It’s been a long while since anyone saw or heard from Daniel Day-Lewis. Following his announcement in 2017 that he would cease to work as an actor, just before the release of The Phantom Thread, Day-Lewis withdrew from the spotlight. Yet, during his hiatus, his reputation has only grown.
The Legend Surrounding His Method
Largely, this reputation centers on his favored approach to roles. As someone who famously immerses himself in the roles he plays – for example, during Lincoln, reportedly asked the director call him “Mr President” throughout the shoot – audiences has grown increasingly obsessed with his process. Is it true he really send texts to Sally Field as Abraham Lincoln? Did he only eat animals he’d killed during Last of the Mohicans? Did he demand receiving food via spoon while filming My Left Foot?
Madness in their method: have we fallen out of love with over-the-top performances?
Currently, Daniel Day-Lewis has returned in the limelight, somewhat reluctantly, promoting his latest movie Anemone. And he is using this to vocalise his frustration at how the Method technique is perceived. “I’m a little cross nowadays to hear all kinds of people talking carelessly and using phrases like ‘fully embraced the Method’, which seems suggests that someone is behaving like a lunatic in a drastic way,” he told a major publication. “Everyone tends to focus on superficial details of the work, and these elements always seem to involve some sort of self-flagellation or a situation that causes extreme unease or psychological strain. However, in the life for a performer, it must mainly focus on the internal work.”
A World of Imitators
Frankly, this sounds as if Day-Lewis has emerged from seclusion only to discover shocked by the world that has developed mirroring his methods. When you are widely considered among the best performers to ever work, and your process includes headbutting a dummy until you break your nose (in 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 fill that vacuum by trying to mimic their idol.
Essentially, we now live in a landscape full of half-cocked Day-Lewis impersonators who want nothing more than to demonstrate the extensive degree of effort they put into 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 entire promotion attempting to persuade people that she became an Italian native over 18 months as preparation.
Then we have Jared Leto, who chose to immerse himself into the role of the Joker (for Suicide Squad) through sending “disturbing” gifts to his castmates. These items, depending on who you ask, range from dead pigs and rats to intimate objects and personal hygiene products, though the actor refuted the most extreme claims. And then, of course, we have Jim Carrey, who went so deep into Andy Kaufman during Man on the Moon that they succeeded in creating a feature-length documentary out of B-roll of him causing difficulties to the utmost for everyone around him.
The Modern Method Practitioners
The main Method Guy currently would appear to be Jeremy Strong (once an assistant to Day-Lewis), whose approach during Succession was so rigorously detailed that it became the subject of a critical New Yorker profile, including statements from individuals who were worried for his behaviour (“It’s the cost to himself concerns me,” remarked Brian Cox) or annoyed beyond all measure by his actions (“I recall him causing others roll their eyes,” said an unnamed co-star).
Daniel Day-Lewis claims he ‘never intended to stop acting, truly’
We have so many other examples. Andrew Garfield went celibate over half a year while preparing for Silence. Leonardo DiCaprio slept in a dead animal for The Revenant. It’s quite possible that actor Austin Butler continues to talk in the style of Elvis, three years after that film came out. All of this, to some extent, aims to evoke the dedication in which Day-Lewis approaches his work.
An Admirable But Uphill Battle
And, although his rebuttal to critics of the Method might be noble, a short publicity tour might not be enough to alter perceptions, let alone their behaviour. Perhaps if he wishes to make audiences recall the true essence of the Method, or to show them its potential results, then Day-Lewis’s best bet is to just start making additional movies. Surely we could all get behind that.
