A born polemicist, Quentin Tarantino appeared on Bret Easton Ellis’s podcast last December to talk about films (both his own and others’). He decided to share his list of favorite movies from the 21st century. The ranking was eclectic and peculiar… much like himself.

After Black Hawk Down (2001), Toy Story 3 (2010), Lost in Translation (2003) and Dunkirk (2017), he placed Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood (2007) in fifth place. Regarding the film starring Daniel Day-Lewis, he added that he would have ranked it higher… if it weren’t for one actor.

“There Will Be Blood would stand a good chance at being [number one or two] if it didn’t have a big, giant flaw in it … and the flaw is Paul Dano,” Tarantino asserted. “Obviously, it’s supposed to be a [two-character movie], but it’s also drastically obvious that it’s not a two-hander. [Dano] is weak sauce, man. He is the weak sister. Austin Butler would have been wonderful in that role. [Dano’s] just such a weak, weak, uninteresting guy. The weakest fucking actor in SAG (the Screen Actors Guild).”

Dano, 41, didn’t respond. But the New York-born actor didn’t need to, because Hollywood rallied to his defense: he was called the “reverse-cancelled actor.” Even Day-Lewis — who suggested Dano for the role and who doesn’t usually speak publicly — came out in his favor through his representatives.

Dano probably had a good laugh about all this. He’s been acting for more than half his life, since his debut in L.I.E. back in 2001. And he’s grown accustomed to Hollywood constantly labeling him as intense, serious, weird…

The turning point in that labeling came in 2022, when he played a very dark version of the Riddler in The Batman. That same year, he also played Steven Spielberg’s affable father in The Fablemans, a film based on the director’s childhood.

Married to Zoe Kazan, an actress, screenwriter and playwright, with whom he has two children, he’s been struggling in recent years to find a work-life balance (“We’re both self-employed,” he points out), especially while bringing his next project as a director to fruition.

To find a balance, he’s been more selective, taking on fewer acting roles. “Success is about being able to choose, I suppose,” he says, aware of his privilege. And he certainly knew that he wanted to step into the shoes of Vadim Baranov. In his novel, The Wizard of the Kremlin (2022), political essayist Giuliano da Empoli employs this fictional character to explain Vladimir Putin’s rise and how Russia transformed into what it is today. Director Olivier Assayas and writer Emmanuel Carrère adapted the novel for the screen. The result — which premiered at Venice in 2025 — is a complex political thriller that speaks to the corrupting effects of power in our world.

During his visit to the San Sebastián Film Festival, months before Tarantino’s statement, EL PAÍS spoke with Dano about how he continues to be perceived in the film industry. But in reality, the fact that Olivier Assayas is working with him — or that his next film is a co-starring role alongside Javier Bardem and Penélope Cruz in Bunker (2026), French director Florian Zeller’s upcoming project — is all the support he needs.

Question. A couple of years ago, you said that it had been a long time since you’d had to go through a casting call. Did Olivier Assayas make you audition?

Answer. No, actually, it was the typical call from my agent: “Read this script.” I read it, spoke with Olivier on Zoom, he offered me the role and I said ‘yes.’ It was [obvious] — I had to do it. It’s the kind of project I fantasized about when I dreamed of being an actor. It’s an extremely compelling story. A kind of behind-the-scenes look at power. There was so much to learn, to try to understand and to extract. Besides, I’m a fan of Olivier. I didn’t know him personally [when offered the role], but I was familiar with his work. In person, he’s a very kind and intelligent man. [He’s a] very, very clever guy. And he’s writing the script with another very clever person, [the novelist] Emmanuel Carrère.

Q. I suppose, back then, you didn’t know so much about Russia, about its politics, Putin, or his inner circle… how did you begin to immerse yourself in such a complex story?

A. Well, there [were] several different ways… and I explored them all. The script, for me, is the Bible; I build the character from there. In this case, my character’s grandfather was an aristocrat who fell out of favor with the Bolsheviks. His father was a bureaucrat who suffered the same fate under communism. So, he’s someone obsessed with not conforming to his era. He starts out in avant-garde theater, but when he sees that’s not working, he resorts to a kind of mercenary television [career]. And, from there, he makes the leap into politics.

That, for me, was the emotional and psychological backbone of the character. And then, there’s a great deal of research [involved] to help strengthen all of that, so I can act less and truly believe what I’m saying.

Q. What was it like seeing Jude Law play Putin for the first time?

A. [Laughs] Very surprising! Alicia [Vikander] and I were called to see him the day before we started filming, at the final makeup test. And it was wonderful. Before seeing him as Putin, he was very open. But as soon as he got into Putin’s energy, you know…

Q. You play a fictional character in another era. And, in doing so, you’re speaking to what’s happening right now in your country. What’s this moment like for you?

A. I’m sure that the generations before me thought nothing could be worse than Vietnam and Nixon… but it turns out that [they were wrong]. This is an extremely difficult time, especially in the U.S. It’s terrifying: look at how they’ve muzzled the media, [look at] the fear tactics…

I hope that the [essence] of our country, which was built on the ideas of ​​democracy and hope, will, somehow, ultimately prevail. I hope we all find our way back.

Q. As an actor, are you comfortable taking a political stance?

A. I think that nowadays, with social media, it’s too easy for people to say anything they like. But I also think you need to be very well-educated and informed if you’re going to speak in public. And what I’m most comfortable talking about is my work… and that work will speak for itself. I hope this film can be a useful reflection.

Q. The film is a reflection on power. And you’ve mentioned that you have the power to say “no.”

A. Anyone should be capable of that. But my character’s motivations are ambition and lust… and I’m not talking about sexual lust, but rather the attraction to power. By making the leap from the theater to politics, he became a mercenary and an accomplice. It’s as if an artist, while trying to be a good magician, ended up becoming a dark magician. I’m very far removed from that kind of relationship with power.

Q. Could you imagine yourself getting into politics?

A. No, I couldn’t. But there’s clearly a type of personality that craves fame and that connection to politics. The sad thing about seeing celebrities get involved in politics is that it shows how impressionable we are. And I think [The Wizard of the Kremlin] is also about that: about controlling the narrative and the “post-truth” era we live in. How we’ve accepted that word is quite disturbing. A few years ago, it didn’t mean anything… but unfortunately, it’s ended up being a very powerful tactic for erasing the truth.

Q. Speaking about controlling the narrative: you’ve been called a weirdo, the bad guy, the nice guy… do any of those labels affect you?

A. Today, I worry less about how people see me. When you’re younger, it’s more important and it scares you. Now, I’m more concerned about what I contribute to the world as a father, or as a human being, than about my work.

Stylist: Pedro Canicoba.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition