More Daniel Day Lewis Trashing

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 12:37pm

And I'm alllllll for it!

A great, right-on article about Day-Lewis' performance in you-know-what.
Too great to be good?

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 12:54pm

Hm. While I don't think Daniel is the be-all, end-all that many in the press would have us believe, I think the writer forgets the most important part of ANY performance: entertainment value. You cannot discount that Daniel is far more interesting in this film than most actors in most other films.

I also think the writer misses many of the film's points--his interpretation seems shallow and amateurish. Perhaps if he saw the film again and did some literary research he/she would find much deeper meaning in both the performance and the film itself.

It seems to me that the people most critical are in fact jealous actors or writers that resent the wave of adulation Daniel has received for this film. It MAY be out of proportion with the quality of the performance, but the same could easily be said of Meryl.


Updated On: 2/20/08 at 12:54 PM

[xxnewgirlxx]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 1:14pm

I can't speak on There Will Be Blood, as I haven't seen it, but just watch "In the Name of the Father" and you'll see how good of an actor he really is.

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 1:19pm

Watch anything he's in (including THERE WILL BE BLOOD) and you'll see how good of an actor he is. It's not that he can do no wrong in the eyes of the media dn his fans, it's the fact that, when looking at his work, he hasn't. It's not an exaggeration at all to call him the best working film actor today, and I don't understand how anyone can watch him in THERE WILL BE BLOOD and be anything but mesmerized.

[DAME]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 1:23pm

He is so over the top in everything. I never believe him. Ugh..

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 1:49pm

I think that if you don't appreciate his style, then there is no way you can respect him. That having been said, I think his style shows how genuine of an actor he is. He's very impressive, I think.

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 1:57pm

There's alot of actors that can be described as over the top--and I tend to love them all--I want an actor who isn't afraid of making mistakes or looking foolish--that's real bravery in my book.

[roquat]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 2:08pm

Haven't seen THERE WILL BE BLOOD yet, but I'm deeply suspicious of Zacharek after the hatchet job she did on Sondheim in her SWEENEY TODD review. (Not her opinion of the movie--of SONDHEIM.)

That said, she does make two genuine points: 1) The Academy tends to reward showy, mannered, external acting, because they can see all the fuss that went into it. Historical impersonations and physically or mentally disabled characters usually win out. Quiet naturalism--"invisible" acting--is undervalued, because it doesn't announce itself (i.e., the cast of BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN)--as if it were easy to do that on camera. 2) When a fresh, exciting new talent bursts onto the screen, as Day-Lewis did in the early performances Zacharek describes, the Academy doesn't know what to make of him/her. It's only after the performer has been certified "great" by the media that the Academy starts in with the awards--usually after the performer has gone stale and flabby and his initial volatility is gone. Thus performers tend to win Oscars for their worst performances.

[DAME]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:10pm

Style? Hmm.. I just think his performances always interfere with the story telling. I don't think it is a style. That is just a way of excusing it. Just my 2 cents.

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:14pm

To paraphrase Uta Hagen, if you can see the acting, its not good acting. When Day Lewis is good, he's very very good but when he is bad--as in THE CRUCIBLE, for instance--he's as shrill as Faye Dunaway in MOMMIE DEAREST.

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:18pm

roquat, I think it's also a matter of those films in which you find the disabled/impaired characters--usually very uplifting and manipulative and I think audiences admire those performances because it SEEMS more difficult to play than a regular person--most of us in the theatre world know that isn't so, but keep in mind many of the Academy's members are in positions with no creative output at all.

Also bear in mind MANY of the actors in Hollywood aren't trained actors--they can be easily impressed by anyone of even marginal talent.

And I don't think it's the MEDIA so much as the critics themselves. Maybe that's a case of semantics, but critics can "okay" a film or actor and then it catches on with industry types and then the public.

[DAME]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:26pm

"Also bear in mind MANY of the actors in Hollywood aren't trained actors--they can be easily impressed by anyone of even marginal talent."
Sometimes trained actors are just as bad. Talent is talent. And to my knowledge.. DDL has never lived or been a part of the hollywood community. There are overrated bad actors everywhere.

Updated On: 2/20/08 at 03:26 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:28pm

Hon--if you took a random sample of NYC actors vs LA actors, I think you'd see my point.

Trained actors CAN be just as bad--but they're more likely to appreciate the subtler forms of performance.

[DAME]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:30pm

As a working talent agent of over 16 years I can tell you that most NY actors that come to town are too big and mannered to adapt for the small and big screen.

Updated On: 2/20/08 at 03:30 PM

[broadway86]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:32pm

Just read the article, and it's hardly right-on. I was mesmerized by Day-Lewis's performance. No other piece of acting this year has sucked me in quite like this one, where every single moment felt lived-in and earned. Yes, it is a "grand" performance, bu not in the way that Ms. Zacharek is suggesting.

[DAME]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:34pm

Well.. different strokes for different folks. Your not the only he has sucked in. Glad you enjoyed it.

[broadway86]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:45pm

It's just wierd talking about performance, especially. We're all seeing the same performance and (regardless of how "good" and "bad" it really is) we're all getting different feelings from it.

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:46pm

"Style? Hmm.. I just think his performances always interfere with the story telling. I don't think it is a style. That is just a way of excusing it. Just my 2 cents."

I have heard many people say that actually. I'm just not sure we can dub Daniel as a good actor or a bad actor. OR for that matter, any actor. Granted, someone who has NO talent...well it's obvious they are not good. But it's not just about talent anymore, is it? It's about drawing in enough people to your performance, I think. For example, I don't really like Nicole Kidman's "style". But, enough people saw something in her performances to give her the popularity to get millions per picture, and saw ability for an Oscar.
I personally will never understand what people see in Jaime Fox. But at the same time, many people don't see what I see in Ewan McGregor. I know no one needs a lecture on "everyone has their own opinion, to each his own"...we all understand that. But I'm not sure how we judge "good actors" today. Talent? Training? A mixture? That special something?

Also, as far as this "grand" thing is concerned, don't actors tend to not go over the top on film? Maybe I'm too used to theatre training myself, but I also assume going into a film that the performance I'm going to see will not be at all what Daniel does. I liked being surprised by what he was doing.

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:48pm

Trust me, if he'd sucked me in--you would have read about it.

It's not even his best performance to my mind, but I can't deny it's base appeal. I didn't want to like the film, but it's literary quality and endless complexity totally wowed me.

[DAME]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 3:54pm

"But it's not just about talent anymore, is it? It's about drawing in enough people to your performance, I think."

Totally disagree. I should be absorbed by the story and the characters. The performance should be just like the writing and the direction. It should contribute to bringing the story to life. I hated him in this. I also hated Juno by the way.. ( and I know I am in the minority). Totally overwritten and self aware. Just like his performance. Overacted and self aware. YUCK.

Updated On: 2/20/08 at 03:54 PM

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 4:04pm

You should be DAME, but as we all know, a good performance is easier to find that a fascinating story well told and thoughtfully shot.

When Ron Leibman was in AIA, George Wolfe posed it to him like this: Do you want audiences to say "Ron Liebman is a great actor OR Roy Cohn is the scariest man alive?"

I didn't get that feeling with Daniel Plainview, but I did leave with a much higher regard for PT Anderson, who was no slouch to begin with in my mind.

[AnnaK<3LMIP]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 4:04pm

Yes, I agree completely. But when judging actors individually and independently of the story and direction, what do we judge them on? I mean, you could argue that it's impossible to judge the actor without the influence of the thing he is actually acting...but if you were to take any actor and put them in a room without a director and a simple monologue, what do you look for?
...I hope I'm making sense.

[lildogs]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 4:07pm

That's where the entertainment factor comes into play--is the actor fun to watch?

[StickToPriest]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 4:56pm

So, Dame, are you saying that anytime you are aware of a performance being great, it suddenly becomes a bad performance because it takes you out of the story?

If that is so, then some of the greatest performances ever could be called bad.

[blueroses]

Posted: 2/20/08 at 5:03pm

"Yes, it is a "grand" performance, bu not in the way that Ms. Zacharek is suggesting."

I agree, broadway86. I CAN see why people might not like it, but I think it was a deliberate choice and one that worked...Plainview didn't reveal his true nature until the very end...everything about the character was a "show"...even his son was, in essence, a prop.