in a nutshell, they're both the same person presenting a false sense of morality from each of their respective swamps. the funny part is that eli manages to steal daniel's soul even though daniel manages to physically kill him.
Interesting analysis but Plainview isn't a sociopath. Plainview is a man who is torn between a need to connect with other human beings, and his inability to do so. He can't relate to normal people, but sees his salvation in family, and earning enough money to isolate himself from those he hates. He's not a monster, but a broken man. Family and isolation are the key themes of Plainviews character. The tragedy of his character is that he himself is responsible for destroying the few bonds that keep him tethered to sanity and happiness. He sends away his own adopted son after not being able to cope with the isolating effects of deafness. He kills the only man we see him trust and confide in (besides HW) from fear and paranoia at being betrayed. He finally destroys the last remnants of his relationship with HW in response to another perceived betrayal. After Plainview kills the man he thought was his brother, we see him breakdown in tears reading the diary of his dead brother, in mourning both over the brother he never knew, and the one he did. This is not the behavior of a remorseless sociopath. Even the killing of Eli comes back to family and isolation. It is when Eli leans on their new family ties in attempt to get money from him, and calls Daniel "brother" that he snaps into murderous rage, and of course Plainviews homicidal resentment towards Eli comes from Eli humiliating and exposing his abandonment of HW. But all the while Plainview shows a capacity to love. He has a clear aversion to hitting children, never hitting HW (which would be incredibly rare for the time), and even stopping Abel Sunday from hitting Mary. When Daniel cuts ties with HW, we see him yelling "BASTARD FROM A BASKET" even when deaf HW has left the room. It's clear Daniel is saying this for his own benefit, lashing out in pain, trying to deny he ever had any feelings for HW. In the very next scene we see a flashback to Plainview playing and laughing with HW, one of the only times we see Plainview as genuinely happy in the entire film, as he then walks off to the oil derrick that will set into motion the tragic events of the film. The derrick fire is not a metaphor for hell, but a metaphor for Plainviews self-destructive nature. That which fuels him also consumes him, burns him up until there is nothing left. "I'm finished".
Yes! This is a much better analysis of the film. He was very loving to his son and that's not typical sociopathic behaviour. Also, the part about his son going deaf and then further isolating Daniel Plainview is spot on!
Barvo, very good analysis. I was looking for more insight and meaning in the film, and your explanation is the best I've seen so far. Thanks for sharing, and great insight.
I always thought that when Daniel sees his brother's diary with the edges of the pages burnt, he realizes that H.W. set Henry's bed on fire because he must have figured out the man lied about who he was. So Daniel started crying because he realized H.W. actually wanted to help him yet he sent him away for what he did. That's why he decides to bring him back and tries so hard to make up for the sin of sending him away.
He could still speak, why didn't he tell his father? At the end, on Daniel's mansion when H.W. told daniel he was going away to mexico, he managed to speak.
He couldn’t read though. Never had not no schooling. He opened and thumbed through the journal completely upside down. It’s possible he may’ve had some inclination he wasn’t who he said he was, Senior certainly did, but the young boy was distressed which made him ornery, confused. At the very least he had the feeling he’w’s been replaced
Have any of you ever wondered why Daniel left Wisconsin in the first place? Money is the easy answer. But several times throughout the film he blatantly refuses to discuss his past life and it is implied that he keeps no correspondence at all with any of his family. Why? I think his origins explain his aversion to religion and overall cynicism. There's a scene where the false Henry says something along the lines of, "I know you and our father had your disagreements." And Daniel replies, "I don't want to talk about that." And earlier in the film, HW tells Daniel that Abel beats his daughter for not praying. Later on he confronts Abel in front of Mary and threatens him to never beat her again. Thus, a suspicious connection exists between Daniel and Mary and there's a rare moment in the film where we see Daniel actually sympathize with another character who just so happens to be a little girl and the daughter of an abusive fundamentalist. It should also be noted that Daniel shows no signs of distress when the false Henry informs him that his father is dead. From this, I think it's safe to infer that Daniel's father was also a Christian fundamentalist who beat him regularly. This also explains his aversion to religion and refusal to accept goodness as a real thing thereby making him inclined to only see the bad in people. Also, Daniel's bond with HW deteriorates as he gets older and loses his childlike innocence...now in the eyes of Daniel, HW is like any other adult; filled with hatred and lies and not to be trusted. And lastly, this might be a bit of a stretch, but when Daniel is explaining to Henry his attitude on life and his hatred and mistrust for people he say's, "If it's in me then it's also in you." And remember that the only connection between Daniel and Henry is that they share the same father who would've likely beat Henry as well for the same exact reasons. I think this explains why Daniel was so ready to open up to Henry despite just meeting him; Daniel was excited that he might've actually found someone he could relate to, someone with the same past and emotional trauma.
1:48 This is wrong. Daniel's first reaction when the explosion happened was to ensure the safety of his son. He didn't once look back as he was running to the mess hall with the injured HW in his arms.
@@Blank-41 Yeah, and the child constantly said not to leave him, but Daniel left anyways. Then when Daniels partner asked about his son, Daniel said he is hurt, but stayed on watching the oil.
@@drose141 he claimed he was a vessel for the Holy Spirit and that he had healing powers, but we never see that going beyond his heated sermons, he’s a false prophet and a violent liar
He's an ego-maniacal sociopath, so yeah, he's the bad guy... He's also the protagonist of the movie, so he can't be considered "the bad guy", villain, antagonist... in that sense. He represents the evil and indifference in Humanity.
The first narrative section of this video's analysis relies way too heavily on the concept of Daniel being the "evil capitalist oil tycoon" (which he surely is) to the point of oversimplifying the character and the movie. Also I highly disagree that Daniel does not care for or about his adopted son - in fact, the tension between his obvious strong devotion and love for his adopted son and his desire to find oil and become wealthy is what drives the central drama of the plot. In fact, you might read Daniel's final disavowal of his son for choosing to go to Mexico and become an oil man himself as Daniel's way (terribly crass and unsuccessful as it is) to show HW that being an oil man was for him (Daniel) just a means to and end - a means for providing for HW. Did you not see the man nearly break down when he had to trick HW on the train to San Francisco? You say Daniel descends into madness - I disagree - he was as equally sane or insane in the silver mine at the beginning of the film - he hated Eli the same the fist day he saw him as the day he murdered him. Note the Daniel must have crawled all the way across the desert with a broken leg to get to the essayer's office. This single (implied) act of bravery (almost) forgives everything else he does in the film. Daniel has to go through hell to attain every ounce of his wealth, both physically and emotionally. Daniel is a much more complicated figure that made out in this analysis - bad form!
What's weird is that while Daniel does display attributes of a sociopath, he also seems to have empathy for others and a pretty strong conscience that guides his actions. The killing of the man who claimed to be his brother seemed to genuinely affect him and despite his claims later that his son was just a ruse to put up a front of a good business man, he does clearly want familial companionship and care about his adopted son. He's just a very peculiar character but I don't think he's quite an evil devil man that only cares about himself. Either way, Anderson created a great fuckin character and movie.
Such a thought provoking film. I thought about it for weeks after I watched it. I definitely need to watch it again to really understand it. The beginning orchestra tune got me hooked right away. Amazing how music can make someone feel.
It's interesting that Daniel kills a man whom is lying to gain an advantage, when part of Daniel's career was built on doing the same. I think a large portion of the film is about the internalized battle of what Daniel actually cares about, is it family or is it competition? At the end of the movie he is obviously upset with HW and begins to belittle him. User 5471122 says this is for Daniels own benefit in an attempt to counter his pain, but it isn't entirely obvious that is true. Daniel says earlier in the film that he has a competition in him and wants no one else to succeed. Does he care about family or did he just use family to succeed? He discards HW soon after Henry arrives. HW then resumes that position soon after Daniel disposes of the fraudulent Henry. The film shows scenes where Daniel seems to care about either of these characters and other scenes where he doesn't. HW announces his own enterprise in oil drilling and thusly becomes a competitor to Daniel. This is the biggest climax/culmination of the film: did Daniel ever actually care about family or did use family to gain success? Daniel is obviously angered. Even in his old age and with no need to gain any more wealth, Daniel is willing to disassociate himself with the only family he has due to his competitive nature.
Eli is not conflicted in the least. Eli is a mirror image of Plainview. Two manipulators trying to control humanity for their own gains. The main difference is Plainview admits his position whereas Eli won’t. Authenticity is the main theme and Plainview’s main ethic which is why he hates humanity and kills Eli after Eli refuses to admit his true nature.
If you can’t relate to “ I see the worst in people, I don’t have to look any further than that” and “ I don’t like to explain myself”, you’re just not going to fully understand what the inside of this antiheroes head is like, or be able to analyze it.
I don't agree with the conclusion that Daniel adopted the boy as a prop. There's a side of deep humanity in him. But as wealth grows around him and his greed for more drives him to the point of using everyone around him to achieve his goals. The character develops to a greedy sociopath from a hardworking greedy man.
It's amazing how I can watch the same movie and come to the complete opposite conclusion on Plainview's life and motivations. Exactly every single thing you said I think the complete opposite
Even though the actor who played Eli, and Paul (whose name escapes me at the moment,) did a terrific job portraying Eli Sunday, I can’t but wonder how a DiCaprio might have done with the role.
6:50 I think he opened with that to essentially imply what Daniel has to go through in that first scene. The movie opens with a sinister crescendo and a shot of the canyon, then Daniel breaks his leg, retrieves his gold and has to drag himself through that canyon. At the end of the scene the camera pans from Daniel to the canyon which is accompanied by the same sinister crescendo. It shows the type of person who would be willing to go to extreme lengths to earn and survive.
Very nice analysis on the different elements of this masterpiece. I always hand a similar thought about religious symbolism of Daniel raising the oil soaked hand to the heavens. The fire motif you describe was also enlightening. I never would’ve thought of that. The only part that didn’t work for me was during your overview of the plot. Eli didn’t really “ask” Daniel how to bless the well. With his delivery, it’s more like Eli *told* Daniel how they should conduct the blessing. There was a legitimate reason why Daniel didn’t let Eli bless the well. It was a face off for power, and Daniel wasn’t going to give Eli that pleasure.
I have not read the book "Oil!", so I don't know the answer to this, but I did not think that HW was adopted. I got the impression that Daniel lashed out at his son because he felt betrayed. Will someone who read the book say if he was adopted or not?
There’s an interesting connection between Daniel and Eli, they are both hypocrites and conmen to advance their own selfish goals. Both trying to out con each other, ultimately leading to their own destruction. He finished Eli’s life by killing him, and Daniel is finished by Eli and the crime he has committed. This film is about revelations, the good that people are willing to believe versus the evil that truly exists in the world. Cause underneath it all, there is only black. Cause what lies underground is truly hell itself. And what does that tell you of the men who willingly dig in search of it.
What most of these analyses seem to miss is that Daniel Plainview is a deeply moral man, evidenced more by what he doesn't do than by what he does. I wouldn't swear to it, but I don't think we ever hear him curse. He doesn't consort with wicked women--or women of any sort, apparently. He doesn't relegate jobs--he's down there in the muck and mud just like the lowest of his crew--and the one time he does (sending HW off with the foreman), both he and HW and even the foreman hold it against him. He doesn't send HW away because, deaf, he's of little value to Daniel; it's Daniel's guilt from the event that makes him want to put HW away from him. He weeps as he reads his brother's diary (if you look closely at the text, you can make out the words "...my brother, a stranger to me,") and some of his interactions with HW are as tender as any I've ever seen on film. "I hate most people" is not evidence of psychopathy; it's an honest assessment of "most people's" hypocrisy and lack of honor according to Daniel's code. Therefore, he doesn't kill the fake Henry until he confesses to his duplicity; he doesn't kill Eli until he himself acknowledges his phoniness. Had Eli refused to say the words Daniel provided him, even though they were true, his honor and strength would have saved him. Plainview is a code hero, and the fault is not with him for abiding by his own code, but with us for not understanding it. Makes for great cinema, but you really wouldn't want to know this guy in real life.
It sounds like Zach Woods was narrating a prob of this video. with that said, I can't believe that no one seems to have realized the parallels between There Will Be Blood and the Bush Iraq War.
What I want to know is why the hell did they use the same actor to play both Paul and Eli. I think this movie is really really good. But that confusion ruined the story for me the first couple times I watched it. Why?! It makes no sense! Was it really important for them to be identical twins?
Lot of people saying he isn’t a sociopath are wrong. Daniel is definitely on the anti social personality disorder spectrum. He says in the film that he hates most people. He wasn’t crying because he killed the fraud brother, but reading the diary.
***** It's my understanding that psychopaths can't love. They certainly don't feel any empathy. He seemed to display signs of both at points in the movie for his adopted son.
He's not a sociopath at all. He is in many ways a victim of his ambition, and preyed upon by others. He is torn apart by his unwitting support of a con artist preacher, and devastated by the imposter who surely killed his brother. He did betray HW, and pays for his attention to the burning well very dearly.
Dewade Jones the other actor playing Eli wasn't working when they began filming so they had dano (who had already filmed his one scene) come in and do the other role as well.. playing it off as a twin (perhaps??)
Sociopath: Impulsivity, deceitfulness, and a profound lack of remorse. Emotional attachments are often superficial and geared towards their own gain. Often lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience. While he showed affection to his surrogate son for a time, his main motivation was to do business with a family image, once his son was inconvenient he sent him away. How he treats his son at the end shows his true nature with the facade removed.
what an ace flick i saw it in 2007 just coz i love day lewis!i try and watch it twice a year its crazy how much of the story a wee treasure!! tried to tell everybody i met u need to c this great film,they came back with its weird the stories no good etc!now the same people are saying its in there top 10 films, so i am really trying to say it grows on u the more times u c it, class act the films whole feel is very like heavens gate another top looking movie!
Religion is the main theme of the movie. The movie isn't making a statement about religion, however, it is merely a religious movie. Even the ending scene is a sort of religious ritual.
....But..that's not what happened. He left his son because he had to put the fire out. He left his son because he set fire to the cabin and couldn't handle the kid. He became"evil" by the end of the movie. Also the humiliation on the baptism was already an answer to the humiliation on the mud
![Movies I Love (and so can you): There Will Be Blood (2007) [*Spoilers*]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/I_1X6Cqck6M/mqdefault.jpg)
![Movies I Love (and so can you): There Will Be Blood (2007) [*Spoilers*]](/img/tr.png)
In a nutshell: Religion is Eli's business. Business is Daniel's religion.
That actually makes alot of sense. Thanks for cracking the code. :)
exactly
This.
Oil is Daniels milkshake
in a nutshell, they're both the same person presenting a false sense of morality from each of their respective swamps. the funny part is that eli manages to steal daniel's soul even though daniel manages to physically kill him.
Interesting analysis but Plainview isn't a sociopath.
Plainview is a man who is torn between a need to connect with other human beings, and his inability to do so. He can't relate to normal people, but sees his salvation in family, and earning enough money to isolate himself from those he hates. He's not a monster, but a broken man. Family and isolation are the key themes of Plainviews character.
The tragedy of his character is that he himself is responsible for destroying the few bonds that keep him tethered to sanity and happiness. He sends away his own adopted son after not being able to cope with the isolating effects of deafness. He kills the only man we see him trust and confide in (besides HW) from fear and paranoia at being betrayed. He finally destroys the last remnants of his relationship with HW in response to another perceived betrayal.
After Plainview kills the man he thought was his brother, we see him breakdown in tears reading the diary of his dead brother, in mourning both over the brother he never knew, and the one he did. This is not the behavior of a remorseless sociopath.
Even the killing of Eli comes back to family and isolation. It is when Eli leans on their new family ties in attempt to get money from him, and calls Daniel "brother" that he snaps into murderous rage, and of course Plainviews homicidal resentment towards Eli comes from Eli humiliating and exposing his abandonment of HW.
But all the while Plainview shows a capacity to love. He has a clear aversion to hitting children, never hitting HW (which would be incredibly rare for the time), and even stopping Abel Sunday from hitting Mary. When Daniel cuts ties with HW, we see him yelling "BASTARD FROM A BASKET" even when deaf HW has left the room. It's clear Daniel is saying this for his own benefit, lashing out in pain, trying to deny he ever had any feelings for HW. In the very next scene we see a flashback to Plainview playing and laughing with HW, one of the only times we see Plainview as genuinely happy in the entire film, as he then walks off to the oil derrick that will set into motion the tragic events of the film.
The derrick fire is not a metaphor for hell, but a metaphor for Plainviews self-destructive nature. That which fuels him also consumes him, burns him up until there is nothing left.
"I'm finished".
That was very insightful/interesting! I feel like you're spot on!
This is the best analysis I've ever read about this film.
Yes! This is a much better analysis of the film. He was very loving to his son and that's not typical sociopathic behaviour. Also, the part about his son going deaf and then further isolating Daniel Plainview is spot on!
Barvo, very good analysis. I was looking for more insight and meaning in the film, and your explanation is the best I've seen so far. Thanks for sharing, and great insight.
Great analysis. Tell me:
How do you analyze like that? I would love to learn!
I always thought that when Daniel sees his brother's diary with the edges of the pages burnt, he realizes that H.W. set Henry's bed on fire because he must have figured out the man lied about who he was. So Daniel started crying because he realized H.W. actually wanted to help him yet he sent him away for what he did. That's why he decides to bring him back and tries so hard to make up for the sin of sending him away.
My man the kid deaf when herny arrives how can he know
@@TheCozzyGaming deaf people read lips bruh
@@TheCozzyGaming he found the diary while searching through his bag
He could still speak, why didn't he tell his father? At the end, on Daniel's mansion when H.W. told daniel he was going away to mexico, he managed to speak.
He couldn’t read though. Never had not no schooling. He opened and thumbed through the journal completely upside down.
It’s possible he may’ve had some inclination he wasn’t who he said he was, Senior certainly did, but the young boy was distressed which made him ornery, confused. At the very least he had the feeling he’w’s been replaced
Have any of you ever wondered why Daniel left Wisconsin in the first place? Money is the easy answer. But several times throughout the film he blatantly refuses to discuss his past life and it is implied that he keeps no correspondence at all with any of his family. Why? I think his origins explain his aversion to religion and overall cynicism. There's a scene where the false Henry says something along the lines of, "I know you and our father had your disagreements." And Daniel replies, "I don't want to talk about that." And earlier in the film, HW tells Daniel that Abel beats his daughter for not praying. Later on he confronts Abel in front of Mary and threatens him to never beat her again. Thus, a suspicious connection exists between Daniel and Mary and there's a rare moment in the film where we see Daniel actually sympathize with another character who just so happens to be a little girl and the daughter of an abusive fundamentalist. It should also be noted that Daniel shows no signs of distress when the false Henry informs him that his father is dead. From this, I think it's safe to infer that Daniel's father was also a Christian fundamentalist who beat him regularly. This also explains his aversion to religion and refusal to accept goodness as a real thing thereby making him inclined to only see the bad in people. Also, Daniel's bond with HW deteriorates as he gets older and loses his childlike innocence...now in the eyes of Daniel, HW is like any other adult; filled with hatred and lies and not to be trusted. And lastly, this might be a bit of a stretch, but when Daniel is explaining to Henry his attitude on life and his hatred and mistrust for people he say's, "If it's in me then it's also in you." And remember that the only connection between Daniel and Henry is that they share the same father who would've likely beat Henry as well for the same exact reasons. I think this explains why Daniel was so ready to open up to Henry despite just meeting him; Daniel was excited that he might've actually found someone he could relate to, someone with the same past and emotional trauma.
Drew This is great and shit but what I am really intrigued to know is how this thought came up in your mind in the first place
this all seems reasonable
Wow that’s an amazing analysis. I was thinking that but could’ve have put it in words.
This is exactly what they wanted to convey. Thanks!
Wow this is an incredible character analysis
His dislike of most people is solidified when he finds out his brother is an impostor.
Probably will go down as one of the most visual masterpieces for the next 30+ years
Absolutely amazing film oh, it gets better with multiple viewings.
1:48 This is wrong. Daniel's first reaction when the explosion happened was to ensure the safety of his son. He didn't once look back as he was running to the mess hall with the injured HW in his arms.
He then instantly leaves him tho
@@Blank-41 Yeah, and the child constantly said not to leave him, but Daniel left anyways.
Then when Daniels partner asked about his son, Daniel said he is hurt, but stayed on watching the oil.
He was by oil. That's where he started to annoy me, right up until the end of the movie.
That score, man that score is incredible. The tension it adds is palpable.
Reminds me of the Shining in parts
The best part is, he makes Eli deny his God, then kills him, sending him to hell
Presuming there is hell. Daniel doesn't believe in one particular faith.
He would’ve went to hell either way
@@Borganov20 ur saying eli wouldve went to hell? why
@@drose141 he claimed he was a vessel for the Holy Spirit and that he had healing powers, but we never see that going beyond his heated sermons, he’s a false prophet and a violent liar
Eli never believed in God, he was a fraud
This is the best analysis I’ve seen on UA-cam. It actually includes discussion of the symbolism and themes as opposed to simply being a plot summary
In my opinion if you just look at Daniel as just the bad guy you just miss the whole concept of the movie
Keith Richards Absolutely
Keith Richards How should you view Daniel as?
@@jonci9712 as broken man, as normal human
@KeithRichards completely agree, when someone looks at Daniel as “ the bad guy” I can’t even take their opinion of the film seriously.
He's an ego-maniacal sociopath, so yeah, he's the bad guy... He's also the protagonist of the movie, so he can't be considered "the bad guy", villain, antagonist... in that sense. He represents the evil and indifference in Humanity.
this is more of a plot than analysis
Never noticed how well fire was used to symbolize the sins Daniel commited which brought hell on earth
what. no
Paul is the only one outta all of em who knew to avoid the whole fucking thing lol
for some fucking reason i never knew he adopted the boy. fuck. thank you!
it can be easily overlooked
+mrnintendowii Aside from their climactic final encounter..."bastard in a basket"
Wаtсh Тhеrе Will Bе Blооd onlinе hеre => twitter.com/f8b314c7f6fe50004/status/795842893135036416 Тhere Will Bе Blоооod Аnаlуsis
The first narrative section of this video's analysis relies way too heavily on the concept of Daniel being the "evil capitalist oil tycoon" (which he surely is) to the point of oversimplifying the character and the movie. Also I highly disagree that Daniel does not care for or about his adopted son - in fact, the tension between his obvious strong devotion and love for his adopted son and his desire to find oil and become wealthy is what drives the central drama of the plot. In fact, you might read Daniel's final disavowal of his son for choosing to go to Mexico and become an oil man himself as Daniel's way (terribly crass and unsuccessful as it is) to show HW that being an oil man was for him (Daniel) just a means to and end - a means for providing for HW. Did you not see the man nearly break down when he had to trick HW on the train to San Francisco?
You say Daniel descends into madness - I disagree - he was as equally sane or insane in the silver mine at the beginning of the film - he hated Eli the same the fist day he saw him as the day he murdered him.
Note the Daniel must have crawled all the way across the desert with a broken leg to get to the essayer's office. This single (implied) act of bravery (almost) forgives everything else he does in the film. Daniel has to go through hell to attain every ounce of his wealth, both physically and emotionally. Daniel is a much more complicated figure that made out in this analysis - bad form!
What's weird is that while Daniel does display attributes of a sociopath, he also seems to have empathy for others and a pretty strong conscience that guides his actions. The killing of the man who claimed to be his brother seemed to genuinely affect him and despite his claims later that his son was just a ruse to put up a front of a good business man, he does clearly want familial companionship and care about his adopted son. He's just a very peculiar character but I don't think he's quite an evil devil man that only cares about himself. Either way, Anderson created a great fuckin character and movie.
Such a thought provoking film. I thought about it for weeks after I watched it. I definitely need to watch it again to really understand it. The beginning orchestra tune got me hooked right away. Amazing how music can make someone feel.
My sister and I spent two hours today discussing this film. I then see this up here. Very interesting analogy.
Eli represents everything Daniel hates in everyone.
It's interesting that Daniel kills a man whom is lying to gain an advantage, when part of Daniel's career was built on doing the same.
I think a large portion of the film is about the internalized battle of what Daniel actually cares about, is it family or is it competition?
At the end of the movie he is obviously upset with HW and begins to belittle him. User 5471122 says this is for Daniels own benefit in an attempt to counter his pain, but it isn't entirely obvious that is true. Daniel says earlier in the film that he has a competition in him and wants no one else to succeed. Does he care about family or did he just use family to succeed? He discards HW soon after Henry arrives. HW then resumes that position soon after Daniel disposes of the fraudulent Henry. The film shows scenes where Daniel seems to care about either of these characters and other scenes where he doesn't.
HW announces his own enterprise in oil drilling and thusly becomes a competitor to Daniel. This is the biggest climax/culmination of the film: did Daniel ever actually care about family or did use family to gain success? Daniel is obviously angered. Even in his old age and with no need to gain any more wealth, Daniel is willing to disassociate himself with the only family he has due to his competitive nature.
Eli is not conflicted in the least. Eli is a mirror image of Plainview. Two manipulators trying to control humanity for their own gains. The main difference is Plainview admits his position whereas Eli won’t.
Authenticity is the main theme and Plainview’s main ethic which is why he hates humanity and kills Eli after Eli refuses to admit his true nature.
Your opening statement about Eli was terrible. He is a scam artist in the same regards as Danielle.
Hoooly crap, I've been looking for this video since I first watched it like, 5 years ago!
If you can’t relate to “ I see the worst in people, I don’t have to look any further than that” and “ I don’t like to explain myself”, you’re just not going to fully understand what the inside of this antiheroes head is like, or be able to analyze it.
I didn't see him as an antihero, because he was not likeable at any point in the film. There was no journey. He was just a psycho throughout.
I don't agree with the conclusion that Daniel adopted the boy as a prop. There's a side of deep humanity in him. But as wealth grows around him and his greed for more drives him to the point of using everyone around him to achieve his goals. The character develops to a greedy sociopath from a hardworking greedy man.
Daniel saved hw before he put out the oil rig explosion
This was quite enjoyable.
Best Acting Ever!!
One word that can describe this brief analytic summarization. "Bravo"👏
No mention of Daniel making Eli deny bud before murdering him? Pretty important point.
Wow! Great analysis!
It's amazing how I can watch the same movie and come to the complete opposite conclusion on Plainview's life and motivations. Exactly every single thing you said I think the complete opposite
Reaching during the second half
What you guys don't know is that in the room down the hall from the bowling alley Daniel had a disco.
Great video. I was sad to see this was your one and only film review.
he wasnt a sociopath, he was obsessed, this film is about the american obsession.
Plainview has God Complex and he is Machiavellian Villian who does everything to gain what he really wants
Thanks for explanation appreciated
My all time favorite film.
Even though the actor who played Eli, and Paul (whose name escapes me at the moment,) did a terrific job portraying Eli Sunday, I can’t but wonder how a DiCaprio might have done with the role.
His name is Paul Dano.
@no no no You clearly haven't seen Django Unchained. Holy shit DiCaprio is a good actor because his face is the epitome of punchable in that movie.
I think Leo would have been too old for the role but there's no denying his talent
@@0FFICERPROBLEMleo was class in django, one of this best characters
6:50 I think he opened with that to essentially imply what Daniel has to go through in that first scene. The movie opens with a sinister crescendo and a shot of the canyon, then Daniel breaks his leg, retrieves his gold and has to drag himself through that canyon. At the end of the scene the camera pans from Daniel to the canyon which is accompanied by the same sinister crescendo. It shows the type of person who would be willing to go to extreme lengths to earn and survive.
I wish they hadn't used the music from The Shining. That really put me off.
exactly. great comment. his journey dragging himself through the canyon could have been a movie in an of itself.
I love this movie, and now even more
Very nice analysis on the different elements of this masterpiece. I always hand a similar thought about religious symbolism of Daniel raising the oil soaked hand to the heavens. The fire motif you describe was also enlightening. I never would’ve thought of that.
The only part that didn’t work for me was during your overview of the plot. Eli didn’t really “ask” Daniel how to bless the well. With his delivery, it’s more like Eli *told* Daniel how they should conduct the blessing.
There was a legitimate reason why Daniel didn’t let Eli bless the well. It was a face off for power, and Daniel wasn’t going to give Eli that pleasure.
Oil! Oil oil oil, man. That's the game
thought by the title this video was about dexter.
@7:28 The sound of extremely crude machinery gone into a non-productive loop.
I don't about all that...
All I know is Daniel Day Lewis is hands down the best Actor who ever lived..!!
Best film of the decade, shame this and no country were yo against each other, both brilliant but this takes it for me
Amazing video!
I have not read the book "Oil!", so I don't know the answer to this, but I did not think that HW was adopted. I got the impression that Daniel lashed out at his son because he felt betrayed. Will someone who read the book say if he was adopted or not?
There’s an interesting connection between Daniel and Eli, they are both hypocrites and conmen to advance their own selfish goals. Both trying to out con each other, ultimately leading to their own destruction. He finished Eli’s life by killing him, and Daniel is finished by Eli and the crime he has committed. This film is about revelations, the good that people are willing to believe versus the evil that truly exists in the world. Cause underneath it all, there is only black. Cause what lies underground is truly hell itself. And what does that tell you of the men who willingly dig in search of it.
who watch this film on netflix ? :D
There will be blood is fucking amazing. IM FINISHED!
When you realize that the violin plays to the syllables of the title
Daniel is not a sociopath. He is a misanthrop that went berserk.
He murdered the imposter 😳
Amoger
Sus
This was a really good analysis but I have a question: I noticed that there were multiple narrators for this video, so is this for a school project?
He didn't really strike me as a sociopath
There was blood
I don't see Daniel as a bad man but broken probably a symptom of alot of men in those times it was a very hard life back then.
There were some good bits in this analysis, but I feel it over simplifies Daniel's character.
It's a 9 minute analysis of a 2 and a half hour film in which you could teach a month's worse of courses on. What the hell did you expect?
Excellent
What most of these analyses seem to miss is that Daniel Plainview is a deeply moral man, evidenced more by what he doesn't do than by what he does. I wouldn't swear to it, but I don't think we ever hear him curse. He doesn't consort with wicked women--or women of any sort, apparently. He doesn't relegate jobs--he's down there in the muck and mud just like the lowest of his crew--and the one time he does (sending HW off with the foreman), both he and HW and even the foreman hold it against him. He doesn't send HW away because, deaf, he's of little value to Daniel; it's Daniel's guilt from the event that makes him want to put HW away from him. He weeps as he reads his brother's diary (if you look closely at the text, you can make out the words "...my brother, a stranger to me,") and some of his interactions with HW are as tender as any I've ever seen on film. "I hate most people" is not evidence of psychopathy; it's an honest assessment of "most people's" hypocrisy and lack of honor according to Daniel's code. Therefore, he doesn't kill the fake Henry until he confesses to his duplicity; he doesn't kill Eli until he himself acknowledges his phoniness. Had Eli refused to say the words Daniel provided him, even though they were true, his honor and strength would have saved him. Plainview is a code hero, and the fault is not with him for abiding by his own code, but with us for not understanding it. Makes for great cinema, but you really wouldn't want to know this guy in real life.
Such a good movie... Top 10 for me
Love this movie
delicious analysis
Why don't I remember anything about his brother? I've seen this film twice and I don't recall that segment at all. Am I crazy?
I don't know how it didn't even occur to me that H.W was the workers son. I'm so stupid.
There was a scene before the workers death where he's stood up holding the baby, seemingly an attempt to show that he's the father
It sounds like Zach Woods was narrating a prob of this video.
with that said, I can't believe that no one seems to have realized the parallels between There Will Be Blood and the Bush Iraq War.
What is the song the film ends with? Anyone know?
You missed the part where h damn kid burned the Shack down
Really well done sir
What I want to know is why the hell did they use the same actor to play both Paul and Eli. I think this movie is really really good. But that confusion ruined the story for me the first couple times I watched it. Why?! It makes no sense! Was it really important for them to be identical twins?
Thanks
The real villain of this film is Eli. He was just , if not ,more manipulative than Daniel.
Great analysis, I hope you make some more.
Lot of people saying he isn’t a sociopath are wrong. Daniel is definitely on the anti social personality disorder spectrum. He says in the film that he hates most people. He wasn’t crying because he killed the fraud brother, but reading the diary.
Dam good review... Cheers mate
Amazing movie
This sounds like a high schoolers report on this movie
This remenbers me a lot of "come and see" but not so shoking.
I don't think he was a sociopath due to how loving he appeared to be with his son at several points in the movie.
***** It's my understanding that psychopaths can't love. They certainly don't feel any empathy. He seemed to display signs of both at points in the movie for his adopted son.
This was an excellent movie, very intense. Some people said it was boring, but it kept me in suspense to the end.
this isn't an analysis... he just says what happens...
He's not a sociopath at all. He is in many ways a victim of his ambition, and preyed upon by others. He is torn apart by his unwitting support of a con artist preacher, and devastated by the imposter who surely killed his brother. He did betray HW, and pays for his attention to the burning well very dearly.
the fall ? unsure about that. betting he got away with killing Eli.
"And thus relieves the conflict between the two men." ffs, of course there is no conflict with 2 men when only 1 man is alive...
Nemo's Tepid Sweep Yeah, conflict resolved.
Question...... what what was the meaning behind the director having one actor play as Paul and Eli please explain?
Dewade Jones the other actor playing Eli wasn't working when they began filming so they had dano (who had already filmed his one scene) come in and do the other role as well.. playing it off as a twin (perhaps??)
so this is how america got crazy with oil......
Descent review al though there are parts you can't hear do to the loud music. Proof listening is actually a thing.
Does anyone remember when he made his son drink milk by force what did he pour in the milk was it alcohol?
Yeah it was, he gives HW alcohol because that’s the only remedy that Daniel knows. So he try’s to ease his sons pain with it.
@@matthewfeil7389 woooaaaah ur right!
needs more volume. I had it on Max and could barely hear you
Sociopath: Impulsivity, deceitfulness, and a profound lack of remorse. Emotional attachments are often superficial and geared towards their own gain. Often lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.
While he showed affection to his surrogate son for a time, his main motivation was to do business with a family image, once his son was inconvenient he sent him away. How he treats his son at the end shows his true nature with the facade removed.
what an ace flick i saw it in 2007 just coz i love day lewis!i try and watch it twice a year its crazy how much of the story a wee treasure!! tried to tell everybody i met u need to c this great film,they came back with its weird the stories no good etc!now the same people are saying its in there top 10 films, so i am really trying to say it grows on u the more times u c it, class act the films whole feel is very like heavens gate another top looking movie!
Religion is the main theme of the movie. The movie isn't making a statement about religion, however, it is merely a religious movie. Even the ending scene is a sort of religious ritual.
All of these references and allusions don't explain what they mean, or what the film is trying to say through the use of them.
....But..that's not what happened.
He left his son because he had to put the fire out. He left his son because he set fire to the cabin and couldn't handle the kid.
He became"evil" by the end of the movie.
Also the humiliation on the baptism was already an answer to the humiliation on the mud
"to earn enough money to escape the contact with the rest of humanity!"
I am so main stream.