|
LET’S
retire the phrase “actor’s actor” before it does any
more damage. Maybe it was a useful label when serious
actors worked nonstop on-stage and didn’t have time to
feed off tons of high-toned adulation. It meant that an
actor of formidable range, technique and invention—such
as Laurence Olivier—had become a performer even peers
looked to for guidance or inspiration because of a
string of undeniable accomplishments.
But
these days, it’s become an encomium for any star who’s
delivered the splashiest or most radical-chic turn of
the year.
And it
tends to settle on that artist like a curse.

UNLIKE most “actor’s
actors,” Meryl Streep has grown lighter and more
surprising over the years, and she has rarely been more
daring than in
The Manchurian Candidate
(2004).
The
accolades for Daniel Day-Lewis’s foaming at the mouth in
There Will Be Blood, honored by every major
critics’ group as well as the Academy Awards, may push
this latest actor’s actor even further into
characterizations that register as “fresh” and “one of a
kind” only because they’re disconnected from everything
except the actor’s own ambition.
Anyone
with a sense of movie history must wonder why Day-Lewis
mimics John Huston’s awesomely amoral tycoon from Roman
Polanski’s
Chinatown. Was it just because Huston’s father, Walter, played a
wily prospector in Huston’s own The Treasure of
the Sierra Madre (1948), which Blood
director Paul Thomas Anderson used as a template?
The
brilliance of John and Walter Huston was in the way they
sounded depths within, respectively, a monster and a
sort of grizzled sprite. But, unlike either Huston,
Day-Lewis develops tunnel vision and loses himself in
monomania. In There Will Be Blood, he’s all envy,
fear and malice. The script fails to suggest the roots
for this human beast’s malevolence, but you don’t feel
Day-Lewis is pushing the text to its limit. He simply
tests how far he can make his vein jump out of his
forehead.
It’s
dispiriting to read interviews in which the actor
downplays his breakthrough role in The Unbearable
Lightness of Being (1988), in which he married
intelligence, instinct and romantic imagination. It’s as
if he’s taken leave of his sensuality—and, even worse,
his senses. Kevin Spacey is another actor’s actor with
similar theatrical prestige and credentials—and a Best
Actor Oscar, too. After a string of brilliant,
surprising turns as off-kilter characters, he earned his
award for playing a suburban husband and carrying that
sour comic soap opera, American Beauty (1999),
with his crack comic timing.
But
Spacey almost immediately took his Oscar and his
actor’s-actor label as dual certification that he could
do anything. A movie like The Shipping News
(2001) became a monument to miscasting. Many a great
actor has scored a coup playing the kind of wary,
observant fellow who gets other people to talk: think
of Robert DeNiro in Once Upon a Time in America
(1984). But when Spacey tried a watchful role in The
Shipping News, he gained 20 pounds and made
heaviness the leitmotif of his performance; he denied
the comic, showoff element of his talent that cries out
for expression; and he drained his eyes, inflections and
movements of all vitality.
Even
that was sane compared with Spacey’s vanity production
of the biopic Beyond the Sea (2004), in which he
directed his own way-too-old impersonation of Bobby
Darin. When cerebral actors such as Spacey and Day-Lewis
determine to make a stretch, they may naturally shade
themselves toward mimicry. Imitation becomes not the
sincerest form of flattery, but a short-cut to
“versatility.”
Spacey
sang his own superficial recreations of Darin’s style,
but he lacked Darin’s spontaneous oomph, and his body
movements caromed off the beats without drive or force.
The movie was about an actor’s misguided and shallow
demonstration of virtuosity rather than a real performer
who conquered as many genres and personal traumas as Ray
Charles. And now, when Spacey tries to return to his old
sinister specialties, whether in the farcical Fred
Claus (2007) or the forthcoming melodrama 21,
he appears to have lost any spark of joy or inspiration.
Our
leading women in
Hollywood have carried the burden of praise better. Meryl Streep has
grown lighter and more surprising over the years; she
has rarely been more daring than in The Manchurian
Candidate (2004) or more seductive and hilarious
than she was in A Prairie Home Companion (2006).
And for
an object lesson of how to lead a post-Oscar career, you
need look no further than Frances McDormand, currently
delighting audiences in
Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day and doing her
best work in the years after her 1996 Best Actress Oscar
for
Fargo. Nominated for best supporting actress for Almost Famous
(2000) and
North Country (2005), as she had been in 1988 for Mississippi Burning,
McDormand still demonstrates an ever-growing appetite
and aptitude for practicing her art at its peak, as a
way of absorbing new and often chaotic experiences and
making them lucid and moving for an audience. And she’s
often done so in small films that fall off Oscar’s
radar.
As a
record producer in the Los Angeles comedy-drama Laurel
Canyon (2003), McDormand is sexy, smart, infuriating and
touching—a continual revelation and surprise. When her
son says, “We just hadn’t planned on a change of plan,”
she brings just the right brio to her response: “Well,
who plans on a change of plan? I mean, that would be
sort of paranoid, don’t you think?”
Part of
any actor’s education is learning how to give up
everything to be “in the moment.” But whether as a
post-hippie in Los Angeles or a London
governess-turned-social secretary in Miss Pettigrew,
McDormand brings clout to women who lose themselves in
the moment—and suggests the universe of feeling that
exists beyond the moment. There’s nothing static or
self-important about any McDormand performance. In
There Will Be Blood, Day-Lewis helps Anderson turn
his film into dead weight. In Miss Pettigrew,
McDormand transforms a high-style comedy-drama into a
nonstop spree. |