
Individualism = Bad
Religion = Bad
Capitalism = Bad
Sounds like a kind of propaganda -uh- I mean movie I would produce.
-Uncle Joe
February 26, 2008 10:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 26, 2008 10:36
The Matrix for Dummies
Neo - Ego (as Son of Man)
Trinity - Anima
Morpheus - Shadow
Smith - Self (as Adam, the Man)
Ego becomes inner Self, demiurge (Architect) looses power over mankind.
February 26, 2008 8:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 26, 2008 08:39
Professor Plate seems to suggest that the Hero Myth is an exclusively religious idea. It seems more likely to me that stories of heroes would have preceded religious concepts such as gods, god, reincarnation, heaven and hell, creation myths etc. Human beings are naturally inclined to remember and re-tell heroic tales. Surely before the aforementioned concepts were conceived archetype and circumstance had united to create a real life heroic epic.
Also I think it is important to make a distinction between mythology as represented by realistic movies like "There Will Be Blood" or "Birth of a Nation" and the mythology of more fantastic movies such as "Star Wars" and "The Matrix". The former two movies are in some way more similar to Christian mythology in that they are fairly realistic scenarios while the latter two movies are more akin to Hindu or Greek mythology in that they are more abstract.
There is some to evidence that suggests the latter type of mythology is more compatible with modern society. A new study released Monday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life shows that that Hindus in the United States "claimed the highest retention of childhood members, at 84 percent." Further anecdotal evidence that suggests abstract mythology's compatibility with contemporary western culture comes from the new religious movements that are based on popular movies. To my knowledge Jediism and Matrixism (based on Star Wars and The Matrix respectively) are the only two religious movements to have been created from Hollywood motion pictures.
Why is it the case that abstract mythology seems to have a better hold in modern America? My theory is that myths are naturally useful to people as models and that in a world of accurate and comprehensive knowledge non-abstracts with supernatural or improbably aspects appear fundamentally flawed. Abstract myths however are not so obviously discongruent and are thus more easily integrated into a modern world view.
February 25, 2008 11:28 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 23:28
Thanks for a thoughtful article.
February 25, 2008 7:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 19:24
This might be off topic - but to answer your question 'did "Once" really need ALL that music?'. The answer is yes - the whole movie was about music and the beauty and purity of music. The redemptive power of music.
The real question is why were the the three formula boring showtunes from Enchanted even up for an award. Hehe.
February 25, 2008 2:44 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 14:44
To John Forgione: I think you are not accurately describing how the movie depicts religion. The religious characters in the movie are not stereotypes. In the movie, the vast majority of the congregation at the "revivalist" church are very sincere in their beliefs. They are not hypocrites at all. It is only their preacher/leader who is a fake and a hypocrite.
Also, the fact that the movie doesn't have a positive, happy-go-lucky character to counter Mr. Plainview's uncaring brutality and greed is no reason to declare the movie "wrong" or unworthy of praise. It might be not to your taste, but it certainly was realistic in my view, and very praiseworthy. I think the book by Sinclair was more nuanced and complex in detail, character and themes, but the movie was still very well done and interesting.
February 25, 2008 2:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 14:37
This movie provides such a delightful slap in the face to the god-fearing types. I could not help but let out a soft, sinister chuckle when i saw that ending.
February 25, 2008 2:14 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 14:14
"There Will Be Blood" was a fine film, but I think your commentator is being too polite. The filmmakers simplified the story in ways that lost the message, and substituted, from what I can tell, a strong anti-religion message that is not precisely what Sinclair intended.
The movie, by attacking religion and capitalism, caught only a piece of the spirit of the novel, which was not about oil as such, but about the plight of the workingman trying to unionize, and about the ways that (in Sinclair's view) the bosses and the preachers held them back. The main conflict between the oilman (Ross in the book, Plainview in the movie) and his son was over the relationship of labor and capital. The movie, by omitting this conflict entirely, leaves the impression that the only problem with the father is that he was not a nice man. The film also omitted Sinclair's very strong views on the complicity of the government, Hollywood, and (especially) the press in keeping the worker down.
The ending of the movie, working hard to show Eli to be a hypocrite, seemed to miss the point of Sinclair's depiction of Eli. Sinclair's Eli is not obviously a fraud; he is, rather, a weak man, unable to live up to what he preaches. Indeed, at key moments in the novel, Sinclair leaves us to guess whether Eli is lying or not (a particular deathbed confession, an allegation of an affair with a young woman). In this sense, Sinclair treats the link between humanity and hypocrisy more respectfully, and thoughtfully, than the bizarre blunderbuss fired at the end of the film.
February 25, 2008 2:09 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 14:09
I saw the movie. To me it's is a very negative movie. I enjoy a movie that will on occasion lift my spirit. I believe that the director would have been better served to place the dark evil character of Lewis against a good uplifting person, whether he be a minister or not. To me, the director was smearing religion, especially born again Christianity. It's the typical hollywood view of people of faith. I've been around people of faith for most of my life. I am a person of faith. I am flawed as are all but none to the degree of the character in the movie. It's the hollywood stereotype of people of faith.
February 25, 2008 12:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted on February 25, 2008 12:37