Last night, I watched the newly-released DVD, There Will Be Blood. It was a bad experience that reaffirmed my disgust with most of mainstream Hollywood’s film industry, and left me understanding more fully than ever why most of my reviews are of independent films.

I waited months, even years for this film. As the child of an oil field working family in Texas, I felt a close connection to the characters in Upton Sinclair’s classic novel, Oil! , which I read several years ago. The prospect of a film version excited me, and I purchased the DVD the day it went on sale. To say the very least, the film did not do the book justice.

Before I list my rants about the film, it is fitting to comment on Sinclair’s work. Sinclair based his story on the then-recent Teapot Dome scandal, wherein the U.S. congressmen salaciously acquired drilling rights to public lands, and made a killing. Sinclair’s story details the relationship between self-made oil man, Daniel Plainview, and his union-organizing socialist friend, Paul, told from the perspective of his adoptive son, H.W. Plainview. The narrative is poignant, and rich with symbolism (contrary to critics who claim that Sinclair’s work is mere naturalistic muck-raking). Sinclair carefully lays out the philosophies of capitalism and socialism through the characters. Disabled in an explosion, H.W. becomes an advocate for socialism. This is the reason for his eventual split with his father. To say more than this would spoil the book for potential readers. This is a socialist classic, and should be read by everyone. Now – on to the film.

There Will Be Blood is a Disneyfied, totally gutted grotesque of Sinclair’s work. It is not even accurate to say that the film is based on the book. Blood completely ignores the theme of socialism, leaving the viewer to wonder why the relationship between Plainfield (Daniel Day-Lewis) and his son (played alternately by Stockton Taylor, Harrison Taylor and Russell Harvard) falls apart. And in the book, Sinclair does an excellent job of showing the emptiness of evangelical religion, with its unrealistic promises and expectations. While the film hints at these themes, the overall treatment of religion is superficial at best and apologetic at worst.

Overall, the film is technically acceptable. It has all the elements of a successful Hollywood epic, done on a grand scale. Paul Thomas Anderson did a good job directing. The cinematography communicates themes about the grandeur of the western landscape, and the dirtiness of industry. Johnny Greenwood’s score will probably win an Oscar. But -- so what? Upton Sinclair did a better and more honest job of showing the conflict between labor and capital in his book. And that, not landscape, music or clever story-telling, was the point of the story. The film left me frustrated and angry, and I can not recommend it to anyone, especially someone expecting substance from Upton Sinclair’s wonderful book.