It’s been a long while since anyone saw or heard from the acclaimed actor Daniel Day-Lewis. After he statement in 2017 that he would no longer pursue acting, just before the release of Phantom Thread, the actor withdrew from the spotlight. However, in his absence, his reputation expanded further.
The Legend Surrounding His Acting Method
Largely, this legend centers on his favored style of working. As someone who famously disappears into the roles he plays – for instance, while filming Lincoln, reportedly asked Steven Spielberg call him “Mr. President” throughout the shoot – audiences has grown more fascinated with his process. Is it true he really send texts to Sally Field as Abraham Lincoln? Did he only eat animals he’d killed for Last of the Mohicans? Did he demand receiving food via spoon for My Left Foot?
Extreme acting methods: has the public fallen out of love with over-the-top performances?
Now, Daniel Day-Lewis is back in the limelight, somewhat reluctantly, for his new film Anemone. And he is using this to vocalise his frustration at how method acting is perceived. “I’m a little cross these days to hear all kinds of people gobbling off and using phrases like ‘gone full method’, which I think suggests that someone is behaving like a lunatic in a drastic way,” he told the New York Times. “People often concentrate on the less important details of the work, and those details typically include some sort of self-flagellation or an experience that causes extreme unease or psychological strain. However, in the career for a performer, it must principally be about the inner transformation.”
A World Full of Followers
Frankly, it appears like the actor has emerged from his retreat and found himself aghast at the world that has been created mirroring his methods. If you’re regarded as one of the greatest performers in history, and your process involves striking a prop to the point of injury (for Gangs of New York) or enduring 48 hours in solitary confinement deprived of sustenance (for In the Name of the Father), then it stands to reason that fellow performers will attempt to emulate that example by imitating their idol.
In other words, we exist in a landscape populated by half-cocked imitators of Day-Lewis who want nothing more than to show the world the extensive degree of dedication they put into their roles. On the milder side of this trend we have people like Lady Gaga, who was determined to earn an Academy Award with House of Gucci that she dedicated the whole campaign attempting to persuade people that she became functionally Italian for a year and a half as preparation.
Then we have Jared Leto, who decided to immerse himself in the character as the Joker (for Suicide Squad) by sending “disturbing” presents to his castmates. These items, according to various accounts, range from dead pigs and rats to anal beads and personal hygiene products, although the actor refuted those worst excesses. And then, naturally, we have Jim Carrey, who went so deep as Andy Kaufman for Man on the Moon that they succeeded in creating a full-length documentary out of B-roll of him making life as impossible as he could for his colleagues.
The Modern Method Practitioners
The foremost Method Guy at the moment would appear to be Jeremy Strong (once Day-Lewis’s assistant), whose approach during Succession was so laboriously intensive that it became the basis of a critical magazine feature, including statements from individuals who were either concerned for his behaviour (“It’s the cost to himself concerns me,” said co-star Brian Cox) or annoyed beyond all measure by his actions (“I recall him causing everyone else to react with exasperation,” stated an unnamed co-star).
Daniel Day-Lewis says he ‘never intended to retire, really’
There are so many other examples. Andrew Garfield abstained from sex over half a year for Silence. Leonardo DiCaprio rested inside an animal carcass for The Revenant. There’s a fighting chance that actor Austin Butler still speaks in the style of Elvis, years following that film came out. Each of these instances, to some extent, is meant to invoke the dedication with which Day-Lewis takes his work.
An Admirable Yet Challenging Battle
Moreover, although his rebuttal against method detractors might be noble, a short publicity tour might not be enough to alter perceptions, let alone their behaviour. Perhaps if he wants to remind people what method acting is, or to show them its potential results, then Day-Lewis’s best bet is to simply start making more films. Surely everyone would support that idea.
