I've heard quite a few saying that, Ton, but is imitating someone accurately really that important? Or is it more important to bring the character to life in the best way possible? I can't decide. Maybe in a true story like this imitating the guy you're playing is the best way to do that? But what if playing the character a slightly (or hugely) different way makes the story/character more believable/interesting? If it had turned out that Dicky Eklund was a boring, run-of-the-mill crack addict, would Bale playing the guy as he did be more or less worthy of praise?
What I'm saying is I don't think it was Bale accurately portraying the guy that made his performance great, it was that he pulled you into his world, where he teetered on the edge of destruction through drugs, bitterness and regret. Right from the first scene he grabs you.
Glad to hear True Grit's good, Dules.
