There Will Be Blood - Renegade Cut
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 лют 2017
- An analysis of There Will Be Blood and how it relates to Friedrich Nietzsche. Topics include Christianity, salvation and the philosophy of self-interest. Enjoy the show? Want to support it or request an episode? Patreon: / renegadecut
~-~~-~~~-~~-~
Please watch: "Thor Ragnarok - Colonialism in Asgard | Renegade Cut"
• Thor Ragnarok - Coloni...
~-~~-~~~-~~-~ - Фільми й анімація
Daniel's religion is business and Eli's business is religion
Amazing
9 words and you've summed up a huge theme in the movie haha.
Daniel & Eli, both of them are con men, and will do anything to get what they want, And what do they really want? Profit.
@@456rakki define "success"
His relationship with HW is far more complicated than that. I don't think he "took him in" for his own interests; its ridiculous to say he looked at a baby and saw future opportunity, I think it evolved into that but its really shortsighted to say he didn't care about HW. It was the only scrap of humanity Daniel possessed, and even that was eventually stifled by his internal competitive spirit.
He only ever saw H.W. as a business asset. That's why, once H.W. was deafened *specifically due to Daniel's success,* Daniel couldn't use him anymore. H.W. went from being supposed proof of Daniel's goodness to supposed proof of God's punishment for Daniel's hubris - that's how Eli would have interpreted it, anyway, so H.W. had to disappear.
I'd agree with the whole "using him" angle except at the end after calling him a "bastard in a blanket" we see him remembering the times they shared. After H.W. departs at the end so does what was left of Daniel's humanity. Hence,the finale.
I’d argue the finding of H.W. as a baby was a birth in the eyes of Daniel. He saw it as a birth of his business as it began at the same time as he found his material of success. Daniel sees the baby as an asset to this success. It’s unfortunately not difficult to see this character as an opportunist in early days as it is in his later days, therefore the use of H.W. Is a business component to him. Further extending this is perhaps the reason H.W. Goes to do the same thing as his father did, as it’s how he saw success can happen (through oil), therefore he continues the thread of greed to serve his own needs regarding family and success. Both may see it as a selfless act when it suits, but is integral to greed whether they recognise it or not.
If you look closely during the scene that Daniel abandons HW in the train he sheds a single tear. It's difficult to catch it but it is there. Therefore dismissing Daniel as a monster is overly simplistic. I think that Plainview falls somewhere between Man and Übermensch. He has rejected Christian morality and every other externally imposed morality and is trying to come up with his own. The problem is that his different drives are tearing him apart and he is pushed to breaking point. His drive of having a family for example is getting in the way of his drive to accumulate wealth and his drive to insulate himself from the many. Plainview's case demonstrates that coming up with your own set of moral values is a monumental task that can even lead to self destruction.
I strongly believe that the ending is a fantasy/dream.
-eli looks EXACTLY the same as he was 16 years ago ,no beard no gray hair ,no signs of aging at all ,it’s the picture of Eli as Daniel remembers him.
-the whole thing plays out exactly how Daniel wished it ,not only he breaks him physically but he brutally murders him spiritually admitting that he is a fraud.
While this analysis is very interesting and on-point many times, I would claim that it is partly mistaken, because it is based on one-sided interpretation of Nietzsche, one that, often, simply sees that Nietzsche's approval of egotism means complete rejection of altruism, compassion and collective concern. While Nietzsche certainly criticizes these things and aspects of western and Christian culture, it is more about recognizing the functioning of ego behind them, than their outright rejection. In other words, Nietzsche criticizes the way Christianity has interpreted these things, not necessarily "themselves", and he wishes to reinterpret them.
Plainview is not a nietzschean ubermensch character for two reasons:
1. Nietzsche criticized bourgeoisie capitalism and liberalism harshly and sees a society, where the accumulation of capital through entrepreneurialism is seen as the highest virtue and activity, as a sort of a non-culture. Plainview is simply business elite, not culture elite, which Nietzsche would prefer. He accumulates capital, not philosophical or artistic insight and wisdom.
2. Plainview may possess some qualities that Nietzsche would admire and believe to be healthy and necessary for post-God humanity, but ultimately he fails, because the reactive side of his personality devours him. He himself admits that he wants no one else to succeed, that he hates most people and that the goal of his accumulation, his Will to Power, is simply to isolate himself from the people he despises. This is a far cry from what Nietzsche would consider worthy of a potential ubermensch.
While Nietzsche considers the possibility that a certain amount of reactivity, malice, disdain and "evil-mindedness" may be productive and necessary in the general economy of life, he believes we should control reactivity and harness it to serve a more positive goal. Nietzsche often describes the ubermensch as someone, who is so well constituted and so healthy, that this health, this power, manifests itself in overbearing love and a sense of responsibility towards others and humanity in general. A great spirit loves and bestows because of his great ego and wishes to transform and support others as well, hoping they can become "themselves". Even more importantly, the ubermensch does not work for himself, even if he is motivated and driven by ego necessarily. He works and labors for humanity and the transformation of humanity, identifying with this great goal, which surpasses the merely individual. Because of this, Nietzsche often emphasizes "down-going" or "under-going" i.e. the ability and willingness to sacrifice one's own current form so that humanity can overcome, because evolution also requires perishing in some way.
Obviously, Plainview does not operate like this, and is motivated by bitterness, hatred and a reactive desire to dominate. Ultimately, he has only isolated himself, festering in his reactivity, separated from collective life. He is NOT an ubermensch, he is a failed ubermensch.
After watching the video, my girlfriend commented to me that she always saw TWBB as a cautionary tale not only of the dangers of religiosity but also of failed secularism, the failure of creating a new form of "spirituality" to supplant the old Christian values, which now have lost their appeal and credibility. Plainview is plain. There is nothing here but empty, liberal individualism and egotism, focused only on monetary accumulation.
This same reading can be applied in nietzschean terms as well. While TWBB perhaps shows the failure and hypocrisy of classical religiosity, it doesn't necessarily vindicate Plainview's caricatured nietzscheanism either. Rather, Plainview represents the possibility of failure of the nietzschean project, when one fails to create new, healthy values. Plainview is the dark side of Nietzsche, much like Eli is of Christianity. In this sense, Plainview is not an ubermensch. He rather belongs to that side of humanity, which cannot overcome the death of God, and thus succumbs to nihilism and small-minded reactivity.
Sorry if this comment dragged on a little, but I believe this topic is worthy of somewhat lengthy elaboration.
ikosabre so would Elliot Hulse fall under ubermensch
So essentially, Eli and Plainview are two opposites of a spectrum, neither succeeding because both have gone too far?
I agree... it may in fact be what Nietzsche was warning about.
@@busylivingnotdying Yes, but it definitely provides the direction to progress
"I want the blood" is meant for the blood of the earth-the oil.
Religion V Capitalism: Dawn of Plainview
The best film of the 21st century with the best performance of all time from Daniel-Day Lewis. A masterpiece from Paul Thomas Anderson! Great episode!
I don't think that Daniel was purely a selfish businessman, he did genuinely love 'Henry' and HW, but like you said, he drove them away simply because he was obsessed with increasing his own power, and he killed 'Henry' because he was genuinely hurt that he lied to him, you can see him be overcome with emotion when he learns about his real brother and when he drives HW away, you can tell that he's completely broken as of that moment. But he finally got the best of and defeated his enemy Eli.
It's a bittersweet ending, yet it's more bitter in taste.
Daniel is sad and pathetic, a powerless prisoner of his own heinousness. He sees nothing in people because he sees nothing in himself. Great analysis!
No. Daniel sees much in people but it is not good. Show me a good person and I will show you an honest man
Renegade, once again a fantastic analysis.
However, do you really think Daniel used HW only to sell his business? Why then would he care so much that HW "betrayed" him at the end? What use would he have for him at that point? How does Daniel react when HW is injured? Remember where Daniel is holding him? Remember when Daniel is speaking to him tenderly in HW's silence? Why does he get so furious at Tilford during the negotiation? Why does he ask his partner how HW is doing at the school for the deaf?
How does Daniel react when HW lights the shack on fire? How does he react when HW slaps him after returning home? What does Daniel do when HW mentions the girl gets beaten by her father if she doesn't pray? How do they treat each other when no one is around?
And after Daniel says his final words to HW, what scene is played before us?
Daniel is a megalomaniac and ultimately a terrible father, but to say that he has no feelings for HW is wrong.
Ah, Daniel Plainview: still a more sympathetic character than any Ayn Rand protagonist or hero!
Wonderful work as always Leon. Keep doing what you're doing!
Well, I'm not gonna give them oil prices. I'll give them quail prices.
probably the best movie of the 21st century - Day-Lewis' performance is one for the ages - a future classic for certain
I'm so happy to see one of my favorite film critics reviewing one of my favorite Paul Thomas Anderson films. I absolutely love this channel and I admire your insight and your approach to films such as these.
This is one film that I’ve watched several times because Daniel Day Lewis is so mesmerizing in this. Truly one of the greatest performances of all time!
Damn.... my interpretation was that Daniel was just an allegory for capitalism/greed, but yours was much more in depth and philosophical. I appreciate your videos as always! Keep it up!
Every time I watch this film I am more engrossed and engaged. It really is one of those films that gets deeper into you the more times you see and think about it. It has become one of my personal favorites.
DRAIIIIIIIIIIIIIINAAAAAAGE
God I loved this film.
I drink Your MilkShake!!! I drink it all!!
My favorite film of All Time
1:21 Ooh, so there is this from.
great episode as always. thank you so much for helping me understand why i love this movie so much. keep up the great work.
I'm not sure if you are simply using elements of the films scores for each of the essays but you have an ear for music. It's always perfect and never distracting.
Just discovered your channel. Love it. Binge watching like crazy. Thanks
Funny you upload this tonight. Just watched TWBB for the first time since theaters almost 10 years ago and I got on to see if you had made a renegade cut for this in the past
This movie is my bible...
Outstanding work.
Thank you for such a deep analysis and interesting perspective on such a powerful movie.
Keep it up
I don't like what you do, I absolutely love what you do!!!! Keep up the great work;)
Plainview also seemed to descend into madness as well, and his madness reached a climax at the end of the movie when he killed Eli. He didn't have a strong moral ground to begin with, but whatever little he had was destroyed by his unquenchable lust for money, and his disdain for people grew to the point that he casually murdered Eli and utterly disregarded H.W.. What you said makes a lot of sense about Neitzsche's ubermensch, but I don't think Plainview was anywhere near the vision that Nietzsche had. In fact, his character was so weak that I don't see how he could ever fit that ideal. From what I understand, the ubermensch is supposed to have integrity and a consciousness of social ethics to the point that people see this person as a guiding moral leader. This is what makes me think the movie is more about ego and greed swallowing a person whole and destroying their soul, leaving a husk of a person. Not really sure what to think about Eli...I haven't watched the movie in years, but he seemed just as egotistical and morally bankrupt as him, but he used his clergy position to hide his lack of true moral character and just acted the part with complete denial and delusion. Imo, Plainview has more the personality of a sociopath or psychopath, driven and idealistic yes, but these traits do not mean that someone is a worthy leader....esp because his sin (in a Christian sense) or weakness overcomes him and he becomes more like a demon than a god-like figure.
Thank you for another great episode on another great movie.
Oooh, interesting conclusion. really enjoyed this video, great job
best film of the 2000s
Harrison Clark With the best male performance of the 21st century and the best film score of the 21st century.
Well... Plainview does have a very Nietzschian mustache.
Great in depth look at the film. I love that film very much. The video made me question and see into the film more. Thanks.
SUperb work - yet again, Thanks!
I am a new subscribe , Glad to discover your channel
7:56 that was his view of Christianity brother, not all religion.
Good video, thankyou for uploading.
Religion as a concept has a link between morals and the divine, and that's why doesn't make difference the way he sees any religion because all of them have such link, look I'm just saying that we are switching empirical knowledge for faith, little by little, it doesn't mean that's a good thing, it just the way it is.
I"ll definitely check this out
One of my favorite movies!
"Wouldn't Plainview be more of the "Master Man" than the "Ubermench"?
I was just thinking the same thing.
Yeah I was thinking the same thing. While Neitzsche despised slave morality, he also did not support the master morality(perhaps the second biggest misconception about Neitzsche, after the idea that he was a regular Nihilist). He sought for people to overcome both by becoming the Ubermench, one not held down by traditional ideas of good and evil, finding their own subjective meaning and rejecting all objective systems of meaning and morality. The idea that he supported master morality is often drawn from his work The Will To Power, which was not completed before his death and was famously edited by his anti-semitic sister to include more Nazi ideals. For this reason many scholars are skeptical when dealing with The Will To Power since it is not certain which parts are his actual ideas. The Nazi's then co-opted a heavily edited/taken out of context version of his work to defend their ideology, including the idea of master morality.
Yeah. Didn't Nietzsche call antisemites aborted fetuses somewhere?
Also despite the fact that he despised the slave morality he did give it credit for successfully creating a power structure from perceived weaknesses. But today I think there is an irony that those who uphold the slave morality end up internalizing the master morality by attributing their strengths as gifts from God therefore justifying why they should be master over the "morally weak". It all is a vicious cycle.
How are you so well versed on the Bible if I may ask? Is it strictly through diligent research or are you familiar with it personally? Whenever you use a Bible quote in one of your videos I'm always very impressed at how aptly it is related to the topic. I'm trying not to ask if you are religious, tho, that's a personal question
Would love to see Renegade Cut tackle The Master.
hey leon great analysis. i was wondering do you ever run into trouble with using movie clips and audio?
There Will Be Blood > No Country For Old Men
I always thought that There Will be Blood was more Randian than Nietzsche, but now that you mention it its references with organized religion and especially Christianity does make it more Nietzsche.
Hi ; I want to thank you for your work and to ask you for written scripts for your videos that I sometimes can't follow you
Great episode, one of your best for sure!
Two quick questions, firstly is there any reasoning that Daniel Plainview names H.W., H.W.? Secondly, do you think it's possible that Daniel Plainview is supposed to be Satan?
Thanks!
Renegade Cut All right. Thanks for the response! Keep up the great work.
I feel like he didn't initially adopt HW just for the sake of advertising, rather it comes about later in life as a way for Daniel to write off why he ever got HW in the first place when the kid goes deaf and he finds difficulty in relating to him
The video's discussion of Nietzsche and religion was instructive as an an overview of the foundation of morality in a society which is becoming more secular.
- "There Will Be Blood" was partly based on the novel, "Oil" by Upton Sinclair. Sinclair was a famous writer who eventually won the Nobel Prize. He was committed to the socialist movement of the early 20th century. And that points to what Sinclair's answer would be for the dilemma of self interested religious leaders or capitalists. Sinclair eventually left the socialist party, running for governor of California as a Democrat.
- Today in terms of a famous politician Sinclair would be closest in policy to Bernie Sanders. And policies like the ones proposed by Sanders would be the final answer of Sinclair; a secular morality which focuses on the common good while limiting the abuses of destructive individuals whether they are leaders of religion or business.
What's the music that plays at 6:24?
Can someone recommend me a Nietzche book or essay or even a podcast about his philosophy to learn more about it? Thanks
He was already in California when he met Paul. In Signal Hill.
Are you going to do Phantom Thread? There's a lot there, I'm pretty sure.
Nope.
BRAVO!
Shows the impact of this film. That a video like this could come out over ten years after its release. But i guess the same could be said about Pulp Fiction
2015 A Face Oddity I find it so hard to believe that it's been ten years since this movie came out. It truly is going to go down as one of the classics.
They should’ve brought up Eli’s brother Paul-it’s Paul who essentially sics Daniel onto his brother.
Maybe you can do an analysis of Nocturnal Animals.
I also noticed the parallels between God and Daniel in that essentially, Daniel sees himself as a God creating the modern world of America. He thinks this all he wants abandoning human interaction including his son, but finds himself lonely and miserable.
I live in the town this movie was filmed in
Where?
Love the milkshake version of this. Hilarious 😁
I like the Nietzschian take on this film, however I don't think that Daniel Plainview is the ubermensch, but he is the master while the young preacher Eli is the slave, in the master-slave dichotomy. Plainview resents that Eli uses his poverty and some could say "weakness" as a strength, making him a powerful figure in the community by placing himself closer to god. While Plainview is not only physically, financially, and probably more educated than him, and he is also a powerful figure in the community through obvious clear signs of strength. They constantly are battling for power and social standing from the other each personally believes should be their ideological inferior.
And I don't think that Eli was necessarily meant to be absolutely sincere, I don't think he was written to be anyway. I read the book this film was based on, Oil! by Upton Sinclair, and Eli's brother seen in the beginning reappears as more of the polar opposite of this brother. Eli appears to be righteous and to be the mouth piece of god, but ends up being hypocrital, tricking people out of their money and is basically an early incarnation of an evangelical mega church leader that is ultimately caught in a horrible scandal. While his brother, his name escapes me at the moment, openly rejects religion becomes and champion for worker's rights and ultimately sacrifices himself for the rights of others and what he believes to be for the greater good against hypocrisy and unfettered capitalism. So literally one brother falsely the illusion of Christ, while being deeply immoral, while the other brother actually lives as Christ, while actively rejecting illusions and falsehoods.
But that was the book, and not the movie, but I think the corrupt religious leader is still present in the film version. Corrupt religious leader against crooked businessman; a classic. And I am glad for more than a few changes from the book. Plainview's business partner was the corrupt businessman and in the book HW was called Bunny. Who the hell names their son Bunny?
what happened to the intro?
***** i know it has been gone im juat wondering why? i thought it was really interesting
Haha, I bet he just found your channel, and went on a marathon through your earlier work; clicking through suggested videos until... no intro
Zedek i've been watching for a few weeks but didnt look at the date the videos were uploaded
This is the hippest critique of this movie that I have seen; and, I love this movie. .
Awesome, Leon! I'm a HUGE fan of PTA but I always found his casting of Paul Dano to be completely off... I just don't buy him in the roll... ah well, we always have the Master to enjoy %100!
Good movie, good music
oh my god for some reason I saw this in my recomended and thought it was going to be a video of There Will be Blood cut to the Tik Tok song: Renegade, and was about to lose my shit.
Plainview didn't hate some people, he hated everyone lol.
I thought you said "local creature" instead of "local preacher". Lol!!
Me too. Fits Eli better!
I did not consider Eli a very sympathetic character. I didn't like him.
true
Can you do Michael Mann's "Collateral"?
Alright hands down the meaning of this movie:
Take care of your milkshake
There is no evidence in the film that Daniel made good on his promise to bring schools etc. into the town.
quality work as usual especially the allusions to trump
The movie, an adaptation of the work by Upton Sinclair, is a prime example of the cliche lament, "The book is soooo much better."
I was so very disappointed in how the original story was completely disregarded.
Eli just represents corrupt religion, one of the parasitic forces that prey on Plainview's success, like Henry. He is the most immoral character of all. You miss the subtlety and ambiguous messages of this masterpiece.