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.

Based loosely on the Upton Sinclair novel, Oil!, “Blood” is the story of one man and his rapacious lust for power and total success. If this sounds familiar, that’s because it’s been a tried and true formula ever since “Citizen Kane”. One of the major weaknesses of “Blood” is that it relies on our familiarity with this story a little too much. Director Paul Thomas Anderson seems to feel that there’s no need to tell us how Plainview destroys himself over the years; he just assumes that we’ve seen this story enough to fill in the blanks ourselves.

The hell of it is that he’s right. We are entirely comfortable with the story of a rich and powerful man driving himself to ruin by the same means that drove him to the top of an industry. And while Day-Lewis is the best possible choice for this character, he also looms so large throughout the entire film that there isn’t much room for anyone else. He’s a monster of his own making. He’s larger than life. The problem is, he’s doing it all by himself and dwarfing the efforts of everyone around him in the process.

Compare that with “No Country”, which is a smaller story set in smaller world, but which thrives thanks to stark realism and strong, though not overpowering performances. In other words, it’s a story. It doesn’t aspire to be an epic. Its minimalism doesn’t allow anyone to put on a one-man show the way Day-Lewis does, and as a result it keeps us focused on the immediacy of the film itself.

Does Daniel Day-Lewis deserve an Oscar for his performance in “There Will Be Blood”? Absolutely. The man is nothing less than a genius, and if you don’t believe that you should rent “Gangs of New York” and “The Boxer” and watch them both in the same night. But “Blood” only proves that sometimes a great artist isn’t the best team player. The film is geared to show off his talents in the same way the Lakers offense is built around Kobe Bryant, but that doesn’t mean either will be taking home the big prize.