criterionforum.org

Kushner is indeed writing the Lincoln project, and in a recent profile in New York magazine said it may be the best thing he's ever written. That plus the cast has made it the only Spielberg project I've had genuine anticipation for in quite a while.

Daniel Day Lewis is already living as Lincoln. Rumor has it that he has spoken in his Lincoln accent since March. Here he is having dinner.

It oughta be Abraham Lincoln starring in a film about the life of DDL, amirite?

Availability might be a problem.

Jeff wrote:Daniel Day Lewis is already living as Lincoln. Rumor has it that he has spoken in his Lincoln accent since March.

This is nothing. For Gangs of New York, he travelled back in time to 1863 and became the ruler of an actual gang.

Is there any chance he won't be the same actor that he was in Age of Innocence, Gangs of New York and There Will Be Blood? Not only did his vocal inflections remain exactly the same for all three roles, he was an incredible snooze.

triodelover wrote:Is there any chance he won't be the same actor that he was in Age of Innocence, Gangs of New York and There Will Be Blood? Not only did his vocal inflections remain exactly the same for all three roles, he was an incredible snooze.

I can't wait to see the scene from the Civil War where he beats Jefferson Davis to death with a bowling ball.

triodelover wrote:Is there any chance he won't be the same actor that he was in Age of Innocence, Gangs of New York and There Will Be Blood? Not only did his vocal inflections remain exactly the same for all three roles, he was an incredible snooze.

Lincoln famously had a very high-pitched -- often shrill and unpleasant -- speaking voice. The article that I linked mentioned that's the take DDL is using.

triodelover wrote:Is there any chance he won't be the same actor that he was in Age of Innocence, Gangs of New York and There Will Be Blood? Not only did his vocal inflections remain exactly the same for all three roles, he was an incredible snooze.

That may be the strangest - and wrong-est - post I've ever read on this forum.

Sure, there's opinions... but that Age of Innocence inclusion is pretty much empirically wrong.

Cold Bishop wrote:Sure, there's opinions... but that Age of Innocence inclusion is pretty much empirically wrong.

You mean you don't remember everyone commenting about how brilliant his John Huston impression was in The Age of Innocence?

I'd infer triodelover's deaf like I am but, as a lip-reader myself, I gotta say DDL's vocal inflections in those three films sure looked different enough to me... so I don't think being deaf's sufficient excuse for his statement

I said this in another thread somewhere but this is the first Spielberg project I've been excited about in a very long time. The cast, source material, and talent involved make it seem like it could be a really excellent film. Tony Kushner said in a recent magazine profile that the Lincoln script may be the best thing he's ever written.

As long as Kushner didn't get his historical research from Bill O'Reilly . . .

Jeff wrote:

triodelover wrote:Is there any chance he won't be the same actor that he was in Age of Innocence, Gangs of New York and There Will Be Blood? Not only did his vocal inflections remain exactly the same for all three roles, he was an incredible snooze.

Lincoln famously had a very high-pitched -- often shrill and unpleasant -- speaking voice. The article that I linked mentioned that's the take DDL is using.

Really? I could've sworn he sounded like Tony Danza. (wonder if anyone will get that reference?)

Re: those three other films, there's no way you can mistake his voice in The Age of Innocence for what he did in Gangs of New York (the nasally "Noo Yawk" accent) or There Will Be Blood (the aforementioned John Huston impression)

I see similarities in Gangs and Blood in terms of his look (obvious mustache) and attire...but that's where the comparisons would end I think. He's so much more restrained through a lot of There Will Be Blood.

Well, I just intended it to be a throw-away comment (although I dislike all three of those films and his performance in them), but I see I'll have to respond, if for no other reason than to give mfunk another chance at his hyperbole and a chance to throw in an ad hominem or two and then vacate the chair. I'll try to be brief (for me).

First, there is a difference between vocal tonality (the sound of his voice) and inflection (the way he changes pitch or loudness for emphasis and to reflect emotion). Second, my wife and I watched all three of these films during a "catch-up" period a couple of years ago fairly close together. She felt the same way I did, essentially that there's little variance in the way he approached each role.

(1) Age of Innocence: Wharton's novels are essentially about the manners and social conventions of a certain age and, as such, are difficult to adapt successfully to the big screen. Wharton is much better on the page. There have been two recent Wharton adaptations and Terence Davies' House of Mirth is IMO the more successful of the two, largely due to the presence of Laura Linney. I think Davies' background probably makes him a better choice to do Wharton than Scorcese, whose best work is heavily influence by both his NY upbringing and his Catholicism. Still, I can't call Mirth a "good" film.

In Age, we have a top-shelf director somewhat out of his element, a serious miscasting in Michele Pfeiffer, and a somewhat turgid performance from Lewis. To be fair, Newland Archer is something of a bore, so perhaps Lewis has conceived him well. Still, establishing this performance as our baseline, off we go.

(2) Gangs of New York: This one got ripped in quite a number of reviews, so I don't feel compelled to defend my negative reaction to it. It was, in a word, a stinker. But on to Lewis. Clearly Bill the Butcher was rowdier, lustier, altogether more outsized than Newland Archer, who could only be called rowdy when compared to a corpse. But I remember thinking in several scenes (and I truly wish I could recall exactly which ones however I'm not subjecting myself to that film again just to find out) that the facial expressions and vocal inflections used to convey stress, anger, elation, etc were Newland Archer writ large. (I saw Gangs less than a week after Age.) I can understand why it seems a stretch, and perhaps I'm just trying to find a way to intellectualize two boring performances. But the parallels were there...for me.

(3) There Will Be Blood: This one was a huge disappointment because I went in expecting quite a lot and left feeling like Gertrude Stein did about Oakland. (It's possible I have a complex concerning directors whose last names are Anderson.) I watched this a couple of days after Gangs, so it's possible I was suffering from DDL overload. He's not a charismatic actor at his best. Daniel Plainview is another outsized character, but more restrained that Bill. But again I saw the same expressions and inflections infecting what was a rather wooden performance (think Frederic March as Vronsky). The Huston comparison is apt, and it probably sums up how I feel about Lewis as an actor. The last time I remember seeing a truly good actor (and I think Lewis is, just not in these particular films) pull off something like this was Albert Finney, first as Scrooge in the 1970 musical and then five years later as the worst Hercule Poirot on record in Murder on the Orient Express. Only in that case he was exactly the same character. Lewis merely played these three roles from the same compartment of his toolbox.

So there it is. It's just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it. I understand it's a minority one, but opinions in matters like this aren't wrong, just different. Feel free to disagree. It's what makes horse races.

Man. Well, horses for courses.

I will agree that Pfeiffer was seriously miscast in The Age of Innocence, a harbinger of things to come, but I still love the movie as a whole.

triodelover wrote:But the parallels were there...for me.

I think you're defining "parallels" so broadly that it would apply to just about any actor in any two performances. Do many actors change the "facial expressions and vocal inflections used to convey stress, anger, elation, etc" between roles? That seems like a stretch to me. It seems much more likely that DDL annoys you for whatever reason, so you're more likely to pick up on those things than you are with other actors.

Besides which, there's a lot of similarity between people in general in how they express emotions - otherwise it would be much harder than it already is to recognize those emotions in others. We recognize a happy face because most people's happy faces are very similar. We recognize someone's excited because most people talk faster when they're excited. And so forth.

Remember that I said that I saw these three films fairly close together, so I may have been sufferimng from an overload of DDL and his mannerisms. I understand what you're saying but I've seen a lot of actors in a lot of performances. Still, the only two times I've had this severe a reaction to an actor's performances is to the Finney mentioned (I actually enjoyed both of the Finney films, though I admit Scrooge isn't very faithful Dickens) and in the three DDL performances. Now I actively disliked all three of the Lewis films, so perhaps I'm conflating the two things or explaining myself poorly. It's been over two years and I've intentionally forgotten a lot of details about the films. Lewis didn't annoy me at all in My Left Foot or In the Name of the Father, so I don't think that's it.

Anyway, all the things that I found negative in these three films might stand him in good stead in Lincoln, but with Spielberg directing we'll have to see. He should be a better fit as the Jesuit priest in Scorsese's version of Shinoda's Silence, slated for 2013.

It sounds to me like triodelover saw three movies that all starred the same actor or something.

triodelover wrote:Still, I can't call Mirth a "good" film.

It's not a "good" film. It's a great one.

zedz wrote:

triodelover wrote:Still, I can't call Mirth a "good" film.

It's not a "good" film. It's a great one.

See, now you're confusing it with the director's other films. Terence Davies has directed great films. House of Mirth isn't one of them. [-X

To be fair, he has the same DNA in like every movie he does

Robert de la Cheyniest wrote:Kushner is indeed writing the Lincoln project, and in a recent profile in New York magazine said it may be the best thing he's ever written. That plus the cast has made it the only Spielberg project I've had genuine anticipation for in quite a while.

I never imagined that I would put Tony Kushner and Steven Spielberg in the same sentence. Either Kushner hasn't seen many movies or Spielberg has had a near death experience. Imo, Kusher's work leans (heavily) toward didacticism and Spielberg is next door to Disney. Who wants to place bets on either one of them (or both) opting out of this nightmare?

Well, they do have a history.