Daniel Day-Lewis has recently addressed the tension surrounding method acting in what he describes as a “handbags at dawn” conflict with fellow actor Brian Cox. This discussion emerged during an interview with The Big Issue, where Day-Lewis expressed his frustrations over Cox’s critical remarks about method acting, particularly aimed at Jeremy Strong, Cox’s co-star in the hit television series Succession.
Day-Lewis’s commitment to method acting has sparked a deeper reflection on the legitimacy and nuances of this acting technique. Method acting involves a deep immersion into a character, often requiring actors to live as their characters both on and off set. This technique has often been misunderstood or misrepresented, a point Day-Lewis was eager to clarify during multiple recent interviews, especially in the context of promoting his upcoming film, Anemone.
Cox has openly shared his skepticism regarding method acting, suggesting that it can lead to “irritating” behavior on set. In contrast, Day-Lewis, who has a renowned reputation for his immersive style, defended both his own practices and those of his peers, emphasizing that misunderstandings often stem from a lack of familiarity with the artistic intentions behind method acting.
“I worked with Brian Cox once and got somehow drawn into this handbags at dawn conflict inadvertently,” Day-Lewis explained. Despite his affirmations of Cox’s talents, he lamented that the conversation surrounding the method often lacks depth. “Any time he wants to talk about it, I’m easy to find,” he added, signaling a willingness to engage in a constructive dialogue about their differing views.
Day-Lewis is particularly disheartened by what he perceives as an oversimplified portrayal of method acting in popular discourse. He questioned the qualifications of critics, stating, “I can’t think of a single commentator who’s gobbed off about the method that has any understanding of how it works and the intention behind it.” He articulated frustration over being reduced to extreme anecdotes—like living in a jail cell for his role in In the Name of the Father—while the essence of method acting remains largely unacknowledged.
Day-Lewis argued that the primary goal of method acting is not to indulge in eccentricities or gain notoriety for extreme practices, but rather to create authentic, memorable performances. He criticized the perception that method actors engage in ridiculous behaviors for the sake of art, contrasting his own dedication to professionalism with the antics often associated with other actors. “I choose to stay and splash around, rather than jump in and out or play practical jokes with whoopee cushions between takes,” he asserted.
In the ongoing dialogue about acting methods, Day-Lewis’s remarks are particularly timely as discussions around authenticity and character immersion gain relevance. His thoughts encourage a reevaluation of the assumptions surrounding method acting and challenge critics to seek a deeper understanding of the creative process.
The film Anemone, directed by Day-Lewis’s son Ronan and co-written by both father and son, marks a new chapter in Day-Lewis’s illustrious career. Set to be released in the UK on 7 November, the film enhances Day-Lewis’s legacy while also showcasing a more personal collaboration with his family.
In summary, the discourse surrounding method acting, particularly in light of Day-Lewis’s insights, serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in artistic expression. The dialogue between actors like Day-Lewis and Cox highlights not only the valid differences in approach but also the need for a nuanced understanding of method acting’s purpose. As the industry evolves, so too must the conversations we have about the art of acting, pushing beyond sensational narratives to embrace the intricate motivations that drive performers to delve into their characters so deeply.
