WhyCeleb Magazine

Psycholinguistic analysis: Sam Berel, PhD

Daniel Day Lewis is famous in the film industry for his eccentric behavior. Why does he show such odd behavior?

DDL is famous for his long breaks between movies. In 1989 he starred in My Left foot, for which he won an Academy Award. Three year later, in 1992, he accepted the lead role in The Last of the Mohicans, for which he was nominated for British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTA) award. In 1997 he stared in The Boxer and received a Golden Globe nomination. Five years later, in 2002, he accepted the role of the villain gang leader “Bill the Butcher” in Gangs of New York, for which he was nominated for the BAFTA, Golden Globe, and the Academy Award for Best Actor. Less decorated actors such as, George Clooney and Brad Pitt, both starred in 20 films in the last 10 years. Daniel Day Lewis participated in only 9 movies in the last 19 years. Why the long breaks?

DDL is also famous for his insistence on staying in character during filming. While filming My Left Foot (1989), for example, he adamently refused to break character. To do justice to his role as the severly paralyzed Christy Brown, he insisted on being wheeled around in his wheel chair even after the cameras stopped rolling. He even went as far as assuming the physical ailments of his character during filming, breaking two ribs from remaining in the awkard hunched body posture of his character. While filming Gangs of New York (2002), he insisted on maintaining the harsh persona of his character, including his New York accent. During filming, he was diagnosed with pneumonia. He refused to wear a warmer coat or to be treated for the disease, arguing that it was not keeping with the time period. Why the strong insistence on staying in character?

A psycholinguistic analysis of Daniel’s words reveals an inflexible transition between mindsets. Take two minds. Mindset 1 represents DDL as himself. Mindset 2 represents DDL in character. The analysis reveals that DDL has to invest large amounts of energy to shift from being himself, or “in person” to being “in character.” The following figure compares the transition energy in DDL and the average person.

The blue circle in the following figure illustrates Daniel Day-Lewis. The red circle illustrates the average person. To move from mindset 1 to mindset 2, the blue circle needs to overcome a higher barrier or activation energy level, than the red circle. However, the resting energy of the blue circle in mindset 2 is much lower than the resting energy of the red circle. This means that the red circle is much more likely to return to mindset 1 than the blue circle. (More on activation energy in chemistry literature, activation energy, Wikipedia.)

The psycholinguistic analysis marked the following segment in an interview with filmcritic.com with emotional intensity above 90%, and the underlined phrases with intensity above 95%.

“filmcritic.com: Why did it take you so long to decide to do this movie?

DDL: A few years, actually. It’s hard to answer that because you can never fully put your finger on the reason why you’re suddenly, inexplicably compelled to explore one life as opposed to another, or one story as opposed to another. But it happens in moments and I think in all the occasions when I’ve gone back to work, it’s always with that sense of - it sounds grandiose - but inevitability. And that may be a complete delusion, but nevertheless it’s the one that I need to get out of bed and go about my business. That sense that I can’t avoid this thing. I better just get on with it.”

Note the phrase “suddenly, inexplicably compelled” above. In terms of the figure, the peak of the blue line is very sharp. The circle cannot rest on this peak. The moment the circle arrives at the peak it begins to fall toward its new resting place, the “in character” mindset. The transition between the “in person” and “in character” is very sharp. DDL is never locked between mindsets. Also note the phrase “it happens in moments.”

The sharp distinction between mindsets is also hinted in the phrase “to explore one life as opposed to another or one story as opposed to another.” DDL sees the two mindsets “in person” and “in character” as opposing each other, not as extensions of each other.

Note the phrase “I think in all the occasions when I’ve gone back to work, it’s always with that sense of - it sounds grandiose - but inevitability.” Inevitable means “incapable of being avoided or evaded.” Once DDL switches to the “in character” mindset, there is no going back. In terms of the figure, the “in character” mindset rests behind a high barrier called deactivation energy. Unlike DDL, an average person requires a little push and he is able to shift back to mindset 1. It takes DDL much longer to commit, but once he made up his mind there is no going back. The inevitability is also hinted in the phrase “That sense that I can’t avoid this thing. I better just get on with it.”

Note the phrase “And that may be a complete delusion but nevertheless it’s the one that I need to get out of bed and go about my business.” This phrase reveals his struggle against the high activation energy. He needs to convince himself to commit to a project. He has to attach a “grandiose” value to it to get started. Only an enormous significance can overcome the excessively high activation energy.

The need to deceive himself is also revealed in a segment from a recent interview with Rob Carnevale. The psycholinguistic analysis assigned this segment an emotional intensity above 90%. According to DDL: “… you have to kid yourself all the time. It’s really just a game, the whole thing, and the game is to kid yourself into believing something.” (The underlined phrases were assigned an emotional intensity of above 94%.)

DDL mentions several times that he needs to convince himself to kid himself. He needs a complete conviction, not a mere interest to change his mindset. This requirement is depicted in the figure as high activation energy.

The psycholinguistic analysis assigned an emotional intensity above 90% to the following segment from another interview:

“Question: Did that time off recharge you as an actor?

DDL: I must say, I think some actors are capable; they thrive on working at a much greater pace than I do. Everybody just has to know for themselves what they’re capable of. To me, for some reason, at a stage even many years ago, when I was, when I really didn’t know where the next work was coming from, like most of us at that stage in our lives, we were just raking in anything that came towards us. Hungry to make a mark and get that work and use our energy and so forth.”

Note the phrase “Everybody just has to know for themselves what they’re capable of.” DDL admits that his slow pace results from his “incapability” to commit. Only rarely he masters the energy required to overcome the activation barrier.

Finally, note the phrase “Hungry to make a mark and get that work and use our energy and so forth.” Hunger was a catalyst that lowered the activation level, the energy needed to take action. When he was young, the threshold to take action was lower. Today, this threshold is much higher. Also note that the phrase includes a direct reference to energy.

Can we learn something from DDL eccentricities? Yes. Don’t rush to commitment, and once you are there, once you have committed to something, don’t look back.