It’s been a long while since the public saw or heard from the acclaimed actor Daniel Day-Lewis. After he announcement in 2017 declaring he would cease to work as an actor, just before the release of The Phantom Thread, the actor quietly faded from view. Yet, during his hiatus, his legend has only grown.
The Mythos Surrounding His Method
Largely, this reputation revolves around his preferred approach to roles. Being an actor who famously disappears into the roles he plays – for example, during the Lincoln biopic, he had Steven Spielberg address him as “Mr. President” for the entire production – the world has grown more fascinated with his process. Is it true he actually sent messages to co-star Sally Field as Abraham Lincoln? Was it accurate that he consumed solely animals he’d killed during Last of the Mohicans? Did he demand receiving food via spoon for My Left Foot?
Madness in their method: have we fallen out of love with actorly excess?
Now, Daniel Day-Lewis has returned in the limelight, somewhat reluctantly, promoting his latest movie Anemone. He is taking this chance to vocalise his anger at how method acting is perceived. “I am somewhat annoyed nowadays when I hear various individuals gobbling off and using phrases like ‘gone full method’, which I think suggests that a person’s behaving like a lunatic in an extreme fashion,” he told the New York Times. “People often concentrate on superficial aspects of acting, and these elements typically include some sort of self-punishment or a situation that causes extreme unease or mental instability. However, in the life of an actor, it has to mainly focus on the internal work.”
A World of Imitators
To be honest, this sounds as if the actor has come out from his retreat only to discover aghast at the world that has been created mirroring his methods. If you’re widely considered among the best actors in history, and your approach includes striking a prop to the point of injury (for Gangs of New York) or enduring 48 hours in solitary confinement without food or water (for In the Name of the Father), it’s natural that fellow performers will want to fill that vacuum by trying to mimic their idol.
In other words, we exist in an environment populated by imperfect imitators of Day-Lewis who strive only to show the world the sheer amount of dedication they invest in their roles. On the milder side of the pool we have people like Lady Gaga, who was determined to win an Oscar for House of Gucci that she spent the whole campaign attempting to persuade people that she transformed into an Italian native over 18 months in preparation.
Then we have Jared Leto, who chose to immerse himself in the character of the Joker (for Suicide Squad) by sending “disturbing” gifts to fellow cast members. These, according to various accounts, range from deceased animals to anal beads and personal hygiene products, although Leto denied those worst excesses. And then, of course, there is Jim Carrey, who immersed himself so fully into Andy Kaufman for Man on the Moon that they literally managed to get a feature-length documentary from behind-the-scenes footage of him making life to the utmost for everyone around him.
The Modern Method Practitioners
The foremost practitioner of the Method currently seems to be Jeremy Strong (formerly an assistant to Day-Lewis), whose process during Succession was so laboriously intensive that it became the subject of a critical New Yorker profile, full of quotes from individuals who were worried for his behaviour (“The toll to himself concerns me,” said Brian Cox) or extremely irritated by his actions (“I recall him causing everyone else roll their eyes,” stated an unnamed co-star).
The actor says he ‘did not plan to stop acting, truly’
We have numerous additional cases. Andrew Garfield abstained from sex over half a year for Silence. Leonardo DiCaprio rested inside a dead animal during The Revenant. There’s a fighting chance that Austin Butler continues to talk like Elvis Presley, three years after the movie’s release. All of this, to some extent, aims to evoke the seriousness in which Day-Lewis approaches his work.
An Admirable Yet Challenging Battle
Moreover, although his rebuttal against method detractors could be commendable, a brief promotional cycle might not be enough to alter perceptions, not to mention their practices. Perhaps 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. Certainly we could all get behind that.