It has been quite some time since the public saw or heard from Daniel Day-Lewis. Following his statement in 2017 that he would no longer work as an actor, prior to the debut of The Phantom Thread, the actor quietly faded from view. Yet, in his absence, his legend expanded further.
The Mythos of His Method
Primarily, this legend revolves around his preferred style of working. Being an actor known for immerses himself in his characters – for instance, during Lincoln, he had the director call him “Mr. President” for the entire production – audiences has become increasingly obsessed with his process. Did he really send texts to Sally Field in character as Lincoln? Did he only eat game he hunted for The Last of the Mohicans? Did he insist on receiving food via spoon for My Left Foot?
Madness in their method: have we lost interest with over-the-top performances?
Currently, Daniel Day-Lewis has returned to public attention, somewhat reluctantly, for his new film Anemone. And he is using this to express his frustration at how the Method technique is viewed. “I’m a little cross nowadays to hear various individuals talking carelessly and using phrases like ‘gone full method’, which I think suggests that a person’s behaving like a lunatic in an extreme fashion,” he stated to a major publication. “Everyone often concentrate on the less important details of the work, and those details always seem to involve some form of self-punishment or a situation that causes extreme unease or psychological strain. But of course, in the career for a performer, it must principally be about the internal work.”
A World of Imitators
Frankly, it appears like Day-Lewis has emerged from seclusion and found himself aghast at the acting community that has been created mirroring his methods. If you’re regarded as among the best performers in history, and your process involves striking a prop to the point of injury (in Gangs of New York) or enduring two days in solitary confinement without food or water (during 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 a landscape full of imperfect imitators of Day-Lewis who want nothing more than to demonstrate 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 determined to earn an Academy Award with House of Gucci that she spent the whole campaign attempting to persuade people that she became an Italian native over 18 months as preparation.
Additionally, there is Jared Leto, who decided to immerse himself into the role of the Joker (for Suicide Squad) through sending “horrifying” presents to fellow cast members. These, according to various accounts, range from deceased animals to anal beads and personal hygiene products, though Leto denied those worst excesses. Then, naturally, there is Jim Carrey, who immersed himself so fully into Andy Kaufman during Man on the Moon that filmmakers literally managed to get a feature-length documentary from behind-the-scenes footage of him making life to the utmost for his colleagues.
Contemporary Method Practitioners
The main practitioner of the Method currently seems to be Jeremy Strong (formerly Day-Lewis’s assistant), whose approach while filming Succession was so rigorously detailed that it became the basis of a critical New Yorker profile, full of quotes from individuals who were either concerned for his behaviour (“It’s the cost to himself that worries me,” remarked co-star Brian Cox) or annoyed beyond all measure by it (“I recall [him] making everyone else to react with exasperation,” stated an anonymous cast member).
Daniel Day-Lewis claims he ‘never intended to retire, truly’
There are so many other examples. Andrew Garfield abstained from sex over half a year while preparing for Silence. Leonardo DiCaprio slept in an animal carcass for The Revenant. There’s a fighting chance that Austin Butler continues to talk like Elvis Presley, three years after the movie’s release. Each of these instances, in part, is meant to invoke the dedication in which Day-Lewis approaches his work.
An Admirable Yet Challenging Battle
Moreover, although his rebuttal against method detractors might be noble, a brief promotional cycle may prove insufficient to alter perceptions, not to mention their behaviour. Perhaps if he wants to remind people the true essence of the Method, or to show them what it can achieve, then Day-Lewis’s best bet is to just start making more films. Certainly everyone would support that idea.
