There Will Be Blood

[nemo]

Turning point in the west of the USA: Industrialisation changes the whole land at a breathtaking pace.
It`s oil which feeds the greedy machine of this (?) time. In a few weeks some courageous men make thousands
of dollars or ruin themselves when they don`t find the expected oil reserves.
Daniel Plainview, The Oilman (Daniel Day-Lewis), is one of those gamblers:
He`s cunning, funny, manipulating, charming, ruthless...am I hearing the P - word here?
Plainview begins mining in a small town when he is confronted by the young fanatic preacher Eli (Paul Dano,
the Nietzsche-fan from Little Miss Sunsine), who hinders his progress at every step, leading Plainview down an extremely dark path.
This superb character study is greatly helped by fine acting, direction and photography.

The excellent low-key score is by Radiohead guitarrist Johnny Greenwood - it`s the best soundtrack I`ve heard in ages!

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia, Punch Drunk Love).
Adapted from Upton Sinclair´s anticapitalist novel Oil! (1927).
This film is too good for me to find adequate words to describe it. Classic? Masterpiece? You decide.
Disclaimer: 160 min.

Trivia: Was nominated for best movie, but lost to No Country For Old Man. Day-Lewis won Best Leading Role Oscar
for his pathological portrayal, while Javier Badem won Best Supporting Role Oscar for his psychopath Chigurr in No Country...(!)

 

[rise]

Spoilers in my post so forewarned!



I drink your milkshake!(leech sucking your life away...) OK, not only did Daniel Day-Lewis portray the businessman psychopath(snakes in suits? sadly I have not had the chance to read this yet) there was also the preacher who was brainwashing all of his churchgoers! While watching this movie I could not stop thinking about psychopaths at all.
You brought up No Country for Old Men, and I think it also portrayed the psychopath as well, but the character Javier Badem played was more what I think the PTB want people to think psychopaths are, an insane person on a killing rampage for no reason. While there might be some like this, the majority are probably more like the one in There Will be Blood, the businessman who only answers to money and has no remorse for anyone -- I've talked with a few people I know about the end scene and some said they thought it was a dream. This I completely do no understand because it REALLY brought out the psychopath character that they were trying to show, it seemed like really the whole point of the movie to me, but maybe thats because of this site and its what I was thinking about... Maybe I've taken it too far, but he was driven, didn't care about others, and always had to eliminate the opposition with no remorse for his actions -- especially when he kills his 'fake' brother. He then turns right around and 'repents' to the church because he was caught ONLY so he could gain more power and money! Seems to me he definitely was trying to portray a psychopath.

I will definitely watch this one again, kind of long but well worth the watch, extremely well done in all aspects imo, way more interesting than No country for old men I thought.

 

[OzRich]

While watching this movie I could not stop thinking about psychopaths at all.

You are absolutely right ! A friend brought a copy couple of weeks ago, and while watching it I thought: 'what a portrait of a psychopathy!' I don't think however, that I would've picked it if I wasn't 'familiar' with the subject.
Movie is well worth watching for its convincing portrayal of psychopathy.

 

[nemo]

-- I've talked with a few people I know about the end scene and some said they thought it was a dream. This I completely do no understand because it REALLY brought out the psychopath character that they were trying to show, it seemed like really the whole point of the movie to me, but maybe thats because of this site and its what I was thinking about....

That wasn`t a dream. It was the epilogue

I don't think however, that I would've picked it if I wasn't 'familiar' with the subject.

But if you are "familiar" with it, you`ll pick it up even by watching only the trailer:
_http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount_vantage/therewillbeblood/domestictrailer1/

 

[rise]

That wasn`t a dream. It was the epilogue

I know, I was just saying this is what other people I know in my area thought it was because they had no understanding of psychopathy...

 

[nemo]

rise,
I didn`t misunderstand you. My apologies for my unintentionally curt or offhanded reply.

 

[rise]

No, its ok, I probably didn't articulate myself very well in my original post.

I just watched the trailer you posted as well, I never actually saw it before seeing the movie. I would have to agree that if you are "familiar" with it(psychopathy), you'll pick it up by watching the trailer...

I look at people and I see nothing worth liking.

I see the worst in people.

I have a competition in me, I want no one else to succeed.

I can't keep doing this on my own, with these 'people' *laughs*

 

[TOTEM36]

woke up this morning with this movie on my mind for some reason,
saw it about 2 years ago and just found that someone has already created this thread. This movie captures something about the struggle of man vs man, and man's fragility against the elements, that not many others have been able to. check it out.

 

[SethianSeth]

I'm glad someone started a thread about this film. I saw it back when it first came out and was blown away by the craftmanship of the thing - everything from writing, score, cinematography, performance. But I hadn't yet looked into psychopathy when I first viewed it, so this particular lens was missing. After having reviewed the film this week, I would suggest that it is among a handful of movies (The Bad Seed being the first that comes to mind) that can be viewed as an extremely useful tool toward understanding not only individual psychopathy, but also the way different types of psychopaths "work together" to hold up pathological systems. In short, it is a worthy companion piece to Political Ponerology. I will share this film with folks that I know won't take the time to delve into Lobaczewski's work initially.

*spoilers ahead*

The opening 20 minutes are wordless. I think they can be viewed as a deliberate reference to Kubrick's opening scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey. In this case, we are directly witnessing the psychopath's gradual diverting a natural energy resource into a tool for manipulating people (in the context of early industrial America). No true creativity apparent - simply redirecting something people already "had" in a way that makes these people unwitting energy sources themselves.

The opening sequence also allows the discussion as to whether Daniel Plainwell is an Essential Psychopath (born that way) or a Characteropath, formed by brain damage acquired in the harsh conditions he was facing alone.

One incredible key, executed without words entirely, is to subtly show that after the only crew member who has a baby dies in an oil well accident Daniel Plainwell takes it on himself to care for the child. What becomes clear, as the film progresses, is that any altruistic reasons for such an action are our own projections. The bottom line is: Daniel Plainwell took this child as "his own" as a deliberate strategic maneauver to "soften up" the ordinary townspeople he would have to be dealing with later. His utter contempt and disregard for his "son" is totally revealed in a much later scene.

As the film progresses, we see how essential psychopaths and scizoidal psychopaths can be "symbiotic" without teaming up overtly. Daniel Plainwell is psychopath as predator. He does whatever is necessary to sustain an illusion of altrusim, doing many significantly "good" things in order to obscure his real goal, which is to get the hell out of there after having milked a maximum. He discards his prey and moves on to the next target.

The preacher (Scizoid) is the psychopath as parasite. His function is the steady drainage of energy over the long term, but his paranoia actually seems to obscure this from his own awareness to the point that he sees his manipulation as "good for people" in a genuine sense, even though it is truly only to quell his own inner turbulance. These two men's goals are similar enough for them to "allow the other" to continue because it supports their own ends, but there is an agressive and competitive/posturing relationship that only these two men see. They identify each other clearly, see mutual benefit, and yet in no way are they "partners." The preacher never drops his invented persona, speaking from a moral pov the whole time. When he tries to bully Plainwell using the moral persona, Plainwell cuts right through the BS by reminding him that it is HE that will make these hills spew gold. The preacher's silence speaks volumes in this moment.

The whole idea that psychopaths "see" one another, and are attracted to cluster in heirarchical structures is also demonstrated when Plainwell's "brother" shows up at his door. This is a man pretending to be Plainwell's brother in order to hook some work from the more successful manipulator (he took posession of the real brother's diary after he died, and memorized it for useful information. Interesting, that!), and initially Plainwell's response to his presence is stunning. The monologue a drunk Plainwell launches into, fully revealing what role he expects his "brother" to fill, as well as his total contempt for humanity and need to escape out of the mask from time to time, is one of the best "from the psychopath's mouth" type speeches I have ever seen committed to film. The way Daniel Day Lewis calls the villagers "these people" makes it frighteningly clear that this creature considers himself to be of a different species than the pathetic humans.

There are a lot of other great examples in the film, particularly the now famous "I drink your milkshake" speech, and I invite those more adept at articulating the dynamics of pathology to check it out if you haven't yet. After viewing it again, I had the thought that it may be worthwhile to eventually have a cache of films that correspond to the various topics in the "recommended reading" list from the QFG, as many people I know really do use film as a learning tool and not just an excuse for dissociation. It isn't a proper replacement for the academic reads, but instead a doorway to seeing the necessity of articulating/understanding a topic more completely. It might be a bigger task than is worth it, but I know that this forum has a lot of useful films that get recommended (The Matrix, The Bad Seed, V for Vendetta, etc) and an organized list could be valuable.

 

[treesparrow]

I had the thought that it may be worthwhile to eventually have a cache of films that correspond to the various topics in the "recommended reading" list from the QFG, as many people I know really do use film as a learning tool and not just an excuse for dissociation. It isn't a proper replacement for the academic reads, but instead a doorway to seeing the necessity of articulating/understanding a topic more completely. It might be a bigger task than is worth it, but I know that this forum has a lot of useful films that get recommended (The Matrix, The Bad Seed, V for Vendetta, etc) and an organized list could be valuable

Hi Sethian Seth, you may find a couple of old threads of interest -

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,2515.msg17059.html#msg17059

http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,6495.0.html

 

[SethianSeth]

Thanks, Treesparrow! Of course there are already threads based on what I was talking about. What forum do I think I am on?

I'll take a look through these and see if there is anything I could contribute. Looks like great lists so far. I'm particularly interested in "psychopaths in movies where they don't kill."