Alienation in “There will be Blood”

“The alienation of man thus appeared as the fundamental evil of capitalist society.”

Karl Marx

Capitalism is an ever growing maw, that takes from nature and hordes for itself. Mark Fisher, author of Capitalist Realism once wrote, “It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism”, but under that lense one must turn an eye to how it became so dominant. In the seminal work of Paul Anderson, “There Will Be Blood”, we see exactly how capital accrues, destroys the family, perverts human sentimentality, and destroys any all competition.

Primitive Accumulation

Daniel Plainview was a capitalist in the most primal sense. That is not to say he was without emotion, only that success is what drove him. Adam Smith, The Father of Capitalism, posited primitive accumulation as basically the merit of a worker being rewarded. The tenacity to succeed, the drive to push through obstacles. The audience can see this in Daniel at the onset of the film. He’s a prospector for silver in New Mexico and risks life and limb for his early earnings, he then leverages them into the starting capital for his oil drilling company. This is, however, only one interpretation of the idea.

Another could easily see this primitive accumulation for what it was at the time. Daniel wasn’t any more scrappy than the people who lived on that land before him, his claims to the land were backed by the fact the natives had been run off the land and allowed him to destroy nature itself to reap profits. His “ingenuity” came from stumbling upon oil before others in the area could and then rapidly expanding to seize up as much of the land as possible by any means possible.

Over the course of the film, the audience sees just how the mode of production incentivizes anti-social behaviors, the desecration of the sacred, the dissolution of the family, and the ways that it destroys an individual.

Destruction of family

“I’ve Abandoned My Boy!”

One of the more important relationships in the movie is shared between H.W. and Daniel. Some have interpreted their relationship as purely a facade crafted by Daniel to play the role of a family man, but that can’t be completely true because after H.W. loses his hearing Daniel does his best to try to get him healed up.

It’s when H.W. has a possible replacement, namely Henry, Daniel’s supposed brother, that Daniel gives up on healing H.W. and sends him away but even then. He takes care of his son, as opposed to cruelly abandoning him to the wilds. He does in part take care that his son is educated, and able to lead a successful life despite his impairment. That said he’s not an overly affectionate father and he doesn’t do nearly enough to repair their frayed relationship.

In their final interaction, Daniel disowns H.W. screaming he’s nothing but a bastard in a basket. But, how is that even remotely true? How could the only father the boy knew to discard him so easily?

If one looks at the logic of Daniel, the logic of Capital it becomes clear. Daniel views him as explicit competition to his enterprise and as such views him no longer as the boy he raised but as an enemy to be subsumed and destroyed. The “family” is gone, destroyed, and in its place, the zombie of capital. A machine of perpetual growth that seeks more and more to fill its cavernous maw.

Exploitation

Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that’s a straw, you see? Watch it. Now, my straw reaches acroooooooss the room and starts to drink your milkshake.

Daniel Plainview speaking to Eli

Eli Sunday, played by Paul Dano, is the antagonist to Daniel representing the religious caste but also the nascent petit bourgeoisie. He aspires to Daniel’s level and is destroyed by his failure

The setting of “There Will Be Blood” is at the turn of the century in California. Daniel is positioned as the enterprising oil man with a coy facade of a family man. He uses the facade to try to buy land cheaply.

This is the rub, he doesn’t need to do this. He can more than afford to pay a fair rate. But this is where the exploitation becomes clear.

One can argue that exploiting the resources of an arguably empty area is fair game. It’s another entirely to come to a land with the intent of undercutting the people who live there. Granted said people were only there because of the American state cleansing the land of the indigenous people in the area but that doesn’t mute the point that Daniel is explicitly conniving. He uses every trick in the book to get all that he can for the lowest price possible even though he could more than afford to deal fairly with the people of Little Boston, so why doesn’t he?

Greed is one element of it but also, the nature of business is to mitigate costs and maximize profits. The name of the game is to get as much as you can however you can and as such the “suckers” are left holding the bag.

When Eli comes to see Daniel on bended knee and is subsequently killed by him, he is already defeated. Daniel’s cruelty could be read simply as a means of disregarding a useless tool. Eli had caused Daniel a grievous insult, but the violence brought to bear was disproportionate.

Except for the fact that at this point he could do it. Through all his dealings, Daniel had become mad with power and at the pinnacle of his power, his enemy, his competition comes to him begging for aid. He is crushed as competition is crushed under capital.

Alienation as a plot point

I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed. I hate most people.

Daniel to his “brother” Henry

Daniel throughout the film is shown at his economic lowest and highest alone.

When he’s just a scrappy silver prospector, struggling to survive, he’s alone. It is through community however he grows his business, but after decades of growth, he’s alone, aside from his butler.

What does it say that all meaningful connections for Daniel were destroyed, what does it say that his core driving principle was wanting to be away from people, to be isolated, and when he gets that it’s still not enough for him?

A popular idiom is that it’s lonely at the top. But, the way that one makes it to that proverbial top can show why said person is lonely. In the case of Daniel, he lashed out at any betrayal, any slight, any act made against him with indignation. Reading him as an avatar for capital, Daniel exists to consolidate power. He is not happy with some of the money, he needs all of it. He’s not happy with some of the land, he wants all of it. Although, even when he’s offered the missing land, it doesn’t matter to him. He doesn’t need it more than he needs a greater sense of satisfaction that comes from humiliating Eli.

“I’m Finished.”

At the end of the film, after murdering Eli, and driving away H.W., getting all the money he could’ve ever wanted meant nothing to Daniel Plainview. As a person, he found himself addicted to the greed allowed to him through Capitalism.

But could he have made another decision? Was a better world possible for him? Surrounded by the friends and family he had driven away? It’s easy to think that individuals are shaped by their greed and that if that impulse was tempered, they’d be better people but also fundamentally different people.

Daniel was always a greedy, self-serving individual, Capitalism just allowed him to fully indulge his worst tendencies. But, that doesn’t absolve him or the system. His greed came as a direct result of how he was incentivized, to discard useless things, and to stay driven solely toward the accumulation of endless resources.

His ending was the only ending possible from the moment he found the piece of silver at the beginning of the movie.

An empty solitude stained with the blood of his enemy and false kin but also the scorn of all who knew him.

What do you think? Leave a comment.