Letters to the Editor
-
Plainview was a cartoon character: a psychotic Snidely Whiplash.
Daniel Day Lewis ate the life out of this movie. In a way, he did to the movie what the movie claims Plainview did to the world: consumed it for his own, strange reasons. I could not stop myself thinking while watching this drag of a film: there's Daniel Day Lewis really, really, really acting his heart out. Great acting, but an empty character. How strange.
I think Stephanie caught the heart of the mattert here: "But if the performance fails -- as this one does -- then it comes off as an act of vanity, a flashy turn instead of one that casts steady illumination."
I can't recall if he was nominated or not, but Viggo Mortensen deserves to win for "Eastern Promises." There's a great actor whose performance gives to the movie instead of taking from it.
-
"oh, really? then who, pray tell, lives up to your standards?"
Uh, Daniel Day Lewis, when he was acting and not showboating.
And as for the "professional" . . . if she'd said, "an actor," you twerps would come back with something like, "Where? In community theater?" But he or she just has to be jealous, insignificant. By the logic of the trolls here, only the famous or successful are worth anything. I mean, how DARE anyone say anything bad about a movie as praised as this? The laughable thing is that these comments are coming from peons who think their access to this clusterfuck makes them critics, too.
-
?
yeah,he was definitely showboating....or he just read the script and then acted as best he could.
the rest of that comment is just distraction so what, specifically, lives up to your standards? 'my left foot' was good but this was bad??? give an example of a good performance if this is not one because i can't think of one since "raging bull" or something like that
-
Us twerps?
Gracious, my heart is aflutter.
I will say this. You know who the truly great actors are? The one in teevee commercials. Think of the challenge posed by convincingly communicating utter astonishment that the hot wings have no sauce, and yet, they're still hot wings! Fukkin' brilliant.
-
Thank You
What a pleasure to read an in depth criticism by someone who obviously loves the arts of acting and filmmaking. Ms.Z, why are you wasting your time at Salon? You should be at The New Yorker like Pauline Kael-you're that good.
-
hmm
Posters here who don't get what Zacharek is talking about, don't understand what great acting is.
But, then, there's plenty of bad taste in this world. You can find it everywhere, in everyone. Even in Daniel Day-Lewis.
I get what you're say, Stephanie. That did not prevent me from enjoying the movie. Although, your review does go some way toward explaining why the movie bothered me in ways I couldn't quite put my finger on.
Day-Lewis's performance was the triumph of technique over art, of craft over inspiration. I suspect he could have done it differently too, had he wanted..he has the requisite skill and insight. I can't help wondering if this species of misfire might partly be the director's fault, for not getting him under a particular kind of control.
Ah well. I was entertained during the entire thing. But perhaps not always in the ways the moviemakers intended.
-
had_enough
Or maybe we get it just fine, but don't agree.
-
top 10?
this could be a speaking too soon but i think i could place him in the top ten in the last 50 years...it doesn't matter for before 1960 because everyone knows old movies are all the same and so....whatever:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Actor#1960s
even if the role is maybe slightly self conscious he still easily overpowers most nominees and winners.
biggest and most powerful roles....i'd have to take deniro- taxi driver, deer hunter; brando-godfather, apoc. now; MAYBE hoffman in rainman or lenny; denzel in X (?).....
seriously, if you look through the list, there's not that many heavyweight roles. i mean, who else could one on one, best actor in a leading role, with this character (in modern, emotionally complex, non-stiffly stifferson roles like GWTWind?)
warren beatty in Reds?? not many at all, to me
-
Plainview of a piece
I think it's worth pointing out that Salon panned 'There Will Be Blood' in its original review. Since Day Lewis was so important to the film as a whole, its no surprise Miss Z didn't like the performance.
That being said, I find it to be extremely disingenuous for a critic to take an objective voice when negatively commenting on an otherwise lauded piece of art. If Day Lewis' performance were not front-runner for the Oscar and had been roundly criticized for its hammy nature, Miss Z's argument would hold merit. She makes no effort to identify her opinion as in the minority and also doesn't represent the opposing view, except to dismiss it. The article is the equivalent of critical grandstanding.
-
Good lord
Zacharek's review should be entered in textbooks as a classic example of frustrated, holier than thou critics' twisted pretzel logic when faced with a performance that is undeniably good. She can't bring herself to concede this without backhand due to the fact that more than one other person has seen and enjoyed the film. Welcome to the pitchforkmedia generation...
-
Pretty accurate
His performance was tremendously entertaining, like the entire movie, but won't be remembered five years from now as anything especially moving or unique.
It's from the Sean Penn "Is that my daughter in there!? Is that my OSCAR in there" brand of acting - wonderful to look at, with no depth. Like I said, that's the problem with the whole movie. Had the script been deeper, I'm sure Lewis would have had more to work with.
Boogie Nights is everything this movie isn't. A true epic, with sprawling performances with meaning and RISK. What did Lewis risk as an actor by taking this role? His Oscar nomination was spoonfed to him by the pseudo-grandiose, melodramatic script the Oscar voters love. In Boogie Nights, Mark Walhberg jerked off in a truck cab while getting leered at by a gay basher - now that's risk, and it was ignored in favor of Burt Reynolds excellent - but thin - performance as the porn director. In this case, Lewis gets to grandstand in every scene, have nonstop fun, chew all the scenery, and act circles around the characters who have to play second fiddle as the script demands.
I loved the movie, but a year from now the milkshake line will be all I remember. Lewis deserves his nomination because a great performance is one you stand up and take notice of - and it's no question that at least I did. He will probably win.
But, if you watch him in "Age of Innocence," now THAT is acting, NOT performing...