It has been a long while since the public saw or heard from Daniel Day-Lewis. After he statement in 2017 that he would no longer pursue acting, just before the release of The Phantom Thread, the actor withdrew from the spotlight. Yet, in his absence, his legend expanded further.
The Legend of His Method
Primarily, this reputation centers on his preferred style of working. Being an actor who famously disappears into his characters – for instance, during the Lincoln biopic, he had the director address him as “Mr President” for the entire production – audiences has become more fascinated with his process. Is it true he actually sent texts to Sally Field in character as Lincoln? Was it accurate that he only eat animals he’d killed during The Last of the Mohicans? Did he demand receiving food via spoon for My Left Foot?
Madness in their method: has the public lost interest with actorly excess?
Now, Daniel Day-Lewis is back to public attention, somewhat reluctantly, for his new film Anemone. 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 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 a drastic way,” he told a major publication. “People often concentrate on the less important aspects of acting, and these elements typically include some form of self-flagellation or an experience that imposes upon oneself extreme unease or psychological strain. However, in the life for a performer, it must mainly focus on the inner transformation.”
An Industry of Imitators
To be honest, it appears like Day-Lewis has come out from seclusion and found himself shocked by the world that has been created in his image. If you’re regarded as among the best performers to ever work, and your process involves striking a prop until you break your nose (in Gangs of New York) or spending 48 hours in isolation without food or water (during In the Name of the Father), it’s natural that fellow performers will attempt to fill that vacuum by trying to mimic their idol.
In other words, we exist in a landscape populated by imperfect Day-Lewis impersonators who want nothing more than to demonstrate the sheer amount of dedication they put into a character. On the milder side of this trend there are performers such as Lady Gaga, who was so desperate to win an Oscar for House of Gucci that she spent the entire promotion attempting to persuade people that she transformed into functionally Italian over 18 months as preparation.
Additionally, there is Jared Leto, who decided to deeply embed himself into the role as the Joker (for Suicide Squad) by sending “horrifying” gifts to fellow cast members. These, according to various accounts, included dead pigs and rats to intimate objects and personal hygiene products, though the actor refuted the most extreme claims. And then, naturally, there is Jim Carrey, who immersed himself so fully as Andy Kaufman for Man on the Moon that they succeeded in creating a feature-length documentary out of B-roll of him causing difficulties as impossible as he could for everyone around him.
The Modern Method Practitioners
The foremost Method Guy at the moment seems to be Jeremy Strong (once Day-Lewis’s assistant), whose approach during Succession was so rigorously detailed that it formed the subject of a derisive New Yorker profile, including statements from individuals who were worried about his conduct (“It’s the cost on himself that worries me,” remarked co-star Brian Cox) or extremely irritated by his actions (“I recall him causing others to react with exasperation,” stated an anonymous cast member).
Daniel Day-Lewis says he ‘did not plan to stop acting, truly’
There are numerous additional cases. Andrew Garfield abstained from sex for six months for Silence. Leonardo DiCaprio rested inside an animal carcass during The Revenant. There’s a fighting chance that actor Austin Butler still speaks like Elvis Presley, three years after the movie’s release. Each of these instances, in part, aims to evoke the seriousness with which Day-Lewis approaches his work.
An Admirable But Uphill Battle
Moreover, 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 remind people the true essence of the Method, or to show them its potential results, then Day-Lewis’s best bet is to simply start making additional movies. Surely we could all support that idea.
