MovieChat Forums > My Left Foot: The Story of Christy Brown (1990) Discussion > Overrated Daniel Performance

Overrated Daniel Performance

posted 12 years ago by mk_k6-326-626621
8 replies | jump to latest

This is a film I've heard about for a long time and most of the hype was around Daniel's performance. Impressive as he was, it is a very overrated performance. He managed to nail the physical and vocal ticks and thats really all his performance had to offer. There wasn't any real depth or range required from the actor - it was all physical, external trickery and mimickry. As a matter of fact, I thought the young boy before Daniel was far more moving and am puzzled as to why, despite carrying the film for the first 40 or so minutes, he has gone largely unnoticed. The fear and guilt in his eyes when he hears how much of a burden he is to his mother was utterly touching. And just as good, as anything Daniel does for the rest of the film. Besides the young boy, the best performance in this film came from Brenda Frecker who was absolutely magnificent in a less showy role.

I understand some people are very impressed by the physical mimickry Daniel is good at, but this isn't a great performance. He generally lacks depth and was acted off the screen by Brenda and the young boy. They deserved the acting honours.

[–] VeronicaNotHeather 12 years ago

There is no acting in his eyes either? Give me a break.

of course, its easier to 'like' the kid version of Christy better; he gets the tear-jerking moment when he writes the A on the ground-- proving to his family that his mind works. But the rest of the film is Christy trying to truely relate to people and be taken seriously as an adult man (with a man's needs for physical and emotional intimacy, respect, and attention).. Christy writing the A on the floor emboldened him; thus leading to the older version of CHristy wanting absolute intimicacy..not platonic love, but real love, not condensension but real respect.. He wants his presense known. Its not sentimental; its not pretty, but its moving and DDL is wildly charismatic. What might seem like gimmicky acting to you is incredibly insightful acting to me. DDL's Christy is fighting the limits of his body to truely express himself (not just prove to his family that he's not 'retarded'). So, yes, his mannerisms are bolder and more intense but that's because unlike the young Christy, the older Christy is fighting to express himself verbally and has a rage that at times he can barely contain.

What about the sly look in his eyes when he's flirting with his nurse; the regretful look in his eyes after his mom starts building the new room for him in the house and he says "I am sorry, Ma". The rage in the eyes that pops up when people are condensending and patronizing. Also, Daniel's ability to smile and be cheeky in his conversation with Aileen about Shakespeare while also showing Christy's shyness and longing for her.

The look on DDL's face that always got to me was after his father was yelling at his sister and Christy gets very angry and has to be calmed by his sister (while he expresses both sympathy for his sister and anger at his father). When she walks away, Christy is still shaken by the argument and calms himself.
His Christy is a very flawed human being, but also very human.

Plus, I have clocked it, Hugh O'conor is only in the movie for 20 minutes; not 40. Ironically, Hugh O'Conor's performance is based off Daniel's. DDL's scenes were shot first and the young man based his performance off the footage of Daniel. Hugh's a wonderful actor but his christy is mostly just the innocent, sad, and desperate version of this massively complicated man. He lacks the rage, sense of humor, wit, lust, self-doubt, romantic longing, slyness, and brilliant intelligence of the older Christy.

[–] smcbee27 11 years ago

You explained your argument very well. I believe DDL has been in so few movies b/c of the enorenormace effort both physically and mentally that he puts into each role. Though I believe it's not good that he stays in character off the set, as that's whst acting is, his results cannot be disputed.

[–] jharmon64 11 years ago

I don't totally disagree, but I think you're reaching a bit.

I think he's very good, but not necessarily Oscar worthy or that great.

[–] mikeyg24 11 years ago

I have to say I agree. DDL is an excellent actor but the role for the most part is certainly mimickry. My friends say I do a better impression (yes I know, I'm going to hell). It's like Tom Hanks in 'Philadelphia'. He's one of my favourite actors but except for losing a load of weight and shaving his head it was a pretty regular what you expect from Tom Hanks kind of performance. I think in some cases people project the emotional content onto the lead actor especially when the character is so physically altered.

Your's sincerely, General Joseph Liebgott

[–] VeronicaNotHeather 11 years ago

Well, I think some people ignore the 'emotional content' because the lead actor is so physically altered'...mostly due to the fact that their favorite actors are not doing the same thing. I am not projecting. I specifically pointed out emotional nuances. He literally has tears in his eyes when he tells his mother "I am sorry, Ma"? After the character learns to speak, DDL is able to show comic timing in this delivery of certain lines, rage in his voice, flirtatiousness, sarcasm etc.

I have seen My LEft Foot several times. How many times have you seen it? Can you give me specific examples of DDL's acting being unemotional and gimmicky where it should have been more emotional. I have read all the reviews I can get on this film and every single one has stated that he went beyond mimicry. Its only hipsters (for lack of a better word) on IMDB who say that he is all mimicry in this film. And why? for some of them its because they are making the argument that when the technical wizardry is at all noticeable, its not great acting...(its not original enough like say Phoenix in The Master.) Behind nearly half of the DDL naysayers is a Freddie Quell fan..

There are little quirks (unrelated to CHristy's disorder, especially in the second half of the film) that be would analyzed and commented on endlessly if it weren't for the 'mimicry' of cerebral palsy he is also doing in this film. A good actor is never just a mimic and this man is a great actor.

Here are some critic 'clearly' projecting...(sorry if I am being rude, but that 'projecting' comment is off the mark)

Not only does Day-Lewis master the physical aspects of the role, the minute-to-minute struggle of almost complete paralysis, he lives the painful genesis of an artistic character, with pent-up rages that threaten to explode his skull, as well as happier bursts of twisted smirks and witty comments -- most of them unquotable here.

Later, as he grows older and he begins working with an attractive young doctor (Fiona Shaw) to sharpen his ability to talk, we see these torments deepen into a soulful, adult suffering....This astounding young actor spares himself nothing. He takes the intensity of Christy's emotions to a point almost past belief, and way past the point where we expect most actors to stop. He confronts us with Christy's physical wretchedness, his anger and frustration and self-pity and sexual aggressiveness, and asks for not one shred of mercy, not one tear. The results are devastating and unforgettable. If a performance can leave scars, this one will.

Though I somehow remember being under-whelmed by this art-house smash when it opened in 1989, a decade-and-a-half later I find myself eating my words. The subject is Irish writer/artist Christy Brown (Daniel Day-Lewis), who had to overcome not only his cerebral palsy but grinding poverty and a belligerent father (Ray McAnally). Brown was written off as feeble-minded as a child until he began scratching out words with the titular appendage, and developed a crush on his teacher and speech therapist that ended in tears and suicide. You initially expect standard message movie hand-wringing but it somehow never arrives; you expect Day-Lewis's performance to be just a stunt but it's clear he's playing a character and not just the disease. And though Jim Sheridan's direction is plain and unadorned, it's not without its subtleties and never lapses into schlock melodrama. There are however a few conceptual quibbles that keep it from greatness: one can fault the production team for not hiring an actor with CP, and for centring more on the human interest story than on Brown's actual achievements. But Day-Lewis sells the deal magnificently with a powerhouse performance and Brenda Fricker earned her Oscar as Brown's stoic and determined mother. And there's no denying the profound respect the filmmakers have for their subject and their grasp of the nature of his struggle, moving it far beyond the standard "inspirational" biopic slop.

[–] lawrencetaylo19 11 years ago

Oscar should have went to Tom Cruise that year for Born on the Fourth of July

[–] VeronicaNotHeather 11 years ago

GEE, thanks for that thoughtful reply.

[–] llltdesq 11 years ago

Even if one stipulates that your opinion is "right" (I don't) I truly wonder if you understand just how difficult it is for someone to mimic Cerebral Palsy.

I have a form of Cerebral Palsy (a different mix of the three main forms, actually). My body, even with a comparatively mild case of CP, does things involuntarily which still, after decades, surprise people who've known me much of my life. I expected to have to make very generous allowances for the performance of the actor playing Christy Brown precisely because it would be damned hard for an able-bodied individual to "mimic" the things the body of someone with CP does in any convincing manner. It's no small feat to do what Hugh O'Conor and DDL do within the physicality of the role.

Now, as to your contention that you see no "real depth or range required from the actor", you apparently missed the fact that DDL takes Christy Brown from being a recluse who desires no real contact with anyone outside his protected world through the first romantic pangs of unrequited love, with a truly obnoxious and thoroughly petulant fit in a restaurant, to a brash, arrogant and persistent man who successfully talks a nurse into going out with him. Brown grows and changes as a human being right before the audience's eyes.

Yeah, that really sounds like just a performance built on nothing more than "physical, external trickery and mimickry (sic)" and nothing else.

You may feel that's the case and you're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree.

May this find you happy and healthy.

Robert Reynolds
Tucson AZ

Alright, everyone, take five (the band starts playing Brubeck).