It has been quite some time since the public caught a glimpse of the acclaimed actor Daniel Day-Lewis. After he announcement in 2017 that he would cease to work as an actor, prior to the debut of Phantom Thread, Day-Lewis quietly faded from view. However, in his absence, his legend expanded further.
Largely, this legend revolves around his preferred approach to roles. As someone who famously immerses himself in the roles he plays – for instance, while filming Lincoln, he had the director address him as “Mr. President” throughout the shoot – the world has grown increasingly obsessed with how he works. Is it true he really send messages to co-star Sally Field as Abraham Lincoln? Was it accurate that he only eat animals he’d killed for The Last of the Mohicans? Did he insist on being spoon-fed for My Left Foot?
Extreme acting methods: has the public fallen out of love with actorly excess?
Currently, Day-Lewis is back to public attention, somewhat reluctantly, for his new film Anemone. And he is using this to vocalise his frustration regarding how the Method technique is viewed. “I am somewhat annoyed these days to hear all kinds of people gobbling off and saying things like ‘gone full method’, which I think suggests that a person’s behaving like a lunatic in an extreme fashion,” he stated to the New York Times. “People often concentrate on superficial details of the work, and these elements always seem to involve some sort of self-flagellation or an experience that imposes upon oneself a severe discomfort or mental instability. But of course, in the career of an actor, it has to principally be about the internal work.”
To be honest, this sounds like Day-Lewis has come out from his retreat and found himself shocked by the world that has been created mirroring his methods. When you are regarded as among the best actors in history, and your approach includes striking a prop until you break your nose (in Gangs of New York) or spending 48 hours in isolation without food or water (for In the Name of the Father), it’s natural that fellow performers will attempt to emulate that example by imitating your hero.
Essentially, we exist in an environment full of half-cocked imitators of Day-Lewis who want nothing more than to show the world the sheer amount of dedication they invest in their roles. At the shallow end of the pool there are performers such as Lady Gaga, who was so desperate to win an Oscar for House of Gucci that she dedicated the entire promotion trying to convince everyone 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 of the Joker (for Suicide Squad) by sending “horrifying” gifts to fellow cast members. These items, depending on who you ask, included deceased animals to intimate objects and personal hygiene products, although Leto denied those worst excesses. Then, naturally, there is Jim Carrey, who immersed himself so fully into Andy Kaufman for Man on the Moon that filmmakers literally managed in creating a feature-length documentary from behind-the-scenes footage of him causing difficulties to the utmost for everyone around him.
The main practitioner of the Method at the moment would appear to be Jeremy Strong (once Day-Lewis’s assistant), whose process during Succession was so laboriously intensive that it became the basis of a critical New Yorker profile, including statements from individuals who were either concerned about his conduct (“The toll to himself concerns me,” said Brian Cox) or extremely irritated by his actions (“I remember [him] making others roll their eyes,” said an unnamed co-star).
Daniel Day-Lewis says he ‘did not plan to retire, really’
We have so many other examples. Andrew Garfield went celibate for six months while preparing for Silence. Leonardo DiCaprio rested inside an animal carcass during The Revenant. It’s quite possible that Austin Butler continues to talk in the style of Elvis, years following that film came out. Each of these instances, to some extent, is meant to invoke the seriousness with which Day-Lewis takes his work.
And, although his rebuttal against method detractors could be commendable, a short publicity tour might not be enough to alter perceptions, let alone their behaviour. Perhaps if he wants to make audiences recall what method acting is, or to show them its potential results, then the optimal strategy for Day-Lewis is to just begin producing additional movies. Certainly everyone would support that idea.
