Letters to the Editor
-
i thought it was a great performance by DDL
i didn't feel artifice in the performance at all. since the character is all about controlling the image he projects, and so rarely do we see what he's REALLY thinking/feeling, i thought DDL got it right on.
the only part i might concede that gets 'actor-ly' and a bit fake is the very end. i didn't like the kill and wink with the kubrick-ish music. it undercut jonny greenwood's awesome score that did the heavy lifting all the way up til then.
funny enough, i found DDL in 'gangs of ny' to be kind of fake, but not 'blood'. i thought he was amazing.
-
Apparently DDL's character arc was so subtle, she missed it
I know what drove DDL.
I know what motivated him. I know what changed him and his character. I saw it. It was subtle, and maybe it was eclipsed by his outward performance and the character's chosen presentation to the world. But I got it.
And: This is how men acted, spoke, what they sounded like, etc AT THAT TIME IN AMERICA. Not only did DDL get it spot on, but Paul Thomas Anderson took a tremendous risk in taking us back there ACCURATELY.
It would appear that a lot of what this film was about went right over the head of a nationally known critic--and quite a few letter writers in here, too. This film is an INSTANT CLASSIC, and lines like "I drink your milkshake" are only going to guarantee that it will likely stand in the Top Ten for decades to come--
--until some genius director and actor eclipse it yet again, as will no doubt happen. Happily.
-
Manners
I agree that the performance was stylized, but I think it served the film. It is a mannered performance for a mannered age, and made me feel I was watching a 19th-century novel come to life. (Same thing for 'Gangs', though it has more flaws.)
Good spot on influence of Huston, but I regard that, too, as a positive -- a tribute rather than a copy.
Ms. Z writes:
"There's nothing inherently wrong with an actor's choosing to give a stylized performance rather than a naturalistic one."
I suspect this may be less than honest, since she goes on to excoriate stylized acting in detail. Would she care to name a stylized performance she does like? If not, well, there's nothing inherently wrong with a critic's preferring a naturalistic performance ;)
-
And while we're trashing DDL in "Gangs Of New York"...
I was confused when I first saw that film--until I heard Terry Gross's interview with Martin Scorsese AFTER the film came out, unfortunately.
He explained a helluva lot about that film in one sentence, one phrase: "Gangs Of New York" is an OPERA, not a period piece, a drama, a thriller, or much of anything else.
And THAT is why DDL's character in that film was 'over-the-top' or any other irrelevant criticism of it I've heard in these letters today. I mean...cah MAHN, people. Daniel Day-Lewis is one of the few actors today who actually ACTS, who doesn't do three or more movies a year, who carefully selects his roles and WORKS them, maybe to death. But he deserves every accolade he's gotten so far, and very few of the criticisms.
I'm as skeptical a movie-goer as there is. 80% of the movies I choose to see are a disappointment--5s on a 1-10 scale. I'm hard to please. And PTA and DDL delivered this time.
I can't wait to see it AGAIN.
-
are you out of your mind?
Can you say "overthinking". You all are unable to sit back, relax and enjot the show.
-
Now I understand.
If you didn't like it, you didn't "get it". No room for honest disagreement.
Thanks. That clears it all up.
-
Smoke and mirrors.
Ah, Ms. Zacharek:
To the magician's confederate in the audience, the work of the illusionist onstage is all technique and no wonder.
I often disagree with your reviews because, well, to be frank, it seems like you don't like very many movies. It's as though your life as a film critic has made you so overly familiar with the art form of cinema that you can no longer enjoy a movie -- because all you can manage to see is the technique that went into it. What a terrible shame.
I suppose it's the dilemma of the critic: to love something so dearly that you study it down to the cellular level, and then are unable to zoom back and look at the whole organism the same as before.
I'll admit that I've seen Daniel Day-Lewis chew the scenery a time or two over the years, but I think he was absolutely fantastic in this role, and I have a hard time imagining anyone else playing Daniel Plainview. Who would do it better? Spacey? Clooney? Keitel? A Brolin?
I'm finished now.
Best regards,
Michael Carmody
Wichita, Kansas USA
Air Capital of the World -
Beatnik Bob...
I'm glad you enjoyed TWBB as much as you did. To each his own. But please, don't accuse those of us who did not like the film all that much, or who did not buy into DDL's characterization, as somehow not getting it or missing the deep cinematic truths that flew over our heads. We saw them and shrugged.
The film touched you, and that's great. I and plenty of other people weren't as moved, and while the milkshake line was good, it's got to take its place behind many other classic one-liners, IMO.
So let's just have a toast to the movies. Fuck Heineken -- Pabst Blue Ribbon!
-
created a most memorable character
Huh? I don't think ".....Blood" is a great movie, but Day-Lewis created a most memorable character. Totally fascinating and real. What were the alternatives? Who could have possibly done better? When will Salon find a movie critic who is more than a nit-picker? One who adds to the understanding of a good film? Too much to ask?
-
Actor's actor
Your title speaks for itself. Great characters in history are great eccentrics who mold the way they are perceived and indeed are excruciatingly calculating. Rare is the chance that we get to see one of these “actors” acted out on stage. They are never “natural”. Natural is boring, weak. Brilliant performance.