Now my memory's a little fuzzy. (Also, I was interrupted many times
writing this, so my train of thought is a little scattered.)


>You could probably even look at it from a third different
>point of view. But I believe it was Daniel's greed that put
>H.W. in that position, because H.W. was, as Daniel later
>admits, just a cute face, a business accessory. He was there
>for strategic purposes, those born out of greed, not family
>interests. We see this too when he gets injured, where, since
>he can no longer help out, he becomes nothing other than a
>"bastard in a basket", someone to leave behind on a train.

A major difference between our viewings would appear to be that
you give Plainview zero credit for having any humanity
whatsoever. Though his statement that he was merely using H.W.
bears some truth, I think it's undeniable that Plainview had
true love for his surrogate child. He only reveals this fact
to H.W. because he feels that he's been hurt (yet again) by someone
that he loves. His adoption of H.W. can be connected to his
childhood wish to have kids running around his future-mansion,
as described during his reminiscences, a much more pure sentiment
than the need for better business stratagem. Daniel's love for H.W.
is further evidenced by his defensive attack on the Standard Oil
man for "trying to tell me how to raise my son."

Also, you seem to be implying that the derrick catches on fire
because Plainview has been overzealous in his development of said derrick. I don't know enough about turn of the century oil drilling,
but would that really be why it caught on fire? My impression is
that derrick fires were an unavoidable risk, and as Plainview's words to his second-in-command relate, is more closely related to the immense pressure of an untapped oil deposit, rather than because a man
had greedily sucked one dry.

>And with his son having just
>experienced a traumatic head injury, how does Daniel respond
>to the sulking man he's admiring the blaze with (loosely
>quoted): "why are you sad . . . there's an ocean of oil."
>It's clear what Plainview's interests are and how they have
>impacted H.W.'s life. (Plus, even if H.W.'s accident is a
>consequence of his love for his father, I'd argue that it's
>the one way he thought he could get his father to show him
>love back.)

Right. I certainly wouldn't argue that Daniel is a good father,
his mind is essentially one-dimensional, attempting to relate
all events to aspects of business and wealth. Like how he's so
concerned as to whether H.W. has a large room at his new school,
not whether H.W. is happy there, has a good facilities to learn.
But him even asking that question is evidence of his love. And
when he brings H.W., he has long since lost the need for a cute face,
so why is he so happy to have his son back?


>Deliberate because why
>else include the bit about Mary's beatings. Sure, it's one
>way we see that H.W. cares for Mary early on, but, more
>importantly, I think it's also there to contrast with the
>abuse H.W. suffers, which might not have resulted in direct
>physical markings but was impacting nonetheless.

I can see this, but my reasoning for the Mary-being-beaten situation
was twofold:

1 - Plainview only cares about her being beaten because H.W. cares,
further demonstrating his love.
2 - It allows Plainview to achieve dominion over religion through
money (Abel relents in his abuse because he is sustained by his new income).
This is more evidence of his competitive spirit, as well as demonstrating his apparent dislike of religion.


>Eli supplanting Abel? Absolutely, but H.W. specifically
>passes along that Abel beats Mary because she doesn't pray.
>While him losing his standing in the household might underlie
>any attack, I'll choose to accept the story as explicitly
>expressed on screen. (What's more, Eli hit his father after
>the beatings had already been brought up. Also, I viewed his
>family standing to the side as more of an issue of gender than
>anything else.)

Yeah, I try to avoid making such conjecture, but (not to be a dick)
if you're going to "accept the story as explicitly expressed",
Abel beats Mary because she doesn't pray, not because Abel is
a metaphorical analog to Plainview and needs to abuse his offspring
as consequence of his cruel ambitions. Also, though Eli doesn't hit
his father until after Mary's abuse has ended, my point still stands
Eli had supplanted Abel long before, as Abel defers to Eli when
Plainview tries to buy the ranch (for quail hunting).

>Abel believes that Plainview came as a direct result
>of the lord's mysterious ways. On the other hand, Eli wants a
>fair price on the oil, along with a donation to his church.
>This fanaticism will punish Abel, and the halfway-crookism Eli
>lives by will get him too.

Is Abel any more fanatical than the rest of the town?


>Hmm . . . me sitting in the audience, so used to the
>borderline comical depictions of the shout-and-pray faithful,
>yes, I think *I'm* supposed to look at him as a false prophet.
> PTA is winking at us. But I never believed that there was a
>wink coming from Eli either. He's played straight, full of
>conviction early on.

It's acting within the act. During the exorcism scene you see him
quite clearly search for an appropriate target to enthrall his audience.
Of course, unless you believe in the supernatural achievements
of a "true prophet", all prophets would be technically false,
and any distinction thereafter would be dependent on whether that
prophet holds his interests or the people's interest higher.
Quite clearly Eli holds his own interests higher, otherwise he
should have been satisfied that Plainview blessed his derrick at all.



>Don't know if I saw that either.
>
>As mentioned above, and as Plainview states, H.W. was merely a
>cute face to help him win over business dealings. When he
>becomes deaf, damaged, he loses his ability to fill that role.
> Enter the "brother." Subsequently, I didn't see the brother
>as making him feel content or no longer as concerned with new
>land. I mean, what does Daniel even say to him, "Henry, to
>have you here gives me a second breath. I can't keep doing
>this on my own with these... people." Henry has reenergized
>him, reupped his intensity for his business at the moment when
>his sole partner (H.W.) had been weakened. And I certainly
>recall the two of them looking for new land together. Don't
>they make the trip to the Bandy property as a pair? Then, as
>far as him reminiscing, what does Daniel say about the house
>(Hollister something) that he dreamed about when he was a kid,
>(something to the effect of), "now it'd probably make me
>sick."

The reminiscence occurs after/during the Bandy trip, right before
he kills Henry. And his statement that the house would make his sick
doesn't diminish the act of cherishing his past, it's but another
example of his "competition".

But honestly, I'm basing my perception of Daniel's contentment on
his body language, as he swims in the ocean, interacts with Henry,
imagines living in a house by the sea. So there's little I can truly
argue there.


>"I have a competition in me; I want no one else to succeed. I
>hate most people. "
>
>I didn't read murdering the fake-brother as an act of
>repentance. Again, I saw it born out of Plainview's strict,
>cold-hearted, business-minded mentality.

I believe one the first things he told H.W. when H.W. returned was
that he had gotten rid of Henry. When Daniel realized that Henry was bullshitting, it appeared to me that you could see Daniel understanding
what H.W. had been trying to do by setting the cabin on fire, and
regretting that he hadn't then understood.

>Now if he suspected
>"Henry" was going to learn from him and then hope to hurt him
>in business as a competitor, I don't know, but the mere act of
>deception was enough. Henry stood to profit from Plainview's
>employment, and since their relationship was built on
>betrayal, Plainview must have been red-hot to see a guy after
>his money. That was enough. (For the swindler to have been
>swindled was a major crime.)

That too is true, though I never felt Plainview was a swindler.
Eli was the only person to really be "swindled", though it seemed
to me that that wasn't the case, as Eli did in fact get the money
to build a larger church and make (failed) investments.


>Plainview was always more protective of his money than his
>family, because that's what greed will do to you. Remember,
>what was one of the initial questions he asks to Henry when he
>believes he's reunited with his long-lost brother? He asks if
>he's here for money. That was what Plainview first and
>foremost looked after. It's what spurred his great fortune
>but ultimately left him with nothing.

I'd have been suspicious of Henry too!
I mean, he's not even disguised as a "long-lost" brother, rather
"half-brother you never knew you had".

Greed seems less a problem than his overall mental instability;
he's jealous of H.W.'s interpretor,
money has become so devalued that he sits around shooting his belongings INSIDE the house,
he's clearly an alcoholic, and maybe even has Parkinson's (notice the tremors in his hands).

Is there a parable here? If you want one to be. But like most good
dramatic cinema, it succeeds best because of how it reflects the human
condition and draws empathetic reactions. The extrapolation of a
message, a conceit, is and should be secondary.