to be or not to be
(part one)
((daniel plainview))


inspired in some way by my most recent movie-watching experience, a new series emerges from the depths of HACAM. i am looking for ways to entertain myself, more than anything else, when i sit down to ramble for "all the world" to see. having an ever-evolving website that mainly consists of my own musings is a little tough. to be fair, some things (and possibly guests) are in the works that may spruce up the place sooner rather than later. keep an eye out for that. if hannah and caroline actually sit down and pay attention to this, my most intentional gift to them, some years down the road, maybe they'll be proud to see that i tried to keep things interesting. having said that, i now present to you the first in what could (or could not be) a new line of schtick. i'll be taking a brief look at fictional and non-fictional characters and deciding by the end of a few, short-sighted paragraphs whether i would choose "to be" them or "not to be". in the immortal words of reel big fish, "hope you hate it!"

today's subject? daniel plainview. thanks to joseph, i freely (in every sense of the word) took in every beautiful minute of there will be blood over the weekend. i won't bore you with a review, but i will say that it was awesome. in short, it was awesome because, like few movies, it was an experience. when you decide to spend two and a half hours with anything, you'd like it to leave you with something to remember it by. among the things i immediately remember from the movie...daniel plainview (the scariest motherscratcher i think i have seen on film since keyser soze), eli sunday, and the kick-butt score by radiohead's jonny greenwood (i loathe radiohead, but i am now a fan of greenwood.). it was a good movie.

the first words that daniel plainview speak in the movie announce himself and his intentions to the viewer and the town in front of him. "ladies and gentlemen, i am an oilman." and from that lie, the table is set. for the viewer has already seen a history established that contradicts this announcement. in the movie's first scene, plainview is a silver man. or maybe he is a money man or a power man, if those two things can even be separated. he is definitely a motivated man. that cannot be discounted. and that motivation, that determination, will eventually lead him into madness.

once plainview has found his way, though, nothing will stop him. throughout the course of the movie, we observe, with anticipated terror, the carnage his single-minded determination towards something leaves in it's wake. as a result of this "focus", we see him use his adopted son as a tool of sympathy and morality and birthright. we see the son indirectly handicapped because of it. and then we see the son properly disowned for finally choosing his own direction instead of his father's. we see a young, and also determined, pastor figuratively then literally beaten down because his own powers of manipulation were not nearly as strong as those that plainview possessed. we see "friends" and "family" used, abused and killed, leaving us with the impression that they were never more than a means to some end that i am not certain daniel plainview, even, was ever aware of. he was driven, for sure. but driven by what? we are never given a glimpse that anything could hold this man's happiness for more than a fleeting moment. he was never satisfied. he was never fulfilled. the grass was always greener on the next lease of land he could steal away from some unsuspecting and innocent family that was living on top of (or to the side of) black gold.

(the movie and) the character of daniel plainview is so intensely terrifying and fascinating because we all, at least, know someone that has been gripped by this type of blinders-on, "i am marching forward, come hell or high water" approach to life. the motivating factors could be different for anyone. it could be family. it could be drugs. it could be career. it could be jesus christ. whatever it is, though, it is no less unnerving. for a healthy person is a balanced person. someone that understands that there is a greater purpose for their life than whatever carrot is currently dangling in front of them. i've read articles praising the type of drive that daniel plainview exhibits in there will be blood. i've read some opinions that suggest we need more of that "if you're not winning, you are losing" mentality. i tend to disagree. and maybe i am just a hippie. or lazy. or growing too idealistic in my "old" age. i do believe in priorities. i believe some things should be more important than others. but i do not believe my priorities and my "some things" should come at the expense of the people i have to step on to reach them. if i ever display that type of mentality going forward, i hope that one of my own friends will be there to slap me with some perspective.

i appreciate paul thomas anderson for the world he created in his movie. and i appreciate the entertainment value of watching daniel day lewis create the character of daniel plainview for "all the world" to see.

to the question at hand...

to be or not to be daniel plainview?

i choose "not to be."