Slate Money: Movies — There Will Be Blood (March 23, 2021)

Overview

In this episode of Slate Money Goes to the Movies, host Felix Salmon, along with co-host Anna Shymansky and guest Niala Boodhoo, dive deep into Paul Thomas Anderson’s acclaimed 2007 film There Will Be Blood. Rather than a nostalgic favorite, the guests dissect a film they mostly respect more than enjoy, exploring its portrayal of capitalism, religion, and the American mythos. The conversation brings out their mixed feelings about the movie’s characters, symbolism, and narrative, while also drawing connections to business history and contemporary work culture.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Why This Movie? Reluctant Viewing and Cultural Canon

• Niala Boodhoo explains her choice: She’d never seen the movie and picked it because she felt she should watch it—like a worthy, long-neglected item on an old Netflix queue. (03:02)
• Anna Shymansky relates: She originally convinced herself to like the film due to its critical acclaim, but upon a rewatch realized her true lack of enthusiasm. (02:18)

2. Enjoyment vs. Respect — The Experience of Watching

• Niala: “It’s not something that is enjoyable to watch... but I do think it’s very interesting to talk about and process.” (03:39)
• Felix jokes about the famously slow start—“you have this very auteurish, serious thing…like 25 minutes until anyone says anything...” (04:16)
• The hosts find more to analyze than to emotionally connect with, comparing its opening to the much-loved “Wall-E” (“Except that Wall E is a better movie.” — Anna, 04:50)

3. Capitalism and Religion: The Film’s Central Critiques

• Anna explores the entwined relationship between capitalism and religion in America, as depicted in the film: “...one kind of needs the other, one is on top of the other, until the end when capitalism is victorious and ends with the line, ‘I’m finished.’ Clearly a biblical reference to Christ 'It is finished’.” (05:13)
• Felix asks for clarification on the biblical references, and Anna identifies strong Christian iconography throughout: “The title is from Exodus. There’s a baby in a basket. That’s a Moses reference. A child is anointed with oil. A father forsakes his son.” (05:55)
• Anna and Niala critique the movie’s heavy-handed “morality tale” aspect—the idea that the successful capitalist must be punished, similar to classics like Citizen Kane. (06:13)

4. Flat Characters & Lack of Nuance

• Both Anna and Niala agree the film’s leads are overblown caricatures, lacking rough edges and the complexity of real-life business figures like John D. Rockefeller. (10:01–10:55)
• Niala: “I think the problem… is there’s always this conflation that there are bad people and there are good people. And…the world doesn’t work like that.” (10:55)

5. Family, Performance, and Gender

• The film portrays family as a tool—the protagonist uses a child, then a brother, as props to appear trustworthy. Anna notes: “...something that humanizes someone. And I think this is clearly commenting on that.” (16:06, see also 14:47 for discussion)
• Niala points out how skepticism about Daniel's family situation comes mostly from women, though women are nearly absent in the film (“the angelic girl… is really the only female in the entire film.” — Anna, 11:45) and the context seems intentionally male-dominated.

6. Visual and Symbolic Choices

• Discussion on the film’s color palette—washed out browns, grays, ochres—and the symbolism of oil as blood. “There will be blood, but there’s no water… just sort of, like, the griminess of the whole thing.” — Niala (16:55)
• Anna highlights oil as the stand-in for blood, feeding into the film's dark, heavy tone. (17:08)

7. Violence, Biblical Parallels, and the Brother Motif

• Anna draws biblical parallels to Cain and Abel regarding fratricide and the nature of violence (“...the first family you have in the Bible... a brother kills his brother. It's not for a good reason...” — Anna, 21:21)
• The hosts discuss how violence in the film often feels sudden and unjustified, amplifying the portrayal of a brutal, heartless era of capitalism. (19:08–21:03)
• Niala questions the narrative logic behind some of Daniel Plainview’s actions (“What role do you think the brother serves?... What does that say about his character?” — 18:09)

8. The American Mythos & Revisionist History

• Felix and Niala see the film as a “revisionist take” on the mythology of American capitalism—undercutting the notion of heroic individual success with a portrait of isolation, violence, and misery. (25:52)
• Anna ties the narrative back to real 1920s events: the Teapot Dome scandal, the rise of Standard Oil, and the eventual crash that changed American capitalism. (26:32, 29:15)

9. Business & Economic Contexts

• Anna explains actual historical connections: how oil, railroads, and deregulated industry built America—with all the violence, corruption, and exploitation that entailed. (31:26–34:45)
• Discussed how these themes tie into the film’s depiction of self-made success, shipping feuds, and the pride of building alone versus creating monopolies.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On why Anna didn’t like the movie (02:18, Anna):
  “I convinced myself I should like it because... everyone said how amazing it was. And then rewatching it again now I’m like, yeah, I really don’t like this film very much...”

• On the film’s moral about capitalism (06:53, Felix):
  “So the idea is that because we are coming out of liberal Hollywood, we paint this portrait of a rapacious capitalist who gets his comeuppance...”

• On caricatured characters (10:01, Anna):
  “One of the weaknesses of this film is that the characters are … really caricatures. … [Rockefeller] wasn’t this simple figure of greed… You could probably say that about a lot of these figures. And this film doesn’t totally allow that.”

• On family as business strategy (16:06, Daniel Day-Lewis as Daniel Plainview, in film):
  “I’m a family man. I run a family business. This is my son and my partner, H.W. Plainview. We offer you the bond of family that very few oil men can understand.”

• On milkshake as metaphor (36:22, Daniel Day-Lewis quoting film):
  “If you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw… my straw reaches across the room and starts to drink your milkshake. I drink your milkshake. I drink it up.”

• On the experience of watching (37:34, Anna):
  “Almost had to cover my ears because… it was just… too much.”

• Final verdict (38:51, Niala):
  “Oh, I would, I would give it a B. … B minus maybe? No, I’d give it a B. I’d go straight with a B.”

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:10–03:02 — Introductions, why this movie was chosen
• 05:13–06:53 — Religion and capitalism in the film
• 10:01–10:55 — Overblown, caricatured characters vs. real-life complexity
• 14:09–16:06 — Family as a narrative device
• 17:08–18:07 — Visual symbolism of oil and blood
• 19:08–21:21 — Violence, Cain and Abel, and the nature of evil
• 25:52–26:32 — The American mythos and revisionist history
• 31:26–34:45 — Business history: oil, railroads, shipping, and monopolies
• 36:22–36:54 — “Milkshake” scene
• 38:51 — Niala’s final grade for the film

Conclusion & Tone

The conversation is intellectual, skeptical, and honest—often wry, sometimes exasperated by the film’s bombast and lack of warmth—but always engaged. The hosts respect the film’s technical mastery and ambition yet question its emotional distance, narrative choices, and simplistic portrayal of both capitalism and character. Their take: There Will Be Blood is important and worthy of discussion, but not a beloved classic among the Slate Money team, and likely not a “feel good” movie for any era.

Further Listening

Check out Niala Boodhoo’s morning podcast "Axios Today" for more smart brevity in your daily news.

[End of Summary]