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.
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.
@@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
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!
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
With all due respect, you've deconstructed a masterpiece from a cheap, pop-psychological perspective. Consider William Butler Yeats poem "Blood and Oil," The life of Bill Mulholland, and "How the West was Won." You will see the deeper meaning.
What's the deeper meaning, that capitalism is avaricious and heartless and that the west was won through violent predation? With all due respect, I don't see how your implied "deconstruction" is any more profound than the one under discussion.
What is this deeper meaning? Enlighten us because your obviously highly intelligent and wise and not just an average sheep like everyone else. Your the lone successful and intelligent person lurking in the youtube comments section. Right.
Xednis That would be the surface layer meaning, and I mean very surface layer, it's basically just the base for a more complicated and personal story. It is, based off of those pieces of art. As well as great symbolism. I can agree with you there totally. It's got multiple layers and angles, that's why it's a masterpiece. It's a personal story about someone, a psychological one, and this kind if over arching reversed religious symbolism. As well as the capabilities of man. Greed, trust, religion, empathy, passion, capitalism, competition, whatever
@@Xednis he offered a light critique asserting that the film and its story and central character are more sincerely nuanced than dubbing the man as unfeeling monster by calling him a sociopath would as the maker of the video term here would imply. He's not being a snob.
@@yawgmoth5662 what were you so mad at while typing this? there was no need to be this heated at someone for commenting their own opinion on the video. and, the commenter asked for a deeper analysis rather than simply implying daniel is a bad man. this video is a plot summary more than an analysis.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
Wow, a lot of over-interpretation here. You don't have to read a backpack as the cross, getting soaked in oil as a baptism, or orange light as a reference to hell to get at the deeper themes of this movie. In "explaining" the visual elements of the movie, you're actually narrowing their possible reading. You've got a right to your viewpoint, but I would say it's not a very ... plain view.
it was not a "fantastic modern music score"... it was an experiment that didn't work out... that music detracted SO MUCH from the pace of the movie and was frequently misplaced.... in fact, notice how annoying the use of this music is in this very video
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.
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.
I think Eli was, at heart, a capitalist. No true men of faith would not have said the words he said. He was a king with a rook (spirituality) - and Plainview had too much material. Oil and all. And a swing of the bowling pin, the game is over.
....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
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.
Long story short. Eli is evil and uses religion to manipulate others out of their money. Believe it or not Daniel is good and rids the world of Eli, hence the, " I am the 3rd revelation." He's doing the lords work. Daniel is far from the villain in this 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.
This is overly basic and Poorly done. But, Don't give up! I would advise to try again and you will be successful. Expand your Thoughts beyond the most basic themes of the movie.
By all means, enlighten us. And please, continue to randomly capitalize words as often as you can. (By the way, breaking a complicated narrative down to its "basic themes" is how you get an interesting discussion started. You'd know that if you had any experience with critical analysis beyond "Expand[ing] your Thoughts." )
That's sadly the trend now with a lot of film analyses on this site. Every Frame a Painting, while his work is solid, has started a trend that is both good and bad in regards to those wanting to learn about the craft and artistry of cinema. The good part, is that people are now more aware than ever of the basic fundamentals of filmmaking. Things like blocking, camerawork, shot composition, and overall visual language are now much more discussed and focused on by film reviewers on this site than ever. The bad side however, is that people have now focused a little too much on those things and not enough in regards to the actual substance of a movie. Most of the time, they can only see the most superficial themes, and they might have a grasp as to how the director used cinematography and staging to compliment these themes, but in regards to subtext? Not so much. Which is why I highly recommend the works of Darren Foley and Rob Ager. Those guys have a much deeper understanding of movies beyond "Oh, here's a shot of our character looking up, as though he's found God!" or "Red is used to symbolize love in this movie. So that is why this woman's period blood is red!"
Are you talking to me or to the OP? Either way, you need to stop acting like an overly sensitive, butthurt douchebag and start trying to make an actual argument as opposed to just mindless swearing. Just a bit of advice.
I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the OP. That's who I clicked 'reply' to. But now that your dumbass popped off, you ignorant fuck, please consider my comment as referring to both of you weak ass pretenders. Go fuck yourself, shit stain.
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.
I don't think I can explain the entire movie arc to you in a youtube comment, but its the idea that one man through his own courage intelligence and hard work was able to create a ton of wealth for others and that even though people hated him they were all trying to run their own game and in the end they all wanted and needed money just like him. Its the story of Western Civilization and its a beautiful story
Daniel isn’t a sociopath. He’s a man who’s been through hardships like a childhood associated with poverty, abuse and other bad stuff. In that age many people like him went to America trying to make money or even a wealth, like Trump’s grandpa. Many of them showed sociopath-like characters, it’s common in that era. The nice and meek ones wouldn’t have made it in the wild west.
![CAMPปลิ้น | EP.82[1/2] แก๊ง 3 สาวเพื่อนซี้บุก CAMPปลิ้นครั้งนี้ห้ามเสียอาการ](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_6WUjXHe1TM/mqdefault.jpg)
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
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.
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.
His dislike of most people is solidified when he finds out his brother is an impostor.
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
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!
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.
this is more of a plot than analysis
That score, man that score is incredible. The tension it adds is palpable.
Reminds me of the Shining in parts
Your opening statement about Eli was terrible. He is a scam artist in the same regards as Danielle.
Never noticed how well fire was used to symbolize the sins Daniel commited which brought hell on earth
what. no
This is the best analysis I’ve seen on TH-cam. It actually includes discussion of the symbolism and themes as opposed to simply being a plot summary
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.
who watch this film on netflix ? :D
Paul is the only one outta all of em who knew to avoid the whole fucking thing lol
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.
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'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.
Most ppl like Eli character acting in this movie. I absolutely hated it. Should’ve been a older man playing that role. He was annoying af
DDL does a shitty John Huston impression, film nerds go nuts...yawn...
This analysis is absolute trash.
With all due respect, you've deconstructed a masterpiece from a cheap, pop-psychological perspective. Consider William Butler Yeats poem "Blood and Oil," The life of Bill Mulholland, and "How the West was Won." You will see the deeper meaning.
What's the deeper meaning, that capitalism is avaricious and heartless and that the west was won through violent predation? With all due respect, I don't see how your implied "deconstruction" is any more profound than the one under discussion.
What is this deeper meaning? Enlighten us because your obviously highly intelligent and wise and not just an average sheep like everyone else. Your the lone successful and intelligent person lurking in the youtube comments section. Right.
Xednis That would be the surface layer meaning, and I mean very surface layer, it's basically just the base for a more complicated and personal story. It is, based off of those pieces of art. As well as great symbolism. I can agree with you there totally. It's got multiple layers and angles, that's why it's a masterpiece. It's a personal story about someone, a psychological one, and this kind if over arching reversed religious symbolism. As well as the capabilities of man. Greed, trust, religion, empathy, passion, capitalism, competition, whatever
@@Xednis he offered a light critique asserting that the film and its story and central character are more sincerely nuanced than dubbing the man as unfeeling monster by calling him a sociopath would as the maker of the video term here would imply. He's not being a snob.
@@yawgmoth5662 what were you so mad at while typing this? there was no need to be this heated at someone for commenting their own opinion on the video. and, the commenter asked for a deeper analysis rather than simply
implying daniel is a bad man. this video is a plot summary more than an analysis.
There was blood
Eli represents everything Daniel hates in everyone.
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
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.
he wasnt a sociopath, he was obsessed, this film is about the american obsession.
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?
I don't about all that...
All I know is Daniel Day Lewis is hands down the best Actor who ever lived..!!
No mention of Daniel making Eli deny bud before murdering him? Pretty important point.
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
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.
Great movie, but bad analysis.
Kinda weak analysis. No disrespect
Kinda weak comment. No disrespect
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.
Daniel is not a sociopath. He is a misanthrop that went berserk.
Wow, a lot of over-interpretation here. You don't have to read a backpack as the cross, getting soaked in oil as a baptism, or orange light as a reference to hell to get at the deeper themes of this movie. In "explaining" the visual elements of the movie, you're actually narrowing their possible reading. You've got a right to your viewpoint, but I would say it's not a very ... plain view.
it was not a "fantastic modern music score"... it was an experiment that didn't work out...
that music detracted SO MUCH from the pace of the movie and was frequently misplaced....
in fact, notice how annoying the use of this music is in this very video
No fire when he murders Eli, though? Perhaps overthinking
Oh, i get it. One of those over analysis videos.
Precisely
indubitably
Indeed
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.
Plainview has God Complex and he is Machiavellian Villian who does everything to gain what he really wants
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.
Please credit Jonny Greenwood, not just The Music
You think a lot Adam 🧠 ...give your brain to Jesus ...daily ..."Happy days are here againnnn" 😃
I think Eli was, at heart, a capitalist. No true men of faith would not have said the words he said. He was a king with a rook (spirituality) - and Plainview had too much material. Oil and all.
And a swing of the bowling pin, the game is over.
....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
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.
Long story short. Eli is evil and uses religion to manipulate others out of their money. Believe it or not Daniel is good and rids the world of Eli, hence the, " I am the 3rd revelation." He's doing the lords work. Daniel is far from the villain in this movie.
Hoooly crap, I've been looking for this video since I first watched it like, 5 years ago!
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.
In a nutshell, it was a shite movie! Clutching at straws trying to explain it and if you fancy watching Daniel Day act then its bearable.
There will be blood is fucking amazing. IM FINISHED!
This is overly basic and Poorly done. But, Don't give up! I would advise to try again and you will be successful. Expand your Thoughts beyond the most basic themes of the movie.
By all means, enlighten us. And please, continue to randomly capitalize words as often as you can. (By the way, breaking a complicated narrative down to its "basic themes" is how you get an interesting discussion started. You'd know that if you had any experience with critical analysis beyond "Expand[ing] your Thoughts." )
That's sadly the trend now with a lot of film analyses on this site. Every Frame a Painting, while his work is solid, has started a trend that is both good and bad in regards to those wanting to learn about the craft and artistry of cinema. The good part, is that people are now more aware than ever of the basic fundamentals of filmmaking. Things like blocking, camerawork, shot composition, and overall visual language are now much more discussed and focused on by film reviewers on this site than ever. The bad side however, is that people have now focused a little too much on those things and not enough in regards to the actual substance of a movie. Most of the time, they can only see the most superficial themes, and they might have a grasp as to how the director used cinematography and staging to compliment these themes, but in regards to subtext? Not so much. Which is why I highly recommend the works of Darren Foley and Rob Ager. Those guys have a much deeper understanding of movies beyond "Oh, here's a shot of our character looking up, as though he's found God!" or "Red is used to symbolize love in this movie. So that is why this woman's period blood is red!"
Shut the fuck up & stop pretending you know what you are talking about.....when you obviously do not.....jackass. Have a nice day.
Are you talking to me or to the OP? Either way, you need to stop acting like an overly sensitive, butthurt douchebag and start trying to make an actual argument as opposed to just mindless swearing. Just a bit of advice.
I wasn't talking to you. I was talking to the OP. That's who I clicked 'reply' to. But now that your dumbass popped off, you ignorant fuck, please consider my comment as referring to both of you weak ass pretenders. Go fuck yourself, shit stain.
Get a better mic dude
This was made 5 years ago stfu
Best film of the decade, shame this and no country were yo against each other, both brilliant but this takes it for me
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.
@7:28 The sound of extremely crude machinery gone into a non-productive loop.
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?
You probably should title this with the Spoiler Alerts disclaimer.
Best Acting Ever!!
Great video. I was sad to see this was your one and only film review.
YOUR VIDEOS ARE TOO QUIET. I HAVE THE VOLUME ALL THE WAY AND STILL VERY QUIET AND HARD TO HEAR OVER ALL THE SCREAMING BEHIND ME.
He murdered the imposter 😳
Amoger
Sus
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.
The real villain of this film is Eli. He was just , if not ,more manipulative than Daniel.
It would be better if you had not made this video or done any analysis.
It was not realistic because there was no documented history of atheist oilmen
Daniel saved hw before he put out the oil rig explosion
Someone went to film school.
What you guys don't know is that in the room down the hall from the bowling alley Daniel had a disco.
CONCERTO FOR VIOLIN 🎻 D-MAJOR OPUS 77
What is the song the film ends with? Anyone know?
There are 6 acts, not 3.
so this is how america got crazy with oil......
I don't really think he's a sociopath... not a good person though.
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!
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
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?
thought by the title this video was about dexter.
Priest lost.3 wasn't his......
"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.
Did nothing wrong
You missed the part where h damn kid burned the Shack down
He's not sociopath
*Daniel was right*
Can’t hear ya
This movie is all about how capitalism is actually good and true
Good?? The man exploited an entire town and became a murderous sociopath because of money! Wheres the good in that?
Sorry that is all you can understand
@@Swisspastel80 well what part of this movie told you that capitalism was good and true
I don't think I can explain the entire movie arc to you in a youtube comment, but its the idea that one man through his own courage intelligence and hard work was able to create a ton of wealth for others and that even though people hated him they were all trying to run their own game and in the end they all wanted and needed money just like him. Its the story of Western Civilization and its a beautiful story
Reaching during the second half
Daniel isn’t a sociopath. He’s a man who’s been through hardships like a childhood associated with poverty, abuse and other bad stuff. In that age many people like him went to America trying to make money or even a wealth, like Trump’s grandpa. Many of them showed sociopath-like characters, it’s common in that era. The nice and meek ones wouldn’t have made it in the wild west.
eli the "young pastor " is the evil one.
As a christian i have never seen a more cheesy church with a funny doctrine before haha
Very poor.
Wrong.
Bullshit!