It’s been quite some time since the public caught a glimpse of Daniel Day-Lewis. After he statement in 2017 declaring he would no longer pursue acting, prior to the release of Phantom Thread, Day-Lewis quietly faded from view. Yet, during his hiatus, his reputation has only grown.
The Legend of His Method
Largely, this reputation revolves around his favored approach to roles. Being an actor known for immerses himself in the roles he plays – for example, during the Lincoln biopic, he had Steven Spielberg call him “Mr. President” throughout the shoot – the world has grown more fascinated with his process. Did he actually sent texts to Sally Field in character as Lincoln? Was it accurate that he only eat animals he’d killed during Last of the Mohicans? Did he demand being spoon-fed while filming My Left Foot?
Madness in their method: has the public lost interest with over-the-top performances?
Currently, Daniel Day-Lewis is back in the limelight, with some hesitation, for his new film Anemone. He is using this to vocalise his anger at how the Method technique is perceived. “I’m a little cross these days to hear various individuals gobbling off and using phrases like ‘gone full method’, which I think is meant to imply that a person’s acting insane in an extreme fashion,” he told a major publication. “Everyone tends to focus on superficial details of the work, and those details typically include some form of self-flagellation or an experience that causes extreme unease or psychological strain. But of course, in the life of an actor, it must mainly focus on the internal work.”
A World of Imitators
To be honest, it appears as if Day-Lewis has come out from his retreat and found himself aghast at the acting community that has developed mirroring his methods. When you are widely considered among the best actors to ever work, and your process involves headbutting a dummy to the point of injury (for Gangs of New York) or spending 48 hours in isolation deprived of sustenance (for In the Name of the Father), it’s natural that other actors will attempt to emulate that example by trying to mimic your hero.
Essentially, we now live in an environment populated by half-cocked imitators of Day-Lewis who strive only to show the world the extensive degree of dedication they put into their roles. On the milder side of the pool we have people like Lady Gaga, who was so desperate to earn an Academy Award with House of Gucci that she spent the whole campaign attempting to persuade people that she became functionally Italian over 18 months in preparation.
Additionally, there is Jared Leto, who chose to immerse himself into the role of the Joker (for Suicide Squad) by sending “disturbing” gifts to fellow cast members. These items, depending on who you ask, included deceased animals to intimate objects and used condoms, although the actor refuted the most extreme claims. And then, of course, there is Jim Carrey, who immersed himself so fully as Andy Kaufman for Man on the Moon that they literally managed to get 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 practitioner of the Method at the moment seems to be Jeremy Strong (formerly Day-Lewis’s assistant), whose process during Succession was so rigorously detailed that it formed the basis of a critical New Yorker profile, including statements from people who were either concerned for his behaviour (“It’s the cost on himself that worries me,” remarked Brian Cox) or annoyed beyond all measure by his actions (“I recall him causing everyone else roll their eyes,” said an unnamed co-star).
Daniel Day-Lewis claims he ‘did not plan to retire, really’
There are so many other examples. Andrew Garfield abstained from sex for six months while preparing for Silence. Leonardo DiCaprio rested inside an animal carcass 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, is meant to invoke the seriousness with which Day-Lewis approaches his craft.
An Admirable Yet Challenging Fight
Moreover, although his rebuttal against method detractors might be noble, a brief promotional cycle may prove insufficient to change anyone’s mind, not to mention their practices. Perhaps if he wishes to make audiences recall what method acting is, or to demonstrate its potential results, then Day-Lewis’s best bet is to simply start making more films. Certainly we could all get behind that.
