Is Impotence Daniel Plainview's Problem?
Filed under: Drama, Critical Thought, Celebrities and Controversy, Fandom, Scripts, Oscar Watch
.jpg)
A number of people who've seen There Will Be Blood have commented on the fact that women don't seem to figure into lead character Daniel Plainview's life at all. As one commenter on David Poland's blog recently put it, "There's never a single woman in sight of him. Not when he becomes successful. Not even when he's older. Not even whores. There's no explicit point of this made, so much as it's just de facto." This is part of the commenter's argument that Plainview is a repressed homosexual. Another commenter pegs Plainview as simply a-sexual, noting that "his only love and appetite was for more money as a means to an end." But is that really what's going on? I recently sat down and read the script for There Will Be Blood and noticed something that I don't remember being included at all in the film. Since it's only one line I could have just missed it, but I don't think I did, and if I'm right it might go a long way towards explaining things.
On page 80 of the script, Daniel and Henry (a drifter who may be his brother) are sitting in a mess hall drinking and talking and Daniel tells Henry that H.W., who he's been passing off as his son, is "not even my son." "What do you mean?" Henry asks. At this point, the script says that 'Daniel begins to break down, holds his crotch' and then says to Henry "He's not my son. My c**k doesn't even work. How am I gonna make a kid? Does yours work Henry?" So that kind of sheds a new light on things, doesn't it? His half-hearted attempts at finding male companions -- his adopted son and Henry, in addition to his manservant -- are his only option, really.
Tom Cruise and J.J. Abrams Reunite for 'Mission Impossible 4'
'Big Top Pee-Wee': The Original Benicio Del Toro Wolfman
Spin-ematical: New on DVD and Blu-ray for 2/9
Watch This: Brilliant Oscar-Nominated Short 'Logorama'
Chris Nolan to Lead 'Superman' Reboot!?
_thumbnail.jpg)
_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-19-2008 @ 5:46PM
JustAGuy said...
Doesn't it seem like "Drilling" or constructing dereks, or "laying a pipeline" substitute for sex? Plainview is spiritually bankrupt, sexually impotent and morally corrupt. Drilling for oil is his sex, a wildcat gusher is his ejaculation. His impotence is suggested by the burning, collapsing Derek.
Reply
2-28-2008 @ 4:49PM
Jaguar-O said...
He's not impotent. He's a pedophile. He loves children because of their innocence and because they don't have personal interests that Plainview does not need to take care of. Sexually he's interested just in little girls, that's why he embraces Mary with special affect while he was explaining her he was going to protect her. His relationship with H.W. got deteriorated as he grew up. When he became a teenager, then Plainview could not stand his relationship with him any longer.
Reply
1-01-2008 @ 11:16AM
Steven said...
I'm glad PTA took that line out of the script because it would have been too easy a psychological explanation for who Plainview is. Anderson resorted to those simplistic explanations in Magnolia.
When Plainview talks about how he distrusts people and sees the worst in them, it is more interesting and relatable why he lets few people close to him.
Reply
1-01-2008 @ 12:02PM
Milhuisen said...
You shouldn't post shit like this. It was left out of the film for a reason. I live in Australia and am waiting for the film to be released. Now I will have this in the back of my mind as I watch it. Really annoying.
Reply
2-23-2008 @ 2:11AM
daniel plainview said...
that's your fault for living in australia
1-01-2008 @ 3:27PM
Franklin said...
Since this is not in the final movie, one can come to any conclusion they want to regarding Plainview's relationship (or lack of) with women. I figured throughout his life he was generally disappointed with people, and women could easily factor into this feeling of disappointment for a man. You could also imagine that Plainview had relationships on and off with women "in between" the scenes we were shown in the movie, throughout his life. But none of these moments were depicted because Plainview had no meaningful relationships that factored into the overall focus of the movie's plot.
As for that brief scene where he was apparently in a whorehouse but not taking part, it comes across (in the movie) that he is perturbed by the revelation that the man he trusted as his brother was in fact not his brother -- not that he cannot "get it up", as the earlier draft of the screenplay suggests.
Originally, before I read this blog entry, my guess was that Anderson had cut out a lot of subplots to scale back the movie's running time, which runs at 150 minutes. All too often, we see movies in which a protagonist is paired with a romantic partner for no other reason than to "assure" the audience that our hero gets laid (or can get laid). I thought there was already plenty going on in the plot of THERE WILL BE BLOOD, and felt that giving Plainview a girlfriend would have bogged things down and diverted from the focus of the story. Not every movie has to have a romantic arc in it.
I felt it was implied, however, especially in the final scene, that Eli Sunday was in the closet.
Reply
1-01-2008 @ 5:38PM
RLP said...
You have to be kidding me.
How about for the people who haven't seen it and are not fortunate to live in one of the cities it is playing in at the moment, but they are really big movie fans and anticipate seeing another one of PTA's masterpieces?
Can you at least warn people?
Reply
1-01-2008 @ 9:14PM
modenadude said...
Yah I know, seriously. I am fortunate enough to live in LA and saw it - but it's hardly playing anywhere! I'm sure the mass majority of people interested in seeing this movie are a long time away from actually seeing it. Warn next time please!
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 10:03AM
ronmoses said...
Come on, guys, it's Cinematical, the site with the worst track record on the Internet in regards to spoilers. Surely you're not just figuring this out now? They might as well call it Spoilermatical. Just be thankful this spoiler wasn't in the article's title, like some have been...
Oh wait... it *was* in the title. Never mind. Cinematical, you always cease to amaze me.
Reply
1-02-2008 @ 1:17PM
Wes said...
I'm glad that was cut out of the movie. I'd like to think Plainview just hates everyone and that came across in the movie.
Reply
1-22-2008 @ 2:36PM
jason Smallwood said...
i highly doubt this is true. Read those lines again - after seeing this movie, do you think PTA would have written something so crude and obvious?
Reply