Daniel Day-Lewis: godlike genius or hammy panto pirate?
Is Day-Lewis overpraised? I don’t think so, no. But I have to confess there is a strange whispering-in-church tone that comes over journalists when writing about him, particularly evident over the last month. It’s the opposite side of the coin to the luvvie-baiting and ironic celeb-gouging now mandatory for the contemporary press. Day-Lewis is the single exception: the beneficiary of a converse need in the papers to show that we’re not all snippy, envious meanies and we do appreciate a touch of class. And also, in anticipation of a glamorous British Oscar success, the press wants to repudiate some past mickey-taking about Day-Lewis’s much-reported Method approach.The actor himself doesn’t play the celeb game and neither wants nor needs to work continuously, and so when he does do a film a disproportionate note of solemn celebration is perhaps triggered. Peter Stanford got a scoop in the Observer the Sunday before last in getting an interview with him, and a very intelligent and thoughtful piece of work it was, but it was conducted with a reverence more appropriate for a Nobel laureate.As far as I’m concerned, I have no more interest in, or reverence for, the private persona of Day-Lewis, than I have for Tommy Lee Jones, or Julie Christie or Cate Blanchett. He’s terrific in There Will Be Blood, compelling, excessive, stylised and mad - like the film itself. But perhaps it’s best to approach him with a little more analysis and a little less awe.
Tags: cate, cate blanchett, ford, journalist