Letters to the Editor
-
Affirming and True
Ms. Z, a contrarian - a lot of you think so and maybe you're right. But in this article I don't think she is writing merely for the sake of being contrarian. I think Ms. Zacharek has something here.
I walked out of the movie thinking Daniel Day-Lewis is amazing but feeling vaguely uncomfortable - I did not like the movie. I have disliked other great movies - because they made me feel depressed or weary with the world - Midnight Cowboy comes to mind. But there was never any question for me that Midnight Cowboy was a GREAT movie.
Many parts of Blood were great, I thought to myself ... the cinematography, the acting, the capture of the raw power and brutal rise of oil and hold that it has on our economy. Yet I was not dispirited or felt like I had learned something - I was left with a feeling more like "Hey, something was wrong with that film."
Ms. Zacharek puts her finger on it for me. Daniel Day-Lewis' acting was overwrought just as it had been in Gangs of New York. I was aware, painfully so, of his technique and that he was acting despite or maybe because of how much craft was on show and how on the surface at least he seemed to be inhabiting his character.
Hey - no one is perfect. Day-Lewis is a fantastic, phenomenal actor. I would match his performances with any other great actor of our day, say Sean Penn or Russell Crowe. When you think of that trio then others who are good, like Tom Hanks (altho his performance in Philadelphia was really something) or from previous generations like Nicholoson - well, I appreciate them but overall, they can't compare.
Nicholson has been so great in so many movies, think "Chinatown." But his career does not rise to Brando's level: most (not all) of what Jack N. does now ... well you know, what I mean: Jack playing Jack is tiresome. And now, Daniel Day-Lewis playing or re-cycling Daniel Day-Lewis as a loathesome, power-mad, human being gone wrong has become tiresome, too.
I hadn't understood how I felt as well as I now do after reading "Too Great to be Good."
Thanks for helping me sort it out, Stephanie.
-
I saw this movie
I wonder what folks think of the part of Danial Plainview when he discovered that his half brother was an imposter.
-
Spot on
Stephanie Zacharek is one of the few consistently excellent contributors to the Salon and long may she reign.
-
Stamina
Daniel Day-Lewis has amazing stamina. How can one actor portray a character who maintains that level of anger for that length of time.
-
Non-Americans playing Larger than Life Americans
I find that non-americans who play americans seem to overact their roles because of their perceptions about americans. The mythology is so huge and they are not imbued with being american. Especially this role which is placed in the american saga of self-made robber barons exploiting the land for oil. There is something cartoonish about his portrayal. It is flat and one-dimensional. Which may be the whole point but it is off nonetheless.
-
Agreeing, For Once
I, too, think Zacharek is one of the least insightful reviewers on the scene ... Virtually across the board, if she pans it, I like it and vice versa. However, in this case, althogh I haven't seen "There Will Be Blood" (yet), I generally agree with her differentiation between Day-Lewis' naturalistic acting roles and the forced ones, at least based upon Bill the Butcher and what I have seen of his new performance in trailers, etc. I think he is engaging in some personal experiments in these roles that don't quite pan out ... He's always engaging, as virtually everyone here has said, and, if I see this movie, it will be because he is in it. However, his turn as Bill the Butcher was beyond theatrical and was simply a borderline caricature. Very noticeable, very forced, very hard to take seriously as "Gangs of New York" wound on.
However, as Cap'n Eurazz has pointed out, there may be a common thread between "Gangs" and "Blood": bad directing. Yes, I said: I thought Scorcese did a mediocre job with "Gangs" and that it was a by-the-numbers dull-fest. Scorcese can be great and often has, but he's just as frequently overrated. Paul Thomas Anderson, on the other hand, has NEVER been great and EVERY movie he's made has been terrible (yes, even "Magnolia," you pretentious English majors!). "Boogie Nights" was a sophomoric, narrative mess, and even his attempts at understatement ("Punch Drunk Love") were failures. No actor can excel under bad direction, and that may be the connection with Day-Lewis' films. He needs to be reigned in and guided a bit, perhaps, and not allowed to run amok.
-
Thank you, Stephanie Zacharek
You so perfectly put into words what I and a friend thought about Day-Lewis' performance in "There Will Be Blood." My question, though, is how much of that performance was informed by a less than stellar script and feckless direction?
-
Agree Totally
Day-Lewis' characters are so technically perfect that they just aren't real.
-
Karl Rove would love these letters
There are many nasty and vicious letters here from people who are upset that Stephanie Zacharek actually dared to publicly disagree with their opinion of Daniel Day Lewis' performance. You can't just tell Ms. Zacharek why you disagree; nope, too civil. Instead, you have to try to destroy her, the individual, in print.
Some people also attack Ms. Zacharek because she dares to give a thoughtful and educated discussion on the art of acting. I learned something about method acting from this article -- obviously she knows more about acting than I do. Why lash out at somebody because they are educated about a topic, perhaps more educated about it than you.
This is the Karl Rove approach: attack the individual, not the opinion. Be suspicious of anyone who might know more than you about a subject, since going from your gut is as valid as going from knowledge.
Why the hell would anyone want to be like Karl Rove?
-
Miss Zacharek has a point
I found "There Will Be Blood" ultimately unsatisfying. Ms. Zacharek raises some good points, but I also think it has to do with the screenplay, too.
What's the dramatic arc in this story? Plainview begins as a ruthlessly driven, greedy man, and he ends up just where such people do. Is there anything about him that makes me sympathetic to him, makes me identify with him? The closest thing is his rearing of his "son," yet it's clear from the beginning that Plainview, as he ultimately admits, was using his son to serve his business' purposes. What's the counterpoint to this character and his story? I couldn't detect one, and the film needed one.