Why did he become so cartoonishly evil in the last act? He was quite a compelling character until that point?

Why did he become so cartoonishly evil in the last act? He was quite a compelling character until that point?

it's because PTA is a hack who wanted to scream

capitalism and religion are... le bad

at the viewer

Because PTA is a hack and he can't let the audience think for themselves and has to bash them over the head with the message of the movie because they're too stupid to understand what's going on.

Why do people talk about the battle of wits between Eli and Daniel? Daniel always got the best of Eli

Yeah I must admit I thought the way the film was described as a battle between two men battling out their egos was a bit retarded, as Eli is very clearly out of his depth for the majority of the movie. He only seems able to compete towards the end, with the baptism scene and final scene, but by that point Daniel has already cucked him of his land.

cartoonishly evil

The whole movie is larger-than-life. Daniel is not a "realistic" character, he's a symbol for greed/capitalism/whatever you want to call it. It's like Scarface, but without the B-movie aesthetic.
It's funny that redditors will praise this movie but hate Scarface.

greed is....bad

I thought he was a realistic character up until the whole misantraphobic speech to his "brother", which was a bit on the nose, to say the least. Tony Montanna never feels like a real person, probably because of Pacino's terrible accent.

The whole movie is larger-than-life. From the very introduction. Did you really find him dragging himself alone with a broken leg believable? Then the "I'm an oil man" speech? Likewise, did you really find Tony's rise to power believable? The chainsaw showdown scene? That kind of mental strength and clarity both Daniel and Tony display from the start of their respective movies isn't believable in the slightest.

he was the richest nigga in the world at the end, money never mattered to him, it was just a way for him to keep score and he had no more mountains to climb so he just drunk all day. He had to make up enemies to best, like his son and then the one guy who did get one over on him before showed up at his doorstep to beg, he had to put a nigga down

The whole movie is larger-than-life. From the very introduction. Did you really find him dragging himself alone with a broken leg believable? Then the "I'm an oil man" speech? Likewise, did you really find Tony's rise to power believable?

It's a movie, you autist. I wasn't expecting it to be exactly like real life or otherwise I'd go out into the street and watch real people doing boring real life things. But as a character, Daniel felt realistic in the context of the fictional movie and was a compelling *movie* character but began to fall apart after the second half and became an utterly insane Strooge McDuck character in the final act. Whereas, Tony Montanna never feels like a fully developed character in the first place, he's just

eh mane common mane

He dumped his son as soon as he didn’t have a use for him.

He very obviously loved his son, though, and only ditched him after he became deaf because he didn't want to deal with a handicap, but it was obvious he felt bad about it and he still loved him... And then, oh wait, no he doesn't he's been using him all along!
Proper hack writing.

It's a movie

There are plenty of movies with "realistic" leads. Daniel and Tony aren't. If the only thing that clued you in on Scarface being larger-than-life was Pacino's accent, you might be the autist here, friend.

but it was obvious he felt bad about it and he still loved him

He did love him, but he loved success a lot more. Him confessing about abandoning his child was him coming to terms with that reality.

The movie is all flash and no substance. It's wonderful viewing, I was glued to the screen, but Daniel is just antihero wish fulfillment. The movie hides behind a veneer of being about religious hypocrisy and runaway capitalism (like the book), but 99% of the appeal is just how fucking cool Daniel is. It's like if Tarantino tried claiming Pulp Fiction was a warning against people getting involved in organized crime.

PTA:

known for his realism

film is very authentic portrayal of oil men

nothing outlandish happens within the first half of the movie

Scarface:

is an 80s fever dream

framed like an over the top moral tale than anything resembling real life

not an authentic representation of how American gangsters operated

Alright, buddy. I'm just autistic, when the two films are nothing alike and are completely framed different in their portrayals of their characters, environment and themes.

What do you think compelled PTA to make this movie? Like, his three precious movies were quite small, personal films. And then he's suddenly like "I'm gonna make a 3 hour epic about the end of religion, the beginning of capitalism, the dark heart of the American Dream, the alienation of greed and excess, and I'm gonna cast DDL in it."

Because he went insane. He got everything he wanted and it still wasn't enough to fill the void and that knowledge broke his mind. It's common with rich and ambitious folk

The movie was pro capitalism tho, nothing wrong with the spirit of it as in the movie.
Funny how the original book was a socialist manifesto of sorts.

Lmao he never loved his son. Please don't be stupid

From what I know of PTA, he's a huge fan of Stienbeck and Pynchon. I assume his interest in the kind of "American Heartland" modernist literature inspired the change of pace. The Master expanded on that kind of American gothic feeling and he's also adapting Vineland soon.

It's like if Tarantino tried claiming Pulp Fiction was a warning against people getting involved in organized crime

But it is about that...

Anon, just because someone makes something fun out of serious themes doesn't make the themes any less serious. You're just used to high school literature which is all self-serious, pretentious bullshit

Who the fuck hates Scarface?

The Brutalist was unironically better even given its own flaws

He was old bitter disillusioned and full of regret

No

The Brutalist

One of the most boring movies I have ever seen

And then, oh wait, no he doesn't he's been using him all along!

Proper hack writing.

Brainlet interpretation. He did love HW. His feelings were hurt at the end so he was lashing out and trying to hurt HW in return. His whole deal was that he didn't understand the fine points of socializing, but he provided objective value to people, and he wanted and expected love and loyalty in return for the value he provided people. It made him bitter and resentful that slick, shallow manipulators like Eli got more love and acceptance from people, despite only leeching value and providing none, whereas Daniel was alienated and isolated for his lack of shallow social niceties

Interesting take, but Eli evidently cared for his community, even if he did use it as a vehicle to fuel his own ego. Daniel didn't care for the community at all, and cared only for money. So even though Eli is flawed and quite possibly a conman, he's not as morally shallow as Daniel, and that's why people liked him more. He also gave them the illusion of helping them; whereas Daniel, who could actually have helped them by giving Eli the money he owed him, refused because he deemed the community as unimportant.

OI VEY the Jews sure are repressed!

Haven't seen that movie a gazillion times before...

he wanted and expected love and loyalty in return for the value he provided people

No. He just wanted power and literally nothing more. He didn't care about the "value" he was "providing" people. He openly says that he just wants to suck all the power from people and wants no one else to succeed but him

He got syphillis

you're just the afterbirth, Eli, that slithered out of your mother's filth. They should have put you in a glass jar on the mantlepiece

Probably the coldest thing ever said by a motherfucker

>known for his realism

Wouldn't know, TWBB is his only movie I've seen.

>film is very authentic portrayal of oil men

Business people don't do theatrics like Daniel. See: "I'm an oil man" speech. A real business person wouldn't waste a breath trying to justify his motives. They go straight for business talk. Here's what we want, here's what we can offer you. Deal or no deal? This is literally how job interviews go.

>nothing outlandish happens within the first half of the movie

Dragging himself with a broken leg to town is outlandish. Again. In reality, a broken leg would render you immobile without anyone to help you. The pain is excruciating and triggered by the slightest motion.

>is an 80s fever dream

Sure, and TWBB is an early 1900s fever dream.

>framed like an over the top moral tale than anything resembling real life

So is TWBB?

>not an authentic representation of how American gangsters operated

Neither is TWBB. Both are exaggerated.

nta but try watching the movie dotard

Redditors unironically call Scarface a "bad" movie.

Phantom Thread is better. It speaks to the only thing PTA knows (the neurosis of the artist).

Their relationship was purely transactional. Daniel saw him as a tool and nothing more. The second the kid gets hurt, he becomes "useless" and is sent away

Business people don't do theatrics like Daniel

This is an incredibly retarded thing to say. Businessmen are renowned for their silver tongues and theartrics to get investors on-board.
I'll concur that the film is meant to capture a larger than life character and act more of a fable than a real to life character study, although clearly my problem is that the first half, and most of the second half of the film, are framed as realism. Scarface is not, so it's not an apt comparison. And the whole broken leg thing you keep sperging out about isn't good evidence for your argument, as it's a fucking film. There has to be some suspension of disbelief even for a realist film, as it's not real life, it's a movie.

It's also incredibly dumb, as if people haven't dragged themselves with a broken leg before

I'm 39yo and I have never seen it, nor do I intend to. Why would I want to watch a degenerate cuban doing degenerate things? Same goes for mob movies but with wops

Do you guys think anyone would find it weird if I suddenly started talking like Daniel Plainview? I just find his voice and cadence and way of speaking so fucking cool

Businessmen are renowned for their silver tongues

You mean renowned for being manipulative/liars? In what universe does a business person care to explain his (personal) motives for doing business. That's not the same as being manipulative about the deal or straight up lying.

framed as realism

But it's not. The movie is literally classified as an epic. I knew it was not a character study, without knowing anything about the movie beforehand, from the very opening.
People have done lots of things. Doesn't make them believable. This man was out in the middle of nowhere and managed to drag himself to civilization. And I should add, the first person he sees isn't a doctor or someone else to help him, it's a freaking appraiser.

That's not the same as being manipulative about the deal or straight up lying.

He is literally manipulating them, he lies about his son, frames himself as a man of community and a man who values hardwork.
Again, you are obviously autistic.

210732261

i had a great big paragraph of all the scenes and their explanations showing how much he did care for his son but then i realized you have *got* to be a (you) farming troll

Eli made a move so he had to get it on

And? Aron Ralston cut his own arm off and walked seven miles with a bloody stump. Daniel dragging a broken leg a mile or two isn't extraordinary. Stop trying to sound smart, you're failing miserably

OP's misunderstanding of the movie's genre aside, if I had any beef with this movie, it's that (aside from failing to cast a replacement actor for Eli's brother, so that Dano doesn't play both and then confuse people into thinking they're the same person, also holy shit is Dano babyfaced how did this man end up doing movies), is that the (business) relationship between Daniel and Eli feels unclear, in spite of the clear social commentary the movie was going for. What I mean is, the initial set-up is quid pro quo (you scratch my back, I scratch yours), which led my own father who I was watching the movie with to think "ah, it's the old, bribe the local priest so the church looks the other way", but then it turns out that Daniel never paid Eli the funds he promised, furthermore Eli later humiliates Daniel as an act of revenge in "exchange" for a piece of land Daniel needed but failed to acquire. In the final conversation between the two, after a time skip, we find out that Daniel STILL hasn't paid Eli what he promised (how the hell did Eli expand the church?) and that he didn't need the piece of land it turns out he never got ("milkshake" analogy). So what was that all about? They never actually completed a single transaction in the entire movie, did they? It's rather confusing, as it doesn't advance the purported social commentary. There was no symbiotic relationship between the two.

I didn't realize that the movie was even trying to critique Christianity, because it is just so shallow. I figured it was just about capitalism, although the critque there is hardly leagues better.

Amazing acting, cinematogrophy, directing, and even script, but it completely fails as a social commentary unless you just watch these things to reaffirm your worldview.

I can't believe there are people who thinks this boring movie is better than No Country for Old Men.

so that Dano doesn't play both and then confuse people

Came here to reference this. I thought he was lying about being a brother, and it just never went anywhere. It ruined my first viewing, because I was so distracted trying to assemble and follow plot lines and dynamics that were never intended.

his reaction at 1:54 that makes the entire movie youtu.be/-2SS6W9gQlM?feature=shared

No Cunt is a cut and dry Coen bro movie. Watch more films.

because his boy ABANDONED him. true pottery.

I AM FALSE PROPHET GOD IS A SUPERSTITION

Boomers thought this jew shit was kino

Inject some testosteron you limp wristed faggot

too many milkshakes

do you really deny the existence of phony hypocritical preachers

Regardless of story development and production background (in which the idea was never present), it is nevertheless in fact quite reasonable to suppose that Paul and Eli are the same person, for multiple good reasons.

1) A central story element is confused or mistaken family identity among male family members. H.W. grows up thinking he's really Daniel's kid, Daniel sort of goes along with the idea that the newcomer is really his brother (H.W. starts the fire because he knows better, misinterpreted by Daniel as simple acting-out rather than the warning that it is), and although it's clear that there's two Bandy relatives (a grandfather and a grandson), these two also get jumbled and confused both in the final scene's dialogue, and also in the ending credits. If you don't know which actor is which, there's no way to tell the two Bandys apart in the ending credits. There isn't a clear designation "elder Bandy/Bandy grandson", etc. As it happened, having Paul and Eli played by the same person adds a similar sort of confusion, which actually enriches the theme.

2) Eli is a crazy eccentric type, more than happy to play-act dramaturgical sermons for happy parishoner/audiences. What with the weird quiet voice and the crazy acting out from time to time, it's reasonable to suppose that Eli is mentally ill. Perhaps mentally ill enough to pretend to be some false brother just to bring an oil man into town. Also, when Eli first introduces himself, Daniel and H.W. give each other a knowing, confused look. "Wasn't that the same..?"

The other Sunday family members never actually acknowledge Paul (Yes they do!) No, they don't. Watch again, particularly the dinner scene where Eli beats the dad, and pay attention to their dialogue and actions. This acknowledgement is restricted to Eli, who is a bit crazy.

Anton is the only memorable thing about NCFOM for me, is this a hot take

Dano talking about what it was like shooting this movie is hilarious.

He clearly loves him and cares for him at the point when they enter Little Boston. He quietly and patiently tells H.W. how they'll build the pipeline together, asking if he understands. He's not just talking business, he's raising a son.

The tragedy of Daniel Plainview is that his capacity for any sort of love was almost, but not totally extinguished, by his father's unmentioned abuse (which is easy to infer and which explains absolutely everything about his character). When Daniel is fairly successful, he has a little capacity for conventional paternal love, which he directs toward H.W. He also hates it when parents beat their kids, which is why he humiliates the Sunday dad right in front of his own daughter.

But then everything goes sideways. H.W. is struck deaf, the imposter brother comes along, and Daniel hits the big time, almost entirely on his own terms, and in his own way. He needs no one else. No one else can be trusted. His bitterness wins out, the fact that H.W. isn't his rises back to the top, and all capacity to love another human being in any way is totally destroyed. He's finished.

besides the murder hes not really "evil" and that scene is just a big over the top display of how his pursuit of wealth made him see no value in fellow man

Business people don't do theatrics like Daniel.

Motherfucker just watch any crypto launch or investor meeting and watch these worms put on a show that would make the Cirque du Soleil blush. It's ALL about threatics and having the guy with the money on your side.
If you go into a meeting facing an investor who holds all the power and basically tell him to give you the money or fuck off he'll laugh you out the door.

ragging himself with a broken leg to town is outlandish

there's stories of little girls walking hundred miles through jungles with both arms broken after plane crashes, sailors swimming miles to shore while bleeding out, soldiers traversing deserts with broken feet while the enemy is chasing them and you want to die on the hill that someone who still has a functioning leg could not push himself home when the option is death instead?

known for his realism

to get back to the first point, having a salesman come and adress the whole town in person to persuade them is EXACTLY how things went back in the days when people lived in rural communities where everybody knew each other. Had Daniel just swooped in and started to build, now that would be unrealistic, he would have been chased out of town by a mob.

thought he was lying

its funny how many people ive heard say this, just because its the same actor doesn't mean theyd pull some silly "gotchya hes really the same guy!"

only if you also DRINK THEIR MILKSHAKES!
H.W. FETCH ME MY ELI AFTERBIRTH ON THE MANTLEPIECE. I'VE ABANDONED MY QUAILS!!! I'VE ABANDONED THE PEACH TREE DANCE AND GOT LICOURED UP!
DRAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIINAGE!

I’m Reddit!

You're just a janny from a basket.
A JANNY FROM A BASKET!
JANNY FROM A BASKET!

Highlights?
Some say he was always evil, because he was always a sociopath. A significant number of redditors think it's reflective of questionable character on the part of the viewer to consider Daniel in a sympathetic light. Personally, I just liked him because I found him charismatic, in no part because of the amazing acting.
Right, but you'd think they'd address it in the script to avoid confusion.

business and salemen people don't make convincing pitches in any way possible

try again

So the movie isn't actually a commentary on the symbiotic relationship between churches and rich people? Or, specifically for America, Christianity and capitalism are intertwined?

I wouldn't say that it isn't. Even if it exists merely as a backdrop for the characters I wouldn't dismiss it altogether. I personally don't think putting movies into exclusive boxes is a good thing either. It can be that while also being a character study or a cautionary tale about man's hubris or a modern retelling of Nimrod or whatever