Letters to the Editor
-
And also
I can totally see how the movie and the performance would be extremely annoying for someone not in the mood for such things. Many movies can be well made but not interesting or enjoyable.
Had Zacharek been spoken more as "me" instead of "we" and shown appreciation for the skill even if it totally failed for her, I doubt there would be such furor.
Instead she used this as a springboard to engage in analysis which uses many words to say rather meaningless things: "Day-Lewis plays emotions, not objectives -- that is, he decides on the emotion, or the effect, instead of allowing the emotion to emerge from the situation." How is a predetermined emtion not an objective? Why is deciding on an emotion - an actor's job - exclude basing that decision on the situation. She makes it sound like DDL is playing emotions with no connection to the plot.
She also engages in overreaching speculation about Daniel Day-Lewis as whole stating what thinks in a tone as if she actually knows: "Day-Lewis may have located what he thinks is the heart of Daniel Plainview," "he's blind to the fact that in two of his most recent performances" "Day-Lewis, one of the finest actors we've got, has every reason to love himself"
I sincerely doubt people would defend the move, or DDL, with such vigor where it not being attacked in such presumptious, provocatively asinine way. I could hate the film and be goaded by this tone.