Daniel Day-Lewis is so brilliant in “Lincoln” that the rest of the movie almost doesn’t matter. It’s as if he first became Abraham Lincoln and then showed up for the filming. Good actors can recreate the manners, gait, voice, and emotions of a character, but few can dig down deep enough to the core of a being and then on top apply countless layers one by one. In Lincoln, what Day-Lewis is to acting, Vermeer is to painting.
Lincoln’s dialogue in the movie is so superior to that of the other characters, that on reflection I began to wonder if Day-Lewis contributed to it. The answer appears to be yes:
Kushner said he “picked over words” in the final script with actor Daniel Day-Lewis, who plays Lincoln in the film, “trying out different sentences–what if we did this, what if we did that.” Kushner called the back-and-forth a lot of fun.
The complexity, intelligence, and humanity of Day-Lewis’ Lincoln is realized fully enough that it should dispel any doubts about Lincoln’s greatness in the minds of viewers. Sadly, only the cinematography (and possibly the sound) is as “pitch perfect” as Day-Lewis. Fortunately, Day-Lewis didn’t allow the shortcomings of the script and Spielberg to interfere with his work. He reached for and achieved the sublime. Had others on the project upped their game halfway between what they delivered and what Day-Lewis delivered, “Lincoln” would have been a great movie worth watching for more than possibly the greatest performance in movie history.
It would have been helpful if Spielberg had set aside his well-known personal tics, and if he and Kushner had taken off their 2010 liberal lenses. With the exception of Sally Field, the casting was good enough Not that most of the actors had much to work with. Still, Tommy Lee Jones performance was lazy.* To realize a somewhat more accurate and believable Mary Todd Lincoln, an actor closer in age to the depicted forty-five year old character would have been preferable to one that’s sixty-five. Sally Field is a decent actor, just not in a league with Day-Lewis. Finally, the dialogue and depiction of Mary in the script is dreadful and at that more suited to the stage than a movie; so, Fields gets more applause and less criticism than she deserves.
It’s almost as if “Lincoln” were two movies. One melodrama with enough historical manipulations and inaccuracies to put it in the category of fiction. The other stepping back in time for an hour long encounter with Abraham Lincoln. Once is more than enough of the former, and twice will likely be too little of the latter for me.
*For me, Tommy Lee Jones is always worth watching. After hearing of the raves for his performance in “Lincoln,” I expected to join those that were disappointed that he lost out to Christoph Waltz for the Supporting Actor Oscar. IMHO, the Academy got this one right and it wasn’t even much of a contest.
It’s no surprise that DD-Lewis “was” Lincoln. Look at the shit he does to get into character:
Last of the Mohicans (1992): DDL prepared for the role of James Fenimore Cooper’s 18th-century hero Hawkeye by living off the land for six months, learning how to hunt, fish and skin animals.
Gangs of New York (2002) : For playing Bill the butcher he flew a butcher from Peckham, south London, to America to instruct him in carving up carcasses. He also hired circus performers to teach him to throw knives and he went down with pneumonia during shooting because he refused to change his threadbare woollen coat for a warmer one on the grounds that as a poor 19th century New Yorker, he wouldn’t have owned a thick coat.
Also while on set, he obsessively listened foul language songs of rapper Eminem in a bid to keep up his “level of aggression”. His preparation for the role was so much intense that other actors were reportedly scared of him around the set.
His excessive preparation & immersion in the skin of his character irked Liam Nesson when DDL insisted on getting addressed by his character’s name when they met at the gym of their hotel.
In the Name of the Father (1993): To prepare for his part as the wrongly convicted alleged IRA bomber Gerry Conlon in the film about the Guildford Four, he spent three nights on meagre prison rations in a freezing cold cell. Those passing by on the set were instructed to abuse him and throw cold water on him.
It’s been said that genius is 1% talent and 99% perspiration. However Day-Lewis chooses to prepare for his work is up to him. Liam Neeson appears to prefer a more easy breezy approach — then again why put much into a role in “Battleship” (a movie that even I managed to avoid last year) or the perfectly dreadful “Taken2” that I unfortunately did see? Generally for me Liam is an okay actor. Not everyone has the exceptional talent of his mother-in-law who is in Day-Lewis’ league.
Trust I didn’t imply that Day-Lewis is the best screen actor ever. IMHO he’s among the best but had the unique opportunity to play one of the most complex historical figures and put everything into his creation.
I read an interview with Dustin Hoffman about his movie “Marathon Man.” He talks of telling Laurence Olivier how he tortured himself to achieve his performance.
Olivier replied: “My dear boy, why not just try acting.”
I was rooting for Denzel, who perfectly captured the addict personality for whom life under the influence is a normal state.
I am always in awe of creative people and can’t imagine how they do it.
If forced to name the best male actor of the 20th century, I’d have to say Laurence Olivier. Absolutely stunning in “Long Days Journey Into Night.”
Denzel had moments of greatness in “Flight,” but the movie was too weak for anyone to turn in a performance that soars. For me, his work in Safe House was better than “Flight.”