Happiness was irrelevant to him. He’s a pretty hate machine. If there’s an overwhelming message, it’s that capitalism separates people from one another; Plainview is capitalism personified, more or less – that’s his job – and his personality is wholly antisocial. He says he only wants money to get away from people. In the end he gets what he wants, and he does seem content with it, but it’s his usual lasting malcontent. God, I like this film more every time I see it.
“Happiness was irrelevant to him. In the end he gets what he wants, and he does seem content with it, but it’s his usual lasting malcontent.”
Yeah, but I was thinking that that is the basic definition of a person that has become stupid. In other words he has turned into a non-human. He missed misses his last oportunity at redemption by making his son his enemy. Don’t you think that you have to be pretty stupid to react that way?
If one regards love as something important, then yes, Plainview is downright antithetical to it. He’s barely human. He’s a true misanthrope.
Well, it’s possible that Plainview doesn’t “know” what makes him happy or that maybe he is ‘happy’ in a way that’s different from what most people would say. As far as making his son his enemy, I can’t really understand why definitively. Immediately afterward he gets a flashback of when H.W. was playing around near the fields and showing Daniel pretty happy [well, considering how he is for the rest of the film that is]. At best, maybe due to his deafness, Daniel felt extremely distant from him. But also, when he says something like ‘You have none of me in you,’ I wonder that Daniel does acknowledge his misanthropy, greed, etc. & that for H.W.’s sake he wants to cut off his connection to him. To let him go, so to speak.
Josh S.
Would you really call that happiness?
That flashback seems to be the only happy moment in the film and I think at that moment he understands that he will never feel that again. And during the flashback its clear that the moment was created by H.W. and not by Daniel.
But dont’ you think thay maybe the point of the film was that capitalism makes you so stupid that you forget what happiness is?
Berjuan, there’s a vital distinction to make, here, I think: Plainview created capitalism, not vice versa. Plainview is archetypal – he undergoes no change/growth whatsoever in the film. He’s an unscrupulous opportunistic misanthrope who is put in America at the turn of the century, and this is what he does.
I think the point of the film is that capitalism, in its purest form, leaves no room for love.
Though despite all these words, I haven’t said one word about Eli and Paul Sunday. What’s their relevance in a juxtaposition to somebody like Plainview?
I see Plainview and Eli as two sides of the same coin. The same with Eli and Paul.
So then, could you say that capitalism comes from stupidity if it leaves no room for love?
One could say that :) Capitalism ensures that some will succeed while others will be unable to. Maybe this is the system mankind needs right now in our history…? It came about and took over, and it’s not like it happened overnight. Lars von Trier condemns America for the number of people it ‘leaves behind.’ I think those people, who are now a significant part of the population, represent capitalism’s dirty little secret. Will be interesting to see what the next 100 years bring. Will the lower classes cede? Civil War part two? Unlikely – the rich will easily subjugate. I dunno. But it will make people malcontent and more desperate, and things will only get worse.
But I’d like to elaborate more on Eli and Paul. Eli, by the end, is as much of a wreck as Daniel. Perhaps there’s no message more than knowing that each system these men dedicated their lives to had failed them.
Erm, well we’re somehow applying the word “stupid” to everything in this thread, but I think the application is categorically unrelated. I mean we’re talking about likening capitalism as being part of some lesser form of intelligence which is such a simplified perspective that it just disturbs me. However, that all said, even though the OP obviously has a very singular view on this, I’d say that capitalism just mirrors life. Entropy and capitalism are rather one and same aren’t they. Is it this ideal that causes men to strive for success? Or is it something that only favours the rich and successful – and while on that the nagging question of: Is this a bad thing? I think there’s valid arguments for both sides.
Look at Plainview as a metaphysical being, not as a citizen of a up and coming country with great natural resources. I think the real issue here is not about success, but about metaphysical wellbeing. Plainview was a_very_ successful man, yet he could not find happiness. I feel that he was too stupid to see the true value of things, and maybe his stupidity was a symptom of this new way of life, this new distraction called capitalism.
“Plainview is archetypal – he undergoes no change/growth whatsoever in the film.”
This couldn’t be more wrong. Watch the film again. The Daniel Plainview of the final moments of the film is very definitely not the Daniel Plainview of the opening sequences. Compare his playful bantering with the Standard Oil men who arrive in Little Boston soon after he has acquired it (“Are you telling me how handsome my son is?”) to his furious encounter with other oilmen (“I’m going to cut your throat.”). Plainview’s descent into murderous madness couldn’t be more clearly established.
And by the way — Sarah Palin is stupid. Daniel Plainview is not.
Entropy and capitalism are rather one and same aren’t they.
However liberal we think of ourselves, let’s not just go around just assuming everybody is anti-capitalist.
And for the record I too wanted to remove the S-word from the debate, but edited the sentence in which I suggested it. I realized that “stupid,” here, simply means “one who lives a life in which love and relationships are a low priority.” For argument’s sake, I tentatively agreed that Stupid could be fairly applied to that mentality.
If stupidity is defined by “not seeing the true value of things” then we’re all stupid. We’ve all wasted opportunities that could’ve made us happy. Humans have done this since capitalism and they’ve done it before. I think I see where you’re coming from, but I can’t honestly say I agree. Perhaps PT Anderson mentioned something about this in an interview or something?
But continuing in this vein, as someone previously mentioned, Plainview wasn’t concerned with happiness. I think he had a fondness for his “son” early on because the boy looked up to him and, at that time, wasn’t a threat to his success. I don’t think he really cared for the boy beyond his own selfish inclination (and that selfish inclination not being love … which is a more preferable form of selfishness). And never in the film is Plainview portrayed as having any form of emotion similar to happiness. I’m not sure if he even knew what it was to begin with.
EDIT: So as not to create a new post, I’ll put this here (though some have commented after this) … substitutions for “stupid” in describing Plainview: “arrogant” and I suppose you could throw “narrow-minded” in there as well.
Berjuan: For me, no I wouldn’t call it happiness. I disagree that’s the only happy moment in the film, I can think of a few instances where he could be said to be ‘happy’ or at least showing some sort of caring/compassion if only for an instance, most of them involving H.W. No the moment wasn’t created by H.W., but it did make Daniel feel happy at the time didn’t it?
However, I think I’m seeing that your point is more that Daniel isn’t doing anything for himself to be ‘happy’ which is probably true.
To be honest, I don’t think of the film in terms of capitalism. Not that the comparisons aren’t applicable, but it’s just not what comes across to me when I watch it. I agree with Deckard though, ‘stupid’ doesn’t seem like the right word to describe Daniel. Afterall, there are many people who are driven towards or simply do things that seem detrimental to their own ‘happiness’.
@Berjuan: Again, I posit that Plainview was not looking for happiness. He was only looking to alleviate that which pained him: other people. He didn’t seem like a particularly reflective fellow, so I kinda doubt he thought much beyond “getting away from others.” Obviously you think Daniel’s value judgments are ‘stupid,’ (you also claim to see “true value of things,” which is a greater claim than even Plainview would stake) but I do not. They’re way messy, no doubt, and they leave him unhappy. Stupid, though…?
@Roscoe: Thank you for that lecture. I guess watching the film a few days ago didn’t leave much of an impression. I’m so stupid sometimes.
I’m glad Miasma brought my attention to this. In regards to Roscoe’s earlier post, I’d have to disagree. Plainview is the same person from the beginning of the film to the end (it’s just a higher frequency that he’s playing at by the end). The only difference is that in the beginning he wasn’t completely alone and I think that was the only thing keeping his madness in check (barely). By the end of the film he is literally alone and at that point, he’s just like, Fuck it, what’s the use pretending?
Roscoe, how is Plainview not stupid?
Croix,
I think the name “Plainview” implies another term that is used to refer to people who have lost their cognitive abilities, and that term is “simple.” But PTA has not talked about this, its just that I was thinking about Plainview’s personality and it struck me that his only excuse is stupidity because he refuses to give credit to his emotions. I think at the end when he screams (one of my favorite lines ever) “Bastard from a basket” repeatedly he is in a way trying to kill his love for HW. He kills his corrupted spirituality by later killing Eli.
^ I would agree about the name. Plainview to me implies “a narrow perspective”, in that Plainview is only after one thing and only one thing concerns him. Success is his only motivation and that is only to fuel his egotism. He is simple because he is singularly focused … that’s just my take though.
Deckard, you’re my buddy. Yeah, I agree. Imagine Plainview in that house. Imagine being a servant there. My god.
@Berjuan: Hm, I dunno… you’re implying that Plainview had a semblance of spirituality to begin with. I simply think there isn’t a shred of evidence for that… -Deja vu- (just had it – talking about Plainview killing HW’s love for him…). That I dunno about either. You’re giving Plainview more credit than PTA does – which is admirable, you’re assuming he is a living human being with a heart. PTA, no matter how he felt, only gave us so much evidence in his film. Plainview couldn’t be further from pathos.
I really have liked this film more every time I see it. But I am sorry to say that, through this discussion, it’s appearing that PTA may have painted an inhuman portrait in Plainview… lacking a dimension… but perhaps not. Maybe I just haven’t met somebody so removed.
Miasma: That’s interesting, ‘cause I’ve had almost a completely oppoisite reaction to Daniel each time I watch it. While I agree there is a pathos within him, I always see him more as ‘troubled’ than inhuman. However, I seem to be in a minority. ;)
Well, I don’t think many would argue that he’s pretty deeply troubled… he just doesn’t seem to acknowledge it. Unfortunately I can empathize with the man (there’s a big fat misanthrope inside me). Somebody like me or Daniel might posit that we’re all troubled. More minorities…
Miasma — you’re not stupid. You just missed the point of Plainview’s progression.
Berjuan, it just seems ridiculously reductive to refer to Daniel Plainview as “stupid.”
Miasma: Or at least that we don’t see him acknowledge it, there’s the possibility he covers up his troubles around others since he’s rarely ever alone. I do empathize a little since I occasionally feel the same way & I find the relationship betwen him and H.W. fascinating because it’s had, I think, many varied responses from others.
Roscoe – You don’t know if I’m stupid or not. You also don’t know if I missed any point.
Plainview is simply unfettered capitalism personified. Are you saying that capitalism is stupid?
It’s interesting to compare the experience of watching “There Will Be Blood” with “The Fountainhead”. Both show a certain kind of vision of capitalism.
In one, we see how a pure capitalist can be oblivious to engagement with others and miss out on human emotion and empathy that are a part of our experience. In the other, there’s only a concern with being right and gaining power and connections with others on a genuinely emotional level isn’t dealt with at all. “There Will Be Blood”, in a sense, shows you all the things that don’t matter to Plainview and, in the end, why they matter.
Plainview isn’t stupid – he gets everything he wants. Better watch what you wish for.
Miasma,
When we watch a movie we have to assume that the people we are watching are equal to us. In order for the movie to work you have to identify or not with the characters. I gave Plainview the benefit of doubt that every character deserves and hold him to the same standards.
Roscoe,
But he acts that way, as Mr. Croix said it he has a “simplified perspective”
Josh S.
I see his relationship with HW as his chance at salvation, but then the way he reacts to him going to Mexico it just makes no sense.
@ Randy, “Plainview isn’t stupid – he gets everything he wants. Better watch what you wish for.”
But he has no idea how to use it and thats stupid.
i think hes just a mean man, isn’t that enough of an explanation?
Berjuan: I didn’t see their relationship as an attempt at salvation. As far as the split, as I said, I think Daniel wanted to let him go, possibly seeing what he was, and didn’t want H.W. to be like that.
Berjuan
I was just thinking about this character the other day and I realized that he was possibly the stupidest man on earth. By that I mean that he wasted every opportunity he head to obtain true happiness. What do you think?