01-07-08 by dugan
After seeing "There Will Be Blood" this weekend, I left wondering why it put oil wildcatter Daniel Plainview’s explosive personal tale in such narrow focus. In the real world, early in the last century Big Oil was eating wildcatters like Plainview for lunch. Plainview could bribe politicians, but corporate oil money could get a president (Warren Harding, 1920) elected. Kind of like today.
It’s hard to imagine the Big Oil of that period as a bit player, but Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) simply brushes off the hatted and suited execs. There’s nary a mention of the Standard Oil Trust or John D. Rockefeller, though oil industry control of the railroads does get one toss-off phrase.
In "There Will Be Blood," Plainview lives scenery-chewing hard and gets unhappily rich, yet leaves little mark on the world. The oil business, despite all the spewing crude and personal danger, seems almost quaintly tame. Though the movie pays homage to "Citizen Kane," Daniel Plainview never reaches Kane’s heights, so what happens afterward matters less.
"Blood" could have been for oil what "Chinatown" was for the water wars of California. With a bigger frame, the outlandish characters would have meant more. Daniel Day-Lewis and director Paul Thomas Anderson may win prizes this year for "Blood," but it won’t be remembered a generation later like "Chinatown."
For a longer look at the missing political frame of "Blood," check out Tim Noah’s piece on Slate. He sees it as a "halfterpiece," not a masterpiece.