The Church of the Third Revelation: Applying Occam's Razor to theories concerning Plainview's sexuality

Before I provoke anyone into a debate, let me first say that I love you people for obsessing over "Blood" as meticulously as I have (and in NapkinFace's case, considerably more so). I've seen it three times in two weeks.

To Mr. Draaaiiinnaage, I'd like to propose the principle of Occam's Razor, which states that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. "This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. That is, the fewer assumptions an explanation of a phenomenon depends on, the better it is. For example, some claim that God caused himself to exist and also caused the universe to exist - he was the "first cause" - whereas Occam's Razor suggests that if one accepts the possibility of something causing itself then it is better to assume that it was the universe that caused itself rather than God because this explanation involves fewer entities. The negation of Occam's Razor would suggest that an arbitrarily complex explanation is just as good as the simplest one. (E.g. God and his cat created a robot called Sparky who built the universe from parts bought from a shop in another dimension)."

What I'm saying is that when it comes to conjecture concerning homoerotic undertones, Daniel's apparent disinterest in the opposite sex, and his being around men all the time, I think some are analyzing so deeply that things are being found that are not supported or affirmed by the actual film.

Roger Ebert faulted the film for its "lack of women." But consider that Daniel was an oil-baron. I would be surprised to learn if there were many (if any) female oil-workers in Plainview's line of work in turn-of-the-century Texas. Do you know of some historical examples of female oil prospectors? In Plainview's small circle of associates and confidantes, it is very likely that he would have only men. It's not as if Daniel "chooses to spend his life surrounded by other men" as Draaaiiinnaage says. That's like saying a basketball player has an ambiguous sexuality because he spends so much time with his male coach and his male teammates at practices and games. That's their line of work, and in that instance, only men are involved.

Now, if Ebert is complaining about Plainview not having a wife, a girlfriend, a mistress, consider this: the man is a miser and a misanthrope. It is highly unlikely he would have any of these sorts of women in his personal life. Ebert's complaint is sort of tantamount to writing a review of "A Christmas Carol" and finding fault with Ebenezer Scrooge's lack of a girlfriend. Maybe Ebert would like some cobbled-on storyline with Plainview's sister coming to town.

As for Eli, Daniel never chooses to go looking for Eli except once, when he goes to ask him to see to the prayer service and the possessions of the man who died in the second accident, which is merely Daniel taking care of a business obligation. Eli is the one always going to Daniel. Draaaiiinnaage, when you say "...Along the way, the young preacher is subjected to gleeful, orally fixated taunts about milkshake-slurping, among other verbal and physical humiliations, all of which he submits to with a surprising, almost capitulatory ease," didn't you think maybe Daniel beats the shit out of Eli because he hates him? The first time he slaps the hell out of Eli, it's because Eli insensitively goes to ask Daniel for his money (which Eli said he only wanted to build his new church which we've already seen being constructed) right after H.W. has been tragically deafened. Eli submits to Daniel's abuse because he is scared of him. He even tells Daniel at the end "Don't bully me!"

The only eye-brow raising moment of the film is when Eli says randomly when talking about Bandy's grandson, "He is very good-looking." Granted, Eli is talking about how the boy wants to become a Hollywood actor. But if there are any homosexual undertones coming from the film, none of it is coming from Daniel.

No one is wondering about the latent homosexual tendencies of Ebenezer Scrooge.

But Daniel did seem genuinely reluctant about leaving H.W. on the train when he arranged for Fletcher to hold the boy onboard as the train departed. And Daniel cares about the size of H.W.'s room at the place where he has been sent to stay, even asking the question, "How big is the room?" twice, asking the same question even after Fletcher answers it, signifying that he is losing his grasp on sanity. Why would he be so concerned about the size of H.W.'s room if he no longer cared about him?

He is also very fragile when it comes to announcing "I abandoned my child!" during his Baptism.

Look at the affection he showers on H.W. at the restaurant where he puts the napkin on his face. I really don't think there is any scene where Daniel shows coldness to H.W. when he is a boy.

Somewhere else, somebody posted a negative review of the film saying "the lastest Rambo movie had more heart and emotional range than this dog." This person, frankly, is obtuse, because if they had any manner of ability to catch nuance they would have noticed Daniel's affection for H.W. throughout the film. Daniel dotes on the boy. Daniel has a heart, and it shrivels as he grows more and more disconnected from his son. His son walking out on him at the end is sort of symbolic for the final blow to Daniel's humanity. You remember which scene follows directly after... 

Just friggin' remarkable is F***ing right. I didn't think it was possible for a screen character in 2007 to be more riveting than Anton Chigurh, Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, and Llewlyn Moss, but DD-L looms over them all.

As for Plainview's sanity, perhaps you're right when everyone goes about saying he is a lunatic. Perhaps that is an oversimplification of what is happening to him.

When you said "From all I've read and heard from people who grew up in those days, DP was extremely loving and affectionate to HW" I was confused as I thought both DP and H.W. were fictional characters from Upton Sinclair's "Oil!" I thought the book was a fictionalized account based on an actual oil-baron from that time period.

Also, I really would have enjoyed some scenes bridging 1911 and 1927. Hell, I would have enjoyed watching Daniel Plainview read a phone book.

I was rereading this-- "Also, I really would have enjoyed some scenes bridging 1911 and 1927. Hell, I would have enjoyed watching Daniel Plainview read a phone book."--and suddenly imagined DP reading HW "Goodnight Moon" in that stately voice. Okay, so the book wasn't written then, but it's still a funny image.