There Will Be Blood - On the American Soul

There Will Be Blood explores America’s identity crisis, revealing how the struggle between capitalism and religion leads to mutual corruption and a search for new values.

What does America believe in today? For centuries, it was a nation defined by both faith and ambition, balancing its Christian heritage with its desire to be self-made. But in an era where religion is declining and capitalism is facing a crisis of legitimacy, has America lost its soul?

Paul Thomas Anderson’s 2007 film ​There Will Be Blood serves as a meditation on America’s identity crisis, exposing the deep tension between its Christian heritage and its capitalistic, liberal ethos. The film suggests that while these forces sometimes empower one another - concealing and reinforcing each other’s moral failures - they are ultimately locked in a struggle for dominance over the American soul. Through the characters of Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday, the film reveals that capitalism and religion are not merely intertwined but fundamentally corrosive to one another when forced into coexistence, each eroding the other’s values in the pursuit of power.

Daniel Plainview embodies the modern capitalist archetype, the rugged individualist, unburdened by moral obligations outside his own self-interest. He is the self-made man, conquering the land through sheer willpower. In a way, he represents what the political philosopher Michael Sandel describes as the “unburdened individual”, someone who sees himself as fully autonomous, defining his own success without any external moral or religious constraints. Daniel’s morality is Nietzschean; he creates his own values rather than submitting to traditional ones. Yet, his success is also his isolation. Daniel thrives in competition but despises community. He treats his adopted son, H.W., as an extension of his business rather than as a person to love. His contempt for humanity becomes explicit when he declares: "I have a competition in me. I want no one else to succeed."

If Daniel represents capitalism, Eli Sunday represents institutionalized religion - not necessarily faith itself, but the power structure that comes with it. He is a moralist, but in reality, he is just as much of an opportunist as Daniel. Eli preaches humility and service, yet constantly seeks wealth and influence. His brand of faith is rooted not in strength or self-actualization, but in resentment and manipulation. Rather than defining goodness on its own terms, his version of morality thrives on opposing power, framing ambition, and individual success as sinful while elevating suffering and obedience as virtues. He wields guilt and piety as weapons, bending others to his will under the guise of righteousness. Unlike Daniel, who openly embraces domination, Eli masks his ambition behind the language of humility.

Despite his blatant contempt for religion, Daniel engages with it when it benefits him. He utters a prayer before starting his oil well, not because he believes in divine intervention, but because he understands that religion gives his business legitimacy. The townspeople trust him more when they see him engaging in the faith they hold as a core tenet.

Daniel, however, resents this dynamic. He sees faith as an obstacle, an unnecessary game he must play to maintain power. His baptism at the hands of Eli is an act of submission - but not to God, to the power of public perception.

Eli, in turn, relies on Daniel’s oil enterprise to fund his church. Though he publicly presents himself as a man of faith, he understands that material wealth strengthens his worldly influence. He preaches to the very workers that Daniel hires, offering them spiritual relief while benefiting from the same system.

His hypocrisy is revealed when he falls on hard times — desperate and humiliated, he renounces his faith for money, proving that his religious convictions were only as strong as his financial stability. His downfall is not just a personal failure but an indictment of a religious institution that has become dependent on the very system it claims to critique.

The deeper problem There Will Be Blood reveals is not just the battle between capitalism and religion, but the broader crisis of meaning in modern American society.

The catholic philosopher Adrian Vermeule argues that liberal society lacks a coherent vision of the Good, for without a shared moral foundation, power becomes the only remaining force. The film makes clear that Daniel’s rise to power is not a triumph of virtue, but of sheer dominance. He succeeds not because he is good, but because he is stronger than his competition, but this is seen as a successful enterprise by the bounds of his capitalistic world.

This is the danger of liberal society: if there is no moral anchor, success is measured only in material terms. Modern capitalism, exemplified by men like Daniel Plainview, does not concern itself with what is right or just, only with want.

Nietzsche observed at the cusp of modernity that the decline of Christian morality in the Western world has led to the creation of new secular gods - wealth, ambition, nationalism, power. If God is dead, society must invent new values to replace him.

Eli Sunday takes advantage of the lack of meaning in the modern world and tries to revive Christianity, centering himself as its leader. Daniel Plainview, meanwhile, fully embraces the void, finding meaning only in capitalistic conquest.

By the end of the film, both men are ruined - Daniel is rich but completely alone, consumed by his hatred, while Eli is reduced to a pathetic, desperate man. What Anderson ultimately suggests is that two opposing ethos can’t coexist, whatever goodness is in them will be corrupted by compromising on their principles to cooperate, once they see that’s unsustainable, they will destroy each other.

To sustain any culture, the nation must be grounded in a shared set of values and a cohesive culture. Adrian Vermeule is right in diagnosing that liberalism and capitalism lack a unified vision of the good. However, I disagree with his prescription that we must return to a religious state, despite its flaws, liberalism has brought unimaginable prosperity, and this is still worth pursuing.

Perhaps Nietzsche’s concept of the transvaluation of values offers a better path forward: in the wake of the death of God, modern society must forge a new set of humanistic values rather than retreating to the past.