craveonline

By Ben Fowlkes

A couple years back some friends and I embarked on a quest to discover who the greatest actor of our time was. We didn’t have a good definition of what “our time” meant, but somehow we knew it encompassed the era after Marlon Brando and Paul Newman and before Joaquin Phoenix, who is still building his impressive credentials. It took a lot of rented movies and a lot of pizza and beer, but here’s what we learned: 1) it sure as hell isn’t Nicolas Cage.

2) There’s a difference between the great actors who can transform a film and those who completely take it over.

The second point is the one that’s relevant here (unless you really want to talk about “National Treasure: Book of Secrets”, and I don’t think you do) because it’s Academy Award time and once again Daniel Day-Lewis is in the running. There’s no doubt in my mind that Day-Lewis deserves to be a finalist for best actor of our time, if not the outright winner. He’s intense, he can disappear into a character, and he makes odd, brilliant choices. He’s also probably a little insane, which may be a necessary component for being a great actor (just ask Val Kilmer).

But being a great actor doesn’t always mean making the greatest films. Take, for example, Day-Lewis’ most recent work in “There Will Be Blood”, also a nominee in the Best Picture category. “Blood” is a very good movie, and Day-Lewis is excellent in it. It is not, however, the best movie of the year. As far as I’m concerned that honor belongs to “No Country For Old Men”, which has no artistic giant like Day-Lewis stomping through it, and which is a better film for it.

It’s not Day-Lewis’ fault, far from it. He takes what is essentially a plodding character study and turns it into a compelling epic. At the same time, when I watched this movie I had the same feeling that I get from watching Kobe Bryant and the Lakers play. It’s the feeling that you are witnessing something special – a tribute to the abilities of one man – but at the same time it feels incomplete.