Masculine Gender Performance in There Will Be Blood (2007)
Critically hailed as one of the best films from the 2000s, Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood (2007) marked a significant turning point in his career. Unlike his previous features with large ensemble casts, There Will Be Blood focused on the journey of a singular character, Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis), a cynical, profit-hungry, oil tycoon and his growing oil business.[1] When Daniel and his adopted son H.W. (Dillon Freasier) go to a small town to find oil, he meets resistance from the towns pastor, Eli Sunday (Paul Dano), who has his own money-making schemes in mind.
In this film, there is a strong focus on how capitalism changes people for the worst. Both Daniel and Eli fraudulently present themselves as good people when in actuality they are both after exploiting people for their own monetary gain. Therein lies a disconnect between their true selves and the persona they outwardly present. This persona lies largely in a presentation of masculine ideals. To prove this point, one first has to understand what gender presentation is from a theoretical perspective. Once this is established, it is possible to analyze Daniel and Eli and how their personalities perpetuate and take advantage of the idea of masculinity within the time period the film is set in. Ultimately, it’ll be illustrated that this is indeed a big factor in how the film works and why it is important.
To begin, one first needs to understand what definition of gender and masculinity this argument will use. There are many different theories and definitions of gender, so simply saying “gender” would not suffice without basing it on a particular gender theory. In this case, the argument will be based on Sara Salih’s “On Judith Butler and Perfornativity,” in which she provides a comprehensive version of some of Judith Butler’s gender theories. The reasoning behind selecting this theory as basis for the argument is because Salih/Butler present some nuances which are important when studying gender. In her piece, Salih writes “gender is not something one is, it is something one does, an act, or more precisely, a sequence of acts…a doing rather than a ‘being.’”[2] This is central to the theory she presents. She goes on further and states that “one’s gender is performatively constituted in the same way that one’s choice of clothes is curtailed…by the society, context, economy, etc.”[3] Due to how gender is framed as a something one performs, it is easily applicable when trying to understand characters from a film, as the viewers see who they are solely through their words and actions.
However, stating that gender is performed is not to say that it is something one does consciously. In The Ego and the Id, Sigmund Freud poses a question about though-processes which is relevant here.[4] Freud asks whether thought-processes make their way from someone’s unconscious to their conscious, or vice versa.[5] This relationship between consciousness and unconsciousness is no doubt important, however, when one is attempting to analyze characters from a film as opposed to real people, one should not get caught up in asking whether the characters attributes, and more specifically in this case, gender performance, are conscious or unconscious. This is noted here because it is sometimes easy to get carried away and base an analysis on inferred character traits or thought processes, especially when applying theory. In reality, what a viewer knows about the character remains confined to the diegetic world of the film. All this to say that when looking at the masculine gender presentation of Daniel and Eli, and how this effects their careers, the argument must be rooted in clear examples from the film, and not extrapolated explanations of possible character psychology.
At this point, there is a working definition of gender and Judith Butler’s theory of gender performativity. Also, it has been established that any argument about how masculinity is significant to the characters must be based in clear examples from the film. Now, it is possible to move on to looking at Daniel and Eli separately and how their characters relate to this gender theory.
As briefly stated above, Daniel Plainview, the protagonist, is an unlikable, cynical, greedy businessman. To illustrate how Daniel’s masculinity ads to his fraudulent persona, one needs to look at both sides of him: his work life and his personal life. There are many character traits within both these categories that illustrate this.
First, one can look at Daniel’s career and life at work. In the beginning of the film, the viewer meets Daniel during a long take in which Daniel is out in the oil fields and down in a well. This “hands-on” attribute is one that is repeated over and over in the film. When he buys his first property, he is on the field with his men. Further, when one of Daniel’s oil rigs explodes later in the film, he is there actively dealing with the catastrophe. It is reasonable to say that in the majority of the film, Daniel is shown as a very active part of his business. On the other hand, Daniel also takes charge of all the business dealings for his company and is the one who meets with who he must to acquire more land and such things. By doing both hands-on work in the fields and in formal business proceedings, Daniel has complete control of his company. This is important because Daniel uses this hard-working businessman image to manipulate people. It is this image he curates which takes advantage of masculine ideals. By working on the field with his men, he projects a rugged, manly image to his workers. He also takes advantage of this when dealing with the town’s citizens or other businessmen, referencing how he is in full control of what goes on in the oil fields and his personal connection to the working men. In his business meetings, Daniel attempts to come off as charming and charismatic, falsifying information about himself and his business. In the first business meeting the viewer sees, Daniel tells a couple about how they will receive less money if they sell their property since it is slightly further north, which would make drilling more difficult. Because of other lies he tells the couple one can assume that this is another trick so that he is able to pay less for the property. Seeing that they might be unconvinced, Daniel begins to talk using technical terms and repetition to sound convincing.
Now the question is remains how Daniel’s career advancement takes advantage of or uses performative masculinity. Much like he does with his workers, throughout the film, Daniel presents himself to others as a caring, hardworking, all American, manly man. By exerting control over all facets of his business, he presents the image of a man living the American Dream, bringing himself up from nothing to enormous success. This is important considering the time period the film is set in: the early 20th century. At that point in time, heteronormative gender roles were absolutely the norm, and the idea of the American Dream was rampant. To appear as a likable man, Daniel takes advantage of the benefits that this image brings. In “Making the Milk into a Milkshake: Adapting Upton Sinclair’s ‘Oil!’ into P.T. Anderson’s ‘There Will Be Blood,”’ Gregory A. Phipps notes this change in outward character by stating “Daniel is a character invested in the process of production and transformation…because he uses the money to remake his self-definition as an ‘oilman.’”[6] By constantly noting his dedication to his business, employees, and promising to do the right thing, he garners favor from others. This follows the idea Salih presents in her aforementioned writing about gender being a performance of a sequence of acts that reinforce themselves.
In addition to Daniel’s manipulation of his working man image, he also uses the image of being a devout family man to his advantage. After an accident on an oil rig resulting in the death of one of his workers, Daniel adopts the man’s child. Instead of showing love to his adopted son, H.W., Daniel uses him to make his oil business appear as family owned. He brings young H.W. to all his business meetings to show this. However, he lies about H.W.’s origins, telling others that his non-existent wife died giving birth to H.W. When H.W. loses his hearing during the oil rig explosion, Daniel sends him away, no longer able to exploit him. In the end, Daniel disowns him and tells him that he used him as a cute face to buy land. This affirms that his connection to H.W. was a ruse, something he only did for personal gain. In addition to his false connection to H.W., one can also see Daniel’s exploitation of family ideals when his presumed long-lost brother shows up. Daniel brings his brother into the business, but then finds out that the man is a fraud only after his money. Enraged, and unable to benefit from this connection any longer, Daniel murders him. From these examples, it is apparent that Daniel also uses the idea of being a familial patriarch to his advantage. One could argue that it is this patriarchal role that is the very root of masculinity. By acting like a patriarch, Daniel wins the favor of many, despite it being falsified.
With both sides the viewer sees of Daniel explained, it is clear that his fraudulent persona is contingent upon upholding the masculine ideals of a frontier oilman and patriarch. Within the time period of the film, Daniel assures that he fits all the masculine traits that people might expect from him considering his background. Regardless of if Daniel was really as masculine as his persona in his private life, the fabricated version of himself he created shows that Salih and Butler’s assertion that gender is performative, an act and not a being, is true.
Fortunately, Daniel is not the only character in There Will Be Blood who confirms this gender performativity theory. Daniel’s nemesis, town preacher Eli Sunday, does nearly the same thing. Eli Sunday is a foil character to Daniel. They have many similarities, but their main difference that makes them hate one another is Eli’s spirituality and religiousness. Just like Daniel uses the air of masculinity that comes with running a business to his advantage, Eli uses the respect he receives as a wholesome small-town preacher for his personal gain.
First, this shows that there are different ideals of masculinity depending on context. Eli is effectively the leader of the small town of Little Boston. The audience sees this from the entire population attending his Sunday sermons and spreading word about the church. The townspeople’s main focus is their devotion to the church. Knowing he has this status he manipulates people into believing his gospel. When one first sees Eli, it may seem convincing that he is an honest, religious man. However, it is soon apparent that he is trying to get money from Daniel to grow his church and therefore his following. Because Daniel is also somewhat of a fraud, he instantly recognizes this in Eli. One can see this when Daniel calls Eli’s sermon “A goddamn hell of a show.”[7] Out of everyone, Daniel is the only one who is unconvinced by Eli. Even so, Eli tries over and over to gain Daniel’s support and money for his church. Despite not receiving Daniel’s support, Eli finds success and money in preaching, and it is revealed at the end he was preaching on the radio.
Unlike Daniel, Eli does not have a rugged, masculine appearance and air about him. Instead, he is quite scrawny and soft-spoken. However, this does not mean that he is not able to take advantage of the status his masculinity and church give him. As stated above, since Eli is the leader of the town and the church, people take him extremely seriously. Eli’s own father insisted he be the one to deal with business. In the congregation scenes, the people are hooked on Eli’s every word. Knowing he has such a devout following Eli suggests that he wants money for his church to help the town. Instead, one finds out that it is more about increasing his popularity, gaining the favor of the people, and making money. By using religion as his platform, Eli easily gains increasing amounts of people’s trust. The church community see Eli as a trustworthy everyman who cares about them. At this time period, this position in society is one only men could have. As with Daniel, whether or not Eli’s persona was an exaggeration or extension of his private life does not matter. Instead, the important point here is that Eli’s role in the film takes advantage of another traditionally masculine role in society, and by performing this role to the fullest extent, Eli is able to manipulate people into following his gospel.
Ultimately, it is clear that in There Will Be Blood both Daniel and Eli exploit expectations of masculinity in their surroundings in order to create a fraudulent persona to garner the favor and trust of others so that they can make a profit. Considering that this works for them, it is possible to connect this to Sara Salih’s and Judith Butler’s argument that gender is performative. Again, whether or not the character’s do this consciously or not is not relevant in such a short paper, merely the fact that they are successfully doing it illustrates that gender is rooted in an act. On a larger scale, this argument is relevant since in Paul Thomas Anderson’s body of work, many other male characters rely on their masculine ego. In the future, further research could be conducted to demonstrate that There Will Be Blood is only one of many films whose male characters rely on masculine gender performance for their successes.
[1] There Will Be Blood. Paramount Vantage, 2007.
[2] Lovaas, Karen E., and Mercilee M. Jenkins. Sexualities and Communication in Everyday Life: a Reader. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2007.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Freud, Sigmund, and James Strachey. 1962. The ego and the id. New York: Norton
[5] Ibid.
[6] Phipps, Gregory Alan. “Making the Milk into a Milkshake: Adapting Upton Sinclair's ‘Oil!" into P. T. Anderson's ‘There Will Be Blood.’” Literature/Film Quarterly 43, no. 1 (2015): 34–45.
[7] There Will Be Blood. Paramount Vantage, 2007.
Bibliography
Freud, Sigmund, and James Strachey. 1962. The ego and the id. New York: Norton
Lovaas, Karen E., and Mercilee M. Jenkins. Sexualities and Communication in Everyday Life: a Reader. Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2007.
Phipps, Gregory Alan. “Making the Milk into a Milkshake: Adapting Upton Sinclair's ‘Oil!" into P. T. Anderson's ‘There Will Be Blood.’” Literature/Film Quarterly 43, no. 1 (2015): 34–45. www.jstor.org/stable/43799008.
There Will Be Blood. Paramount Vantage, 2007.
