The Mask of the Method:Justifying Hollywood’s Hubris

Jsesma58 / Flickr

Character display… or lack thereof? Audiences noting Timothée Chalamet’s newfound arrogance amidst the release of Marty Supreme are asking the relevant questions.

Every year, cinephiles and commoners alike tune into Oscars season, eager to share their predictions pertaining to Hollywood’s yearly celebration of cinema. From A24 blockbusters like Marty Supreme, to critically acclaimed films such as Sinners, Hollywood had one hell of a year. Despite this great year for cinema, the film industry has produced its fair share of controversies, as per usual. Several opinions have circulated social media, many regarding certain actors and their unbarred desire for the elusive awards. 

It’s no secret that certain actors know what they want. Although there’s no shame in celebrating a body of work, such attitudes have stirred questions pertaining to the presence of humility in Hollywood. Has a certain film’s multi-million dollar campaign eradicated the concept of modesty? To be straightforward, many of these opinions have circulated Timothee Chalamet amidst his newest motion picture. The meticulous marketing of Marty Supreme has solidified what has been culminating for years - Chalamet is craving that Oscar. 

Josh Safdie’s Marty Supreme has elicited thousands of opinions, some refreshingly positive, while many extremely negative. Safdie is no stranger to these things, as his film portfolio contains a certain recurring archetype – conceited white men who desire to be perceived as “complex.” It is to no surprise that Timothee Chalamet embodied a similar character in the newest Safdie film, portraying the pompous character of Marty Mauser. Although Marty Supreme did receive critical acclamations, many voiced their issues as related to press surrounding the film. 

It’s abundantly clear that Timothee Chalamet is chasing greatness within the world of cinema; his SAG-AFTRA speech received copious amounts of traction on social media, many people actually voicing their respect for his unbridled dedication to the art of cinema. Despite this positive reception, many believe that Chalamet may be spiraling too far down the road of self-importance, as his press interviews for Marty Supreme have not been received as well. 

In an interview with journalist Margaret Gardiner, Timothee shamelessly praises his performance in Marty Supreme. He is quoted referring to his execution of Marty as “top level shit,” claiming that he has accumulated praise due to the “top-of-the-line performances” he has been handing out for 7-8 years. Although Chalamet’s portfolio is nothing short of impressive, accomplished actors are usually not as smug whilst discussing their talent. In addition to this, several critics have pointed out the fact that Timothee speaks about himself frequently, yet has never once used his platform to highlight important societal issues; for someone who skyrocketed to fame at the hands of a queer film, Chalamet never acknowledges the marginalization of such groups.

Defenders of the actor have ridiculed those who have criticized Chalamet’s change of heart, often explaining that his newfound demeanor is simply a form of “method acting.” Method acting, defined as “a dedication to immersing oneself in the character both on-screen and off,” is commonly used to dismiss actors’ unconventional behavior. The ideal is often gives leeway to performers, ultimately giving certain actors a pass to act in pretentious manners. Although Chalamet’s artistic process may be nobody’s business, it’s only fair to acknowledge the elephant in the room – if anyone other than a white man was acting in such a manner, would Hollywood suppress their criticism in similar fashion? 

In a conversation with David Marchese, host of The New York Times’ “The Interview,” critically celebrated actress Kristen Stewart discusses this very ideal. When speaking to the privilege that male actors hold within H0llywood, Stewart asks an extremely relevant question – “have you ever heard of a female actor that was method?” Kristen then elaborates on this concept, poking fun of the concept of “the method” in itself. As an industry expert, Stewart speaks to the fact that performance is extremely vulnerable, therefore causing it to be somewhat embarrassing and emasculating in its process. Men often feel uncomfortable in this right, therefore adopting the facade of overbearing arrogance to compensate and re-masculize themselves; contrarily, women are ridiculed for inherently miniscule discrepancies in all aspects of the entertainment industry.

Kristen Stewart’s interview poses the important question of privilege within cinema – could a person who doesn’t look like Timothee Chalamet behave in such outwardly hubristic ways, without facing debilitating criticism? When evaluating the history of Hollywood and it’s affinity for criticism, most signs point to one answer: absolutely not. Hollywood has allowed for Chalamet’s spectacle to play out because executives are extremely used to the sorry excuse – self-prophesizing men have dominated the film industry for decades. 

From somewhat irritating behaviors, like Adrien Brody’s excessive Oscars speech, to catastrophically vile behaviors, such as Harvey Weinstein’s abuse, Hollywood often allows successful white men to evade any consequences for their erratic tendencies. In essence, audiences aren’t inherently criticizing the art of method acting. Instead, they are finally calling out the extent to which certain types of actors are allowed to push boundaries, whereas marginalized communities are often ridiculed for much less. Is the facade of method acting a celebration of character immersion, or simply a poignant display of prejudice?