If Daniel is the personification of capitalism, then the whole system appears to be rotten to the core, allowing greedy, unscrupulous men like Plainview to pillage the land and potential wealth of needy communities. But I got the impression that Anderson’s message was not quite as black and white as all that. For one thing, Eli Sunday hardly seems like an innocent himself; he too appears to crave power, except that he does so by manipulating people’s faith (a rather old-world way of gaining influence as opposed to Daniel’s new-world methods). Eli appears to fail because, as Daniel implies, he does not understand the logic of capitalism in the way his brother Paul did. Eli wanted the financial clout that Daniel enjoyed, whereas Paul knew that very few could gain such power and was happy with directing Daniel to the oil fields for a much smaller sum.
So does that mean that capitalism is simply divided up into the miserable and the less miserable? I think that Daniel’s son, H.W., offers a glimpse of redemption. During his early years, H.W. is Daniel’s ‘business partner’, and he develops a love for their work that lasts into adulthood. H.W. is aware of Daniel’s shortcomings – too competitive, unforgiving, morally questionable - and is determined to break free of them. After draining Little Boston of oil, Daniel retreats to his mansion, but H.W. marries one of the local girls, Eli’s sister Mary Sunday. H.W. seems as if he could work under any system, Daniel and Eli do not.
In the end then, I think There Will Be Blood is a portrayal of the disadvantages of capitalism rather than a renunciation of it. Which is not to say that it is resigned to things being the way they are. But those who try to re-make the world in their image often end up very much alone.
