Vogue - December 2001
Disappearing Act
Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar for his ability to vanish inside a character - then he seemed to vanish altogether. Five years later Sarah Kerr writes, he's returning to the screen in Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York.
At first we called him chameleon. Early in his career Daniel Day-Lewis
seemed determined to tackle more wildly varied roles than any actor
of his generation, creating characters so distinct that years later,
without effort, we still recall their names: Johnny, the drifter;
Cecil, the uptight suitor; Christy Brown, the genius quadriplegic;
Gerry Conlon, the wronged Irishman. While the typical movie star
plays versions of himself, myths grew up around the rigor with which
Day-Lewis got ready for roles, checked his ego at the door, and
vanished inside.
Then he seemed truly to disappear. After winning the Oscar for
My Left Foot, in 1990, and a second nomination four years
later for In the Name of the Father, on the heels of an
eventful love life (rumored dalliance with Julia Roberts, drawn-out
affair with Isabelle Adjani), Daniel Day-Lewis signed on for the
film version of Arthur Miller's play The Crucible. During
preparation for that movie he met Rebecca Miller, the playwright's
daughter with photographer Inge Morath. They quickly married, and in
1997, after completing work on The Boxer, he took a break for
film work and public eye. He'd chosen family life for a while hardly
as dramatic a change as say, Brando's retreat to Tahiti. But whether
or not he intended it this way, when Day-Lewis left, a certain
mystique stayed behind. He no longer tries out for roles. Directors
request his presence in their films, quite often to no avail. One of very few to get the nod is Martin Scorsese, who persuaded
the actor to take a role in Gangs of New York, which opens
next year. To find out more about Day-Lewis's return, I got to meet
him one afternoon at Scorsese's Park Avenue office. But solemn
events intervene and nudge our conversation down another path. It is
a week to the day since the World Trade Center collapsed, and the
city is still in full grief. Prior to my arrival, the office staff
has spontaneously gathered around Day-Lewis, and when I enter he is
saying something about the Taliban. Everyone listens, but no, I
think, just because he is a star. As the son of the Anglo-Irish
writer Cecil Day-Lewis, British poet laureate in the late sixties
and early seventies, and the son-in-law of one of the great American
playwrights, Day-Lewis has more cultural authority at his disposal
than any other actor I can think of. Thankfully, he doesn't choose
to exercise it in an obnoxious, lecturing way: It's the gentle,
careful quite in his voice that makes you listen to what he's
saying. He is wearing a T-shirt with tiny stripes in different shades of
purple, a navy nylon windbreaker, a thin coral necklace. His hair is
cut severely short, and the bulked-up muscles from his The Last
of the Mohicans days seem to have been permanently replaced by
the more wiry physique of a marathon runner. At 44, Day-Lewis still
would be almost too handsome if not for his nose, whose clean lines
break just slightly in the middle, as if they had been pinched and
nudged to one side. He liked talking politics, it turns out, and is
extremely well informed; we spend 20 minutes on the terrorists'
worldview, and the awful attack itself, which he witnessed from the
apartment he keeps downtown. (He and Miller and their three-year-old
son live in the Irish countryside, but they recently spent so much
time in Italy, where Gangs was shot, that both felt it was
Miller's turn to be close to her work - she's a writer and
independent filmmaker - and to her parents, who live in
Connecticut.) For a confusing split second, Day-Lewis
says, the noise that day viscerally brought him back to a blast
years ago in London, when an IRA bomb went off two miles from where
he was then living. In the days after September 11, he was widely
written up as a celebrity hero because he stood in line and
attempted to give blood. The papers blew a normal human gesture out
of proportion, he says with obvious embarrassment, simply because he
is famous. But then, what else is new? Day-Lewis is amused by the
media drumroll accompanying his turn in Gangs, as if he were
making "a comeback" after a quasi-retirement - a kind of a thespian
Michael Jordan getting back into uniform. "I don't remember ever
announcing my retirement, but there you go," he says, laughing. "As
I haven't worked in four or five years, I guess it's not an
unreasonable assumption." Loyalty and a compelling story are what lured him back. Early
last year he received a call from Scorsese, who had directed him in
The Age of Innocence. Instead of offering Day-Lewis a role
straight off the bat, the maestro did something he is known to do
exceptionally well: He spun a good yarn. Halfway through the
nineteenth century, there was a corner of Manhattan - roughly from
today's Little Italy to just south of Chinatown - called the Five
Points. The place was so wild and lawless it was like an urban
Barbary Coast. Boatloads of impoverished immigrants docked nearby,
and saloons and bordellos filled to overflowing, Gaelic-speaking
Irish rowdies squared off against prejudiced English-only thugs,
fighting in gangs with crazy names like the Dead Rabbits and the
Plug Uglies. Boss Tweed built his machine in the Five Points, and
the Draft Riots - a crucial, ugly episode in the Civil War - came to
a boil there. By the time the neighborhood went into eclipse, it had
laid the messy, vital foundation for modern New York City. "When Martin started to talk about his it was not without a sense
of dread that I felt drawn back into his orbit," Day-Lewis says. "I
was thinking, Oh, God, don't lead me into this!" The movie's title
and much of its raw material were taken from a rollicking 1920s
account of the Five Points ruffians crime writer Herbert Asbury. The
project came with unusual pressure attached, even for Scorsese. The
director had longed to get it made since the seventies - a period in
American film remembered for its unparalleled brilliance but for
monomaniacal overreach, as well. The movie also required a much
higher budget than Scorsese was accustomed to, and it will test the
audience's appetite for violence - all the more so in light of
recent events. Day-Lewis eventually agreed to play one of the standouts of
Asbury's book, Bill "The Butcher" Poole - an actual butcher,
legendary street fighter, and ruthless leader of an anti-Irish gang
called the Native Americans. Leonardo DiCaprio plays the film's
Irish protagonist, who swears revenge on The Butcher for killing his
father (Liam Neeson), falls for a pretty thief named Jenny (Cameron
Diaz), and grows up to lead the Dead Rabbits; mayhem, naturally,
ensues. Day-Lewis's Poole promises to be a fantastically wicked baddie,
but the actor is not inclined to condemn him. "If you take any
character like that out of the context of the time in which they
lived and judge them by contemporary standards, ethical or
otherwise, they would be beyond the pale. But at the time they were
living with the hand that was dealt them. And they were - almost in
medieval sense - tremendously colorful characters. Bill Poole was
much renowned for his good humor even as he was fighting to the
death." It's a spicy role but hardly a vain one. Day-Lewis grew a plush,
drooping mustache and big mutton chop sideburns. (Pictures the
paparazzi snapped of him walking through Rome one days off, wearing
street clothes and a baseball cap, are a hoot: He looks like a
cheeky bank robber wearing an outlandish disguise.) And then there
are the playfully loud costumes - part rigorously authentic, part
inspired fantasy - by Sandy Powell, who won an Oscar for
Shakespeare in Love. "Sandy came up with the most incredible
collection of fabrics before she began to build those things," he
says, "I had one meeting with her in Dublin before it all started.
And the next time I saw her there was a rack of these extraordinary
clothes, which actually took me completely by surprise, because it
was not how I envisioned this world." Instead of the raggedy threads
you might expect a street fighter to wear, he was handed the
full-blown regalia (top hat, stiff coat, vivid prints) of a
Victorian dandy. "It hadn't occurred to me that these men were such
peacocks." To help Day-Lewis further immerse himself in this
roguish world, Kenneth Lonergan, the gifted dialogue writer and
director behind last year's lovely You Can Count On Me, came
on-set to work period gang jargon into the script. "If we had chosen
to be 'Dogme' about it," Day-Lewis says - alluding to the
in-your-face cinema verité style that is the current rage in
art-house cinema - "we would have had subtitles for the whole film."
As it is, Gangs should be a fun festival of lingo. Young
people who think attitudinous slang was born in late twentieth
century with rock and punk and rap are in for a surprise. " 'Dead
Rabbit' itself was like, you know, we use the word bad - we
use wicked in London - but dead was a slang word for
something that was good," Day-Lewis says. "And a rabbit was a
gangster, so a dead rabbit was a good gangbanger." Much has been made in the past of Day-Lewis's obsessive
preparation for roles. The man who learned to paint pictures
skillfully with his toes for My Left Foot no longer likes to
talk freely about his methods. But he does admit to putting in time
with a London butcher, so one can expect him to wield knives with a
terrifying grace. Indeed, Day-Lewis's immersion techniques can feel
so organic, self-effacing, and altogether unusual that he sometimes
seems to come from an acting school of one. When I suggest to
Stephen Frears, who directed his breakthrough performance in My
Beautiful Laundrette, that Day-Lewis seems set apart, somehow,
from typical American and British actors - less smoothe than the
Brits, less ego-driven than the typical Hollywood stars, less
mannered than gifted American parallels like Sean Penn - Frears
doesn't join in the theorizing. "I'd say he's just jolly good!" But
he concedes that theater-trained British actors must cross a
threshold if they're to become film stars. They have to let go of
the technique and theatricality. Day-Lewis broke into that looser
space exceptionally early, and, says Frears, "he decided to let it
rip." It was early on, too, that he began to feel ambivalent about his
own success. A Room With A View and My Beautiful
Laundrette had launched him as an actor to watch, and The
Unbearable Lightness of Being had promoted him to leading man.
But Day-Lewis recalls a touchy personal transition in the late
eighties, just before he began work on My Left Foot, when he
saw full-blown stardom around the corner and half wanted to pull
back. "I'd kind of overworked a bit before that and did a few things
that just pushed me into an area where I felt - how to describe it -
a little bereft of myself. And somehow demeaned in a strange way."
He determined to save himself from burnout in the future, working
only when absolutely drawn to a part. Eventually, that meant turning
down plum roles like the one Tom Hanks won an Oscar for in
Philadelphia. Shifting priorities like this was more scary
before he committed to it than after, he says with hindsight (and it
no doubt helped that his price per movie by the early nineties was
rumored to be around $7 million). But Day-Lewis ruefully recalls the
disapproving judgments he encountered: "I mean, the number of times
people told me I'd ruin my career by turning down something is
pathetic. They made it clear that they didn't think highly of my
decision, and that I'd pay for it in the long run." His Hollywood
peers failed to grasp that "paying for it," to Day-Lewis, would mean
cultivating success at the expense of his life. "He's not like a lot
of regular dumb actors who know about only one thing, and because of
that I think he often worries about whether acting is really what he
should be doing - he's always going off to make shoes of whatever."
says My Beautiful Laundrette writer Hanif Kureishi. "Because
he's bright, I guess acting probably isn't enough for him." About making of shoes: Did Day-Lewis really go to Italy a few
years back, as a gossip item claimed, to work with a cobbler in
Florence? It's a key to the Day-Lewis mystique that his pursuit of a
quiet, solitary hobby - not his love life or how he got on with
DiCaprio - was what everyone who knew I was interviewing him asked
about. Day-Lewis, who once showed up before shooting on The
Crucible to help construct the New England saltbox sets, nods
yes: He likes to build things. Though it turns out that he wasn't
exploring a bizarre new career path with the shoe episode but
returning to something familiar. As a teenager he attended Bedales
in Hampshire, England, a boarding school that exalted crafts and
making things with your hands. His decision to pursue acting came
about, in large part, because a teacher thought he had the gifts but
not the right temperament to pursue his other youthful dream -
furniture making. Gangs of New York was shot at the storied Cinecittà
studios just outside Rome, on a city set built from a scratch by the
visionary Italian designer Dante Ferretti, with Scorsese working out
of the office once occupied by Fellini. Rome would seem an ideal
location for someone like Day-Lewis - a place to escape and ingest
some nourishing culture. But the city was "a glorious irrelevance,"
he says, and the picture he paints on a set is hardly la dolce vita.
Up before dawn for physical training, at work by five, rarely home
before eight or nine at night. Nor did he interact that much with
costars DiCaprio, Neeson, or Diaz. "Everyone is living in their own
private purgatory," he says, "and trying to deal with it as best
they can." He jokes that his energy is dwindling as he gets older, but
quickly reverses himself: This isn't really the case. "I think I
have a feeling that it does, and then I suppose when I'm working I
realize that the embers can be rekindled." Several times in our
conversation, he reaches for this metaphor of fire. The best art, he
believes, is made by people burning to make it. When I ask him to
point out such an artist, a certain playwright quickly comes to
mind. "My father-in-law is an obvious example - he never stops
working; he's just finished a new play. My mother-in-law is always
working on a new exhibition. They're astonishing. I'm both awestruck
and at the same time slightly deflated by the whirlwind of energy
that they generate between them." Day-Lewis is also delighted that
his wife published a book of stories this fall. And after they
returned from Rome, she shot an independent movie in less than a
month. As a couple, he laughs, they cover the whole gamut of modern
film. As for Day-Lewis's next step, "I really wouldn’t have missed
doing this for anything," he says. "To my mind it's a very great
privilege to be asked once in lifetime - just once - to work with
that man. If he goes looking for you a second time it's almost
impossible to turn away." That said, he is not about to rush back in
front of the camera tomorrow. "Nothing happened to me during the
course of that filming when I thought, Oh, wow, why don't I do this
more often? It was just how I remembered it - and probably harder."
Is he setting the stage for another hiatus? That's his secret,
but it's hard not to wonder if Day-Lewis is done being a chameleon -
an accommodating creature, after all, that politely adjusts to its
surroundings. These days he suggests a different phenomenon of
nature, one with more say over its destiny. As long as he keeps
acting, his performances will be intense. But they may be fewer and
farther in between, like the show put on by a desert plant that
blooms unpredictably, and only when it's ready. Keeping us waiting
certainly hasn't hurt him so far. Chances are when he's ready, we'll
be there once again to watch. Thanks to Pax for the article and to Pitssymoon for typing it !
***