There will be dumb. (Updated, and updated again.)

"It's one of the cleverest left-wing films made in a long time. But apart from its trenchant critiques of capitalism and religion, there's also an underlying theme you wouldn't suspect in a liberal movie."

Um, okay, whatever you say. I never thought that There Will Be Blood carried any particular political brief; as my own posts on the film attest, I consider the film's concerns to be deeper and more primordial than what the terms "liberal" and "conservative" encompass, but, if Pajamas Media wants to commemorate the DVD release of Paul Thomas Anderson's film by pointing out its, um, conservative values, it causes me no harm.

Except for the fact that Kyle Smith, the New York Post film reviewer making a brief for the film's conservative credentials, hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about, and is apparently incapable of "reading" a film, that is, comprehending what a film is telling via visual and not spoken language.

Here is the passage in Smith's, um, critique, that reveals he hasn't the faintest idea of what he's talking about.

Plainview first shows some humanity when he cradles his infant son while a mine turns into a gushing oil well before our eyes. Without a word being spoken, it’s clear that Daniel’s painful sacrifices are partly driven by his love for his son, whose mother never appears and whom Daniel never voluntarily discusses (although he will later claim she died in childbirth — his wavering glance tells us this is a lie — to a housewife whose property he needs for oil exploration).

Now by this point in time, the critical exegesises of the film have all pretty much gotten straight with the truth of Plainview's relationship with H.W.; that is—SPOILER ALERT!!—that H.W. is not, in fact, Plainview's son as advertised, but is in fact the orphaned child of a co-worker or employee of Plainview's who was killed in an oil derrick accident. In the comments section of Smith's Pajamas Media article, a few people point this out, and in response, a commenter calling himself "Anonymous" (that's really not nearly as creative as Sprezzatura, dude) demurs:

To those who suppose the boy (seen at the beginning being cradled by another man) is not Plainview’s son, obviously I don’t see it the same way. One man can of course hold another man’s boy.

To pilfer from another blog, sadly, no. The story as told in visual language is incredibly clear that the baby who grows up to be H.W. belongs to another man on Plainview's crew. It's not arguable. Below the fold, some screen grabs (not too many, as I don't want Stu VanAirsdale to make fun of me again) and explication.

Here's the child we will soon know as H.W., cradled by the man who's his actual dad, who's been seen kissing and holding him in several shots prior to this. Plainview has never been shown doing any such thing at the point in the film where this shot occurs. The unnamed real dad is happy because they've struck oil. He faux-baptizes the future H.W. with a dab of the black gold here.

Soon after that the unnamed real dad and Plainview are down at the bottom of the well. Above, a rope breaks, some shit falls...

And it's gonna land, ouch, right on poor unnamed dad...

Plainview witnesses the death. He gets back up to the surface. And there he is greeted by an unhappy infant...

...that he hasn't a clue what to do with.

Does he wish to bring the child comfort? Or does he only want to shut him up? Whichever. He coats the nipple of the baby bottle in whiskey, and reaches a sort of detente with the creature. (I should perhaps point out here that this is not the normal behavior of a father. "Well, that doesn't mean that Plainview's not the father," Kyle Smith or "Anonymous" might protest. Except for the fact that the other guy behaved like a father. Um...)

The next shot we see of the future H.W. and Plainview is the duo on a train, with the infant playing with Plainview's moustache, and Plainview happily indulging him. My friend Joseph Failla likens this shot to the bit of business between Gibson Gowland's McTeague and the canary in Stroheim's Greed. But I'm afraid here that we may be getting a bit above Kyle Smith's head.

Any questions?

Hat tip: Instaputz.

UPDATE: Mr. Smith (or perhaps, as My Lovely Wife points out, an individual purporting to be Mr. Smith) has a response in comments. It's rich enough to stand on its own, although I should like to point out that, 1) I'm not the one who brought up the war (shades of Fawlty Towers!) and 2) I've never claimed to be a post-modernist.

FURTHER UPDATE: Speaking of post-modernism...who's the "real" Kyle Smith? As the administrator of this blog I can inform you that the first Kyle Smith weighing in in the comments section has a different e-mail address than the Kyle Smith in the comments section who informs My Lovely Wife that she's indeed correct, and that THAT Kyle Smith isn't the New York Post critic or Pajamas Media contributor. I should also point out that the Kyle Smith who wrote the Pajamas Media piece and reviews for the New York Post is, film-reading-mishaps aside, a far more skilled and entertaining writer than the fellow who put up the rather off-topic rant in a misguided stab at inverse sock-puppetry. For what it's worth.

Also, neither of these Kyle Smiths is the Kyle Smith who was a patron for Tim Lucas' Mario Bava biography. Just to get that out of the way.

So: commenters! Disregard the ravings of Fake Kyle Smith!

Comments

[Jeff B.]

I guess Mr. Anderson shouldn't have cut out the "It's okay everybody, I'll adopt this newly orphaned boy myself" speech.

Also, Plainview doesn't speak the words "I broke my leg when I fell down the shaft" at any point, so I assume he faked the limp.

[Nance]

Isn't the whole "bastard in a basket" speech near the end telling this moron anything, either?

[Dave]

Ah, yes, the glory of what passes for American film criticism, circa 2008.

[bill]

It sounds like Smith was taking his pee breaks at exactly the wrong times.

I would like to point out, though, that it is my understanding that putting booze on a bottle's nipple in order to calm a baby, or ease his/her teething, was not an uncommon practice in what historians refer to as Ye Olden Times. No, I'm not arguing that Smith is right, because he's so very wrong. I just don't think showing Day-Lewis giving the child a spiked nipple necessarily indicates complete ignorance on his part, but rather shows a bit of period detail.

[Glenn Kenny]

Fair point, Bill—provisionally. Not everyone out in their work place carried a pint bottle or a flask as Plainview does—this is the first time we see Our Hero with booze, which is going to prove something of a problem for him. And later, when he mixes a good amount of what looks like gin into the now-deaf H.W.'s milk to knock him out so Plainview can have a peaceful chat with his newly-discovered "brother," the intent is clearly, well, malicious. For alcohol to be introduced here, in this way, does more than just inject period detail.

But the detail does indeed parse with the period. The incomprehension I discuss is more in the look on Plainview's oil-drenched face as he watches the crying baby in the —well, whaddya know?—basket.

[bill]

True enough, though I don't think it is every clearly shown that Plainview has an alcohol problem. Obviously I don't see the film the same way.

Just kidding.

[STV]

Glenn, I would never impugn another man's means of laying waste to Kyle Smith. Take as many screengrabs as you need. This dude makes Rex Reed look like Manny Farber.

[Kyle Smith]

I am entitled to my opinion. You see it one way and I see it another. You can no more make a case for your point of view that I can for mine, and showing stills from the movie, out of context, I might add, only proves to me how thin-skinned liberals are when asked to accept the ideas of other people. And this doesn't just apply to movies; it applies to many topics, such as our current war, a war which most of the people who visit this think think is unjust and based on lies. But that's not how I see it. I see us doing what it takes too liberate ignorant people from an arcane way of life, even if it means dragging them, literally, kicking and screaming into the 21rst century. I'm sure all of you will disgree, and point to this or that, but that's simply not how I see it, and to make me see it another way, you would have to treat me in exactly the same manner you suppose we treat others, thus making you no better than me, although I'm sure you think your politics and aesthetics entitle you to feel that way. So let me end by saying that I am right and you are right, and that's just the way it's going to have to be. Postmodernism's a bitch, isn't it?

[Burbanked]

So, Mr. Smith, would you then suggest that no opinion, simply as a function of being that, is EVER wrong? Look, I'm all for being fuzzy-wuzzy and accepting other points of view, especially on matters of film and art - but I'm not convinced that that should really lead to an attitude of "everybody gets to be right all the time". If anything, we learn more when we're shown to be wrong.

And BTW, I believe you're possibly mistaken about H.W. being Plainview's real, naturally-fathered and genetically-related son.

[Claire K.]

So this is just someone pretending to be Kyle Smith to try to make him look bad, right???

[Kyle Smith]

Yes, Claire K, that is someone pretending to be me.

[JB]

Yeah, no way that is really Kyle Smith.

[Michael De Luca]

Sound a little hot under the collar there, Kyle. Not at all surprising from the guy who believes global warming is some kind of leftist conspiracy. Your take on this film is about as dim as your faith in the Bush Administration. But hey, I'm sure Rupert keeps you on a tight leash.

[Glenn Kenny]

Readers: just in case you haven't been following the updates, I've determined that the author of the rant about the Iraq war and post-modernism, while calling himself Kyle Smith, is not the Kyle Smith who wrote the Pajamas Media piece that I call into question on this blog post. I'm not gonna delete the comment, yet...but I'm asking that folks chiming in here not attack Smith on the basis of that comment, because it's a fake. Among other things, the real Smith, agree with him or not, is a far better writer than that.

[Abraham Lincoln]

What could the motive have been for the fake Kyle Smith? I'm lost. All I know is, this never would have happened in my day.

[Kyle Smith]

Thanks, Glenn. And not to toot my own horn, but I'm a much better writer than that.

[a movie expert]

I tried to watch this film in more of a Kyle Smith frame of mind and learned a few more fascinating things I'd likely have missed otherwise:

1. Sometime between 1910 and 1927, Plainview managed to sneak into that oil company guy's house and cut his throat. He said he was going to, so he must have. I see no clear indication that he didn't!

2. Eli actually has the power to cure sick people. He said he was curing that woman, and afterward the woman thought she was cured, thus Eli must have supernatural healing powers. I saw no clear indication that he didn't! Which means:

3. Eli isn't really dead at the end of the movie. He's going to heal himself back to life as soon as Daniel's back is turned, then probably get revenge. That's why it says "There Will Be Blood" at the end. It's referring to Eli's forthcoming revenge on Daniel. This reinforces Anderson's conservative eye-for-an-eye view of justice.

[Kyle Smith]

Okay, enough. Glenn, you want to chime in here? I mean, enough already. I get it. None of you agree with me. Fine. Move on. Don't any of you work?

[Glenn Kenny]

What you say?

I have chimed in, and so far the thread is keeping a civil, albeit snarky, tongue. The comments thread on the Pajamas Media article is WAY more, um, let's say peculiar, than this one.

Blog posts have comments threads. That's life.

[Phil]

Oh, if only there were some primary source we could refer to and resolve this seemingly intractable conundrum! Like the screenplay, or something!

Oh, wait . . .

10 EXT. SOMEWHERE IN CALIFORNIA, DAY -- A FEW YEARS LATER -- 1902

DANIEL is working again in a large field with some MEN. There is: CANBURRY (30s) an OLDER MAN (50s) and a YOUNG MAN (around 15) and a mining acquaintance: H.B. AILMAN (30s) and nearby, kept in the shade in a small bassinet, is a ONE YEAR OLD BABY, Ailman's son (H.W.)

Huh. Imagine that.

[Kyle Smith]

I was going to let this go, but I can't. I also have the script, and in my version, that's not what it says. In my version in clearly says:

...kept in the shade in a small bassinet, is a ONE YEAR OLD BABY, Plainveiw's son (H.W.)

Someone want to tell me that the script I am looking at right at this very moment is a figment of my imagination? Because it isn't. So that should settle that.

[Glenn Kenny]

I've always been with Martin Scorsese on this:
"Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out."

I've never read any script of "There Will Be Blood." And I wouldn't base an argument about it on the script, particularly when I have the film right in front of me. As we're apparently "going there," as they say, I only wish Bumble Ward were still in the biz. I could call her now and settle the whole goddamn thing in an hour, maybe.

Not that I don't consider it settled already.

[Lazarus]

My copy of the script, which reads "Final Shooting Script", also says it's Ailman's son.

Are you going to do something with all those straws, Kyle?

[Kyle Smith]

I have the final shooting script, too, Lazarus, and it clearly says that the baby is Plainview's son. This is getting very tedious, and I have better things to do on a Saturday afternoon, so why not let it go. I am basing my opinion on the facts at hand, and you and everyone else are basing your opinions on the facts you have. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Why the people who frequent this site are so intent on having me adopt their opinion is beyond me.

[Glenn Kenny]

Wow, Kyle, for a guy who's got a picture of H.L. Mencken and a quote from Kingsley Amis about there being little point in writing if you can't annoy somebody on his home page, you turn out to have awfully thin skin.

The bit about having better things to do on a Saturday afternoon is a nice pissy little touch, though. One might almost call it elitist!