Letters to the Editor
-
Too Great to Be Good?!
There's no challenge in Daniel Plainview: No moment where we fear, against our better judgment, that we might have some confusing, conflicting emotions for him.
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING. Please tell me this review is a joke... You need to go back to the theater and see the movie again.
-
Sorry...
If no one liked this movie reviewers like this would be singing it's praises. As soon as the rabble enjoy something, there must be something wrong with it.
I've noticed this is a theme with miss Zacharek.
-
This Review Is...
...just trying to be controversial. It's all about Miss Z's career. But I must say, she did successfully construct, using words, an 'argument' as to why someone might not like his performance. It's just that when you stand back and look at the argument as a whole, it's ridiculous.
-
I completely agree
I have enjoyed all of Daniel Day-Lewis' performances, but I too have noticed that people seem to equate great acting with obvious acting. I'm about as ignorant as one can be about the mechanics and techniques of the acting profession. However, as someone who watches a lot of movies, I have to say that in Daniel Day-Lewis' most recent performances, I'm pulled out of the movie when Daniel Day-Lewis is on screen. I loved his Bill the Butcher performance in "Gangs of New York"--it was my favorite thing in the movie--yet whenever I watched him, I was keenly aware that I was watching Daniel Day-Lewis participating in a very complicated and rehearsed process. It was fun to behold, but I'm not sure if this is what great acting is supposed to be. I kind of think that a good actor should be like a good con man, subtle and unmemorable.
-
You're noodling this WAY too hard
He was just really damn good. But then, I'm just some guy who likes good movies.
-
hey! know what? mozart sucks! (please click on my article) tiger woods sucks, too! (pleased click, I need work)
you have WAY over thought this. lewis has given the best leading performance in the last 25 years. it's really not that easy to BECOME another person on screen....another one of those "I need to get paid so I'll write something 'controversial' by saying the opposite of everyone else" articles like we see so often in salon and slate. booooring....ZZZZZZZZzzzzzz............
-
first the movie, now the actor...
This critic has spent a lot of time trying to prove that this film is not all that good. Wow, that makes about 99% of all the films ever made absolute garbage. I must be really stupid for having enjoyed it so much--oh, and pretty much every other critic is stupid too I guess, since the movie scores a 92 on metacritic....
I'm all for contrarian opinions but this one just isn't defensible. Overwrought? Isn't it supposed to be?
-
Daniel Plainview
There exist people and characters who are larger than life. They mysteriously stand for more than their biographies or individual psychologies. They're archetypes. They represent some aspect of all of us, of history, society, sex, or human aspiration.
I believe Daniel Plainview is an archetypal character. I know I couldn't keep my eyes off him and am still thinking about who he is and what he represents a month after seeing the movie. Lewis' performance struck me as a beautiful, large thing; something that rings true, even if I don't know exactly what it means or from where it came. Just the opposite of vanity, in fact: mystery.
-
Oh please.
This is pure pandering and grandstanding. The only thing interesting is Zacharek is taking a cheap shots at at a male star for once. Too bad she can't accuse him of plastic surgery.
Also:
I recently received an e-mail letter from a professional actor who was dismayed both by Day-Lewis' performance and by audiences' response to it: "Weird how so many people confuse 'acting that you can see' with great acting," he wrote -- as concise and honest a summation of the way we want to be impressed by craft as I've ever read.
Ooooh! A professional actor? Why that makes all the difference. I take he does acting you can't see - does that mean subtle, not particulary interesting or just unlikely to be cast?
-
look at how contrarian I am!
Steph, go grab some popcorn and stop over-intellectualizing what's meant to be entertainment.
I can imagine you as a child complaining that Mr. Toad's Wild Ride wasn't visceral enough.
-
I don't want to watch a "naturalistic" actor in every film because it takes no talent
people like george clooney and tom hanks are "naturalistic" actors and are, therefore, boring because they end up playing THEMSELVES in every stupid film they're in. "Naturalistic" simply means "I'm too lazy to rehearse being someone else so I'm just gonna wing it from here on out." actors shouldn't be too self conscious but when they UNconsciously have the same mannerisms and pace all the time, their work becomes worthless ...i.e. denzel washington, jack nicholson, tom hanks, etc.
-
Just to clarify
"I take he does acting you can't see - does that mean subtle, not particulary interesting or just unlikely to be cast?"
It probably means something that wouldn't impress all you suckers who've fallen for Day Lewis's scenery chewing here.
-
ha! nice one
"Ooooh! A professional actor? Why that makes all the difference. I take he does acting you can't see - does that mean subtle, not particulary interesting or just unlikely to be cast?"
------owned! no kidding..... just a jealous, no name actor. how insanely pretentious is that? you're beneath me because i'm a "professional"....ha! a professional with horrible judgment, i guess
-
Just Awful
This review is just plain awful. So painfully convoluted logic that it can hardly be believed. And worse yet, there are many people who will latch on to it for its "original" thinking. Zacharek should have been a lawyer. Or a politician.
-
oh, really?
"It probably means something that wouldn't impress all you suckers who've fallen for Day Lewis's scenery chewing here."
oh, really? then who, pray tell, lives up to your standards? ONLY brando, i suppose....everyone else is a hack, right?
either you're a troll or you have really bad judgment
-
I feel no pride in agreeing with Ms. Stephanie...
...so often have I found myself opposing her critical opinions. But here I think she's right both about the film and the performance: viewers seem bowled over by the appearance of greatness rather than the actual thing. The last time I felt this way was when everybody was flinging hosannas at Million Dollar Baby, and when was the last time anybody cracked open that movie's DVD case? There Will Be Blood is a much finer film in comparison - much of it is truly riveting - but it's a callow, immature work that evades drama, character and nuance in favor of bombast. Anderson lets Lewis run away with the movie, destroying any chance that anyone can even mount a credible performance opposite him.
These are the feelings of someone who was eager to like the movie, who was looking forward to it; I'm voicing disappointment, not snarkiness. But I'll be surprised if in a couple years people aren't surprised by the boundless enthusiasm they felt for what will seem, I believe, so empty an exercise.