Why does everyone praise his performance in this? It's just him crying and yelling, it's too comedic to take seriously

Why does everyone praise his performance in this? It's just him crying and yelling, it's too comedic to take seriously.

He only does that in one scene. And it's very animated because that's how real preachers (or charlatan preachers) are.

What about the finale when he starts crying about being poor, or when he strangles his father?

>What about the finale when he starts crying about being poor

He nailed looking like a pathetic little rat.

>or when he strangles his father?

What was wrong with it?

His character is supposed to be a little pussy. He plays it well

I'm just saying it's not very impressive. I always see people compare his performance to DDL's but they're not even in the same league. Dano was mediocre in my opinion, played it too comedic to be good. DDL's comedic scenes were just way better imo, he kept the reality and drama alive despite some of the dialogue whereas Dano didn't.

It's funny because the same people who say this probably think Leo's performances are "realistic"

>I always see people compare his performance to DDL's

Oh, I haven't seen that. And I wouldn't do that. DDL's performance is one of the best I've ever seen. Dano just does a decent job IMO.

Yeah I'm not saying his performance was poor necessarily, I just feel you could sub in any one of about 20 other actors and you would get a similar quality performance.

"YYYYESSSSSS HEEEEEEE DOESSZZZZZZZZZZZZ UHHHHHGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"

Another classic performance from Paul Dano.

Fuckin' classic.

C L A S S I C

The movie is about two cartoon characters fighting over their respective gods.

It should've been more entertaining, given the actors themselves didn't seem to take it seriously...but no.

What? It's prett much the general consensus that his performance was the weakest in the film. Sup Forums memers will tell you otherwise because of muh classic Dano.

>C L A S S I C

What the other guy said. This post is a good exception to the rule of "first post best post", because it's bogus as fuck.

Paul/Eli they're the same person :^y flips out on at least FIVE occasions: being muddied and beaten by Daniel, taking it out on his father that evening, an early faith healing sermon, the later I've Abandoned My Boy scourging of Daniel, and finally, being killed by Daniel. At first I only thought there were two or three, but a little thought reveals both that your post is bullshit and also explains an answer for the OP: for a very young adult actor, Paul Dano stepped up to the role of "two" yes, they're really the same character, no, the director's alleged earlier intent doesn't matter, /only the completed film matters, which contains multiple cues for this correct theory/ characters, and got a huge break in a great film to show his range as an actor, being all at once quiet, inscrutable, hucksterish, a shrieking wimp, a shrewd politician, a savvy informant, Paul Dano enjoyed a great opportunity in a long picture to do the kinds of actors' exercises that actors love love love doing in movies: making loud noises, crying, mugging for the camera, sounding smart, and so on.

On some level, we are supposed to pity Eli and find his abuses absurd, that seems rather the point. And in playing this impotent ridiculous weakling character, this afterbirth in a glass jar on the mantle and foil to Daniel, Dano excelled.

Classic performance

The film is a joke.

The first few hours are the set up.

And the milkshake line is the punch.

Then killing the kid is the 'AWKWARD'.


If you don't agree you're insane.

thanks for letting us know that you're a pleb
bye~

This is an actual film, buddy, none of that video game capeshit you enjoy where there are ebin theories and twists. Fuck off.

At least he's better across from DDL than Leo was.

Obviously Daniel is the dominating star, and the whole film revolves around his outer life versus his inner life, and his "backwards dealings" with all the other men in the world that he does not trust, and /usually for good reason/. Daniel "wins".

It is because Daniel is the brand name actor (he even gets to use his own fucking first name for the character and wins Best Actor for his effort) that a weak foil is so useful to the narrative, to break things up. There Will Be Blood also operates like a Bible story: men out in the desert run everything and decide how the culture will be, periodically disagreeing and killing each other in the process. Also like the Bible, there are almost no women [in the movie] - they are meek and quiet, and obey their men. This near-absence of women from the picture sets up [Dano] to be a sort of woman-foil to Daniel's masculinity, which is exemplified by his previous chops-status relative to the rest of the crew.

Dano's character is named Paul though

Did eli deserve what he got? I felt sorry for him tbqh

Oh, you poor benighted dear. What the fuck did you say to me, you little bitch, I'll have you know that I was a guy in the thing in the place.

I am one hundred per cent objectively correct, and there is absolutely nothing that you can do about it: Paul and Eli Sunday are the same person. :^y Little do you appreciate that true kino, just like trash, is also amenable to these sorts of arguments concerning prosaic plot details. Because when done properly, one gets past the surface of these details, into things like story interpretation and themes, which are much more important. :^y

Come at me and prepare to fail.

You're being very clever in tacitly taking the related-but-distinct view: that the one single true character is in fact one "Paul", and not Eli Sunday.

However, I must differ with this approach. Although we have ample reason to suspect mental illness in Paul/Eli (dissociation, histronic religious fervor, split personality, domestic violence, homosexuality), the story is told "in the third person" as it were, and not from the point of view of an unreliable narrator (Paul/Eli would be such an example), as in the obvious example of Fight Club. No, /most/ of the external world refers to [Paul Dano's character(s)] as "Eli", and we are inclined to take the external world mostly at face-value for an interpretation. Whereas the "Paul and Eli are the same person" theory is rock-solid in the completed film under scrutiny, the suggestion that this person /is in fact one Paul/ doesn't stand up, if you stick to the above guns.

fuck you

both Dano and DDL were hammy as fuck in different ways

wait do people really believe that paul and eli were the same guy? Or is it just some stupid meme i am not aware off.