Paul Dano, “There Will Be Blood,” Austin Butler: how a blunt hot take ignited a film-world backlash

A fresh controversy erupted this week after Quentin Tarantino blasted Paul Dano’s performance in “There Will Be Blood,” calling the actor “weak” and arguing the film would have been stronger with someone else in the role—going so far as to name Austin Butler as his hypothetical pick. The remarks, delivered in a recent podcast appearance, ricocheted through Hollywood and cinephile circles, prompting a wave of defenses for Dano and a wider debate over casting, collaboration, and how we talk about actors’ work nearly two decades after a film’s release.

Quentin Tarantino vs. Paul Dano: revisiting “There Will Be Blood”

In his comments, Tarantino framed Dano—the film’s Eli/Paul Sunday—as the major flaw holding back a movie he otherwise ranks among the century’s best. That put a spotlight on a longstanding, polarizing question: was Dano’s approach “too slight,” or was it a purposely needling counterweight to Daniel Day-Lewis’s volcanic Daniel Plainview? For many admirers of the film, Dano’s jittery zeal and brittle authority are features, not bugs—an interpretation that helps explain the intensity of the reaction to the critique.

The timeline matters. “There Will Be Blood” premiered in 2007, earned near-unanimous acclaim, and cemented Dano as a go-to performer for complicated outsiders. Dragging a 2007 performance into a 2025 hot-take cycle inevitably reopens old arguments—but it also invites hindsight bias, especially when a single actor is isolated as a film’s “problem.”

Austin Butler enters the chat

Tarantino’s suggestion that Austin Butler would have been “wonderful” as Eli Sunday gave the discourse a new jolt. Butler’s post-“Elvis” run—spanning prestige TV and high-profile films—has positioned him as a leading man with charisma to burn. On paper, imagining him opposite Day-Lewis is an intriguing thought experiment: a more overtly assertive spiritual antagonist, a different physical energy, a sharper clash of temperaments.

But counterfactuals have limits. Casting is chemistry, timing, and the director’s vision. “There Will Be Blood” wasn’t hunting for a co-equal tornado; it framed Eli as a spiritual foil whose power often comes from needling insinuation rather than brute force. Swapping in a bolder presence might have yielded a different—perhaps great, but fundamentally different—movie.

Hollywood rallies to Paul Dano

The industry response arrived fast and loud. Directors, co-stars, and peers lined up to praise Paul Dano, highlighting his meticulous preparation, range, and track record across indies and studio films. Notable voices offering support in recent days include:

• Ben Stiller, who has directed Dano, praising his precision and depth.

• Matt Reeves, who worked with Dano on “The Batman,” calling him a brilliant collaborator.

• Simu Liu, Josh Gad, and others amplifying the sentiment on social platforms.

• Alec Baldwin sharing a video lauding Dano’s craft.

• Cast connections from “There Will Be Blood” adding context from set and screenings.

• A quiet nod from inside the PTA orbit—social posts that read as clear solidarity.

This outpouring underscores a broader point: within the profession, Dano is viewed as an actor’s actor—someone who disappears into character, resists easy showiness, and elevates scenes through specificity rather than volume.

Why the “Dano actor” debate resonates now

At its core, the flare-up isn’t just about one performance. It spotlights enduring tensions in film culture:

• Showy vs. subtle: When one performance is towering (Day-Lewis), a quieter counterperformance can read as “weak” to some viewers and as strategically calibrated to others.

• Critique vs. disparagement: Strong opinions are part of the discourse; personal put-downs land differently, especially when aimed at a colleague’s body of work.

• Revisionism in hindsight: Recasting history with contemporary stars like Austin Butler can be fun conversation, but it risks flattening the historical context in which choices were made.

• Power of public speech: When a marquee director sharpens a take, it shapes narratives—sometimes at odds with the collaborative reality of making movies.

What’s next for Paul Dano—and the conversation

Dano hasn’t publicly engaged with the barbs, and there’s little incentive to do so. His recent run—spanning prestige drama, blockbuster villainy, writing/directing, and awards-caliber ensemble work—speaks for itself. If anything, the past week has strengthened the perception that his peers value what he brings: rigor, humility, and choices that age well.

As for the discourse, expect it to roll on. Awards-season chatter, year-end lists, and retrospectives often rekindle arguments about “best of the century” contenders. The “There Will Be Blood” re-litigation will likely morph into a healthier conversation about how different acting styles coexist within a film, and why imbalance can be a deliberate—and powerful—design.

The latest volley may have tried to demote Paul Dano, but the swift, vocal defense from colleagues suggests the industry has already cast its vote. Whether you prefer a flashier Eli Sunday or the needling preacher Dano etched in 2007, the renewed debate proves what great movies do best: they keep provoking us—years later, and from unexpected angles.