🔗 Share this article

It’s been quite some time since anyone caught a glimpse of the acclaimed actor Daniel Day-Lewis. Following his announcement in 2017 that he would cease to pursue acting, prior to the release of The Phantom Thread, the actor withdrew from the spotlight. However, in his absence, his reputation expanded further.

The Mythos of His Acting Method

Largely, this legend revolves around his preferred style of working. As someone known for disappears into the roles he plays – for example, during Lincoln, reportedly asked Steven Spielberg address him as “Mr. President” for the entire production – audiences has grown more fascinated with how he works. Is it true he really send messages to co-star Sally Field as Abraham Lincoln? Did he only eat animals he’d killed during Last of the Mohicans? Did he demand receiving food via spoon for My Left Foot?

Extreme acting methods: have we fallen out of love with actorly excess?

Now, Day-Lewis is back 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 am somewhat annoyed these days when I hear all kinds of people talking carelessly and saying things like ‘gone full method’, which I think suggests that someone is acting insane in a drastic way,” he stated to a major publication. “People tends to focus on superficial details of the work, and these elements always seem to involve some sort of self-flagellation or a situation that imposes upon oneself extreme unease or mental instability. However, in the career of an actor, it has to principally be about the internal work.”

An Industry of Imitators

Frankly, it appears as if Day-Lewis has come out from his retreat and found himself shocked by the world that has developed mirroring his methods. If you’re regarded as one of the greatest actors in history, and your process involves headbutting a dummy until you break your nose (for Gangs of New York) or enduring 48 hours in isolation deprived of sustenance (during In the Name of the Father), then it stands to reason that other actors will want to fill that vacuum by trying to mimic your hero.

Essentially, we now live in an environment full of imperfect Day-Lewis impersonators who strive only to demonstrate the sheer amount of effort they put into their roles. At the shallow end of the pool there are performers such as Lady Gaga, who was so desperate to earn an Academy Award with House of Gucci that she spent the whole campaign attempting to persuade people that she transformed into functionally Italian over 18 months in preparation.

Then we have Jared Leto, who chose to deeply embed himself into the role as the Joker (for Suicide Squad) by sending “disturbing” gifts to his castmates. These, according to various accounts, included deceased animals to anal beads and personal hygiene products, though the actor refuted those worst excesses. And then, of course, we have Jim Carrey, who went so deep as Andy Kaufman for Man on the Moon that filmmakers succeeded to get a full-length documentary out of B-roll of him causing difficulties to the utmost for his colleagues.

The Modern Method Practitioners

The foremost practitioner of the Method currently seems to be Jeremy Strong (once Day-Lewis’s assistant), whose process during Succession was so rigorously detailed that it became the basis of a derisive New Yorker profile, full of quotes from people who were either concerned for his behaviour (“It’s the cost to himself that worries me,” said Brian Cox) or annoyed beyond all measure by his actions (“I remember [him] making everyone else roll their eyes,” said an unnamed co-star).

Daniel Day-Lewis says he ‘never intended to stop acting, truly’

There are numerous additional cases. Andrew Garfield went celibate for six months while preparing for Silence. Leonardo DiCaprio rested inside an animal carcass for The Revenant. There’s a fighting chance that Austin Butler still speaks like Elvis Presley, three years after the movie’s release. Each of these instances, to some extent, is meant to invoke the seriousness with which Day-Lewis approaches his work.

A Noble But Uphill Battle

Moreover, although his rebuttal against method detractors might be noble, a brief promotional cycle might not be enough to alter perceptions, not to mention their behaviour. Perhaps if he wants to make audiences recall the true essence of the Method, or to show them what it can achieve, then Day-Lewis’s best bet is to just begin producing more films. Surely we could all support that idea.