It has been quite some time since anyone caught a glimpse of Daniel Day-Lewis. After he statement in 2017 that he would no longer pursue acting, prior to the release of Phantom Thread, Day-Lewis withdrew from the spotlight. Yet, in his absence, his legend expanded further.
The Mythos of His Method
Largely, this legend revolves around his favored approach to roles. Being an actor known for disappears into his characters – for example, during the Lincoln biopic, he had the director address him as “Mr. President” throughout the shoot – audiences has grown increasingly obsessed with his process. Is it true he really send messages to co-star Sally Field as Abraham Lincoln? Was it accurate that he only eat game he hunted during Last of the Mohicans? And did he insist on receiving food via spoon while filming My Left Foot?
Extreme acting methods: has the public lost interest with actorly excess?
Now, Day-Lewis is back in the limelight, with some hesitation, for his new film Anemone. He is using this to vocalise his frustration at how the Method technique is viewed. “I am somewhat annoyed nowadays to hear various individuals talking carelessly and saying things like ‘gone full method’, which I think is meant to imply that a person’s behaving like a lunatic in an extreme fashion,” he stated to a major publication. “People often concentrate on the less important details of the work, and these elements typically include some form of self-flagellation or an experience that causes a severe discomfort or mental instability. However, in the career of an actor, it must principally be about the internal work.”
A World of Imitators
To be honest, this sounds as if Day-Lewis has emerged from his retreat and found himself shocked by the world that has been created mirroring his methods. When you are regarded as among the best actors in history, and your approach includes striking a prop to the point of injury (for Gangs of New York) or spending 48 hours in isolation deprived of sustenance (during In the Name of the Father), it’s natural that other actors will want to fill that vacuum by imitating their idol.
In other words, we now live in a landscape full of half-cocked Day-Lewis impersonators who strive only to show the world the sheer amount of dedication they invest in their roles. At the shallow end of this trend there are performers such as Lady Gaga, who was so desperate to win an Oscar with House of Gucci that she spent the whole campaign attempting to persuade people that she transformed into an Italian native for a year and a half as preparation.
Additionally, there is Jared Leto, who decided to deeply embed himself in the character as the Joker (in Suicide Squad) by sending “horrifying” gifts to fellow cast members. These items, depending on who you ask, included dead pigs and rats to anal beads and personal hygiene products, though Leto denied those worst excesses. And then, naturally, there is Jim Carrey, who went so deep into Andy Kaufman during Man on the Moon that filmmakers succeeded in creating a full-length documentary out of B-roll of him making life as impossible as he could for his colleagues.
Contemporary Method Practitioners
The foremost practitioner of the Method at the moment seems to be Jeremy Strong (once Day-Lewis’s assistant), whose process during Succession was so laboriously intensive that it formed the basis of a critical magazine feature, full of quotes from people who were either concerned for his behaviour (“It’s the cost to himself concerns me,” said Brian Cox) or extremely irritated by it (“I remember him causing others roll their eyes,” stated an unnamed co-star).
Daniel Day-Lewis says he ‘did not plan to retire, truly’
There are so many other examples. Andrew Garfield abstained from sex over half a year for Silence. Leonardo DiCaprio slept in a dead animal for The Revenant. It’s quite possible that Austin Butler continues to talk like Elvis Presley, years following the movie’s release. Each of these instances, in part, aims to evoke the dedication in which Day-Lewis takes his work.
An Admirable But Uphill Battle
And, while his fightback to critics of the Method could be commendable, a short publicity tour might not be enough to alter perceptions, let alone their practices. Maybe if he wishes to make audiences recall the true essence of the Method, or to demonstrate what it can achieve, then Day-Lewis’s best bet is to simply begin producing more films. Surely we could all support that idea.
