|
Post by sorcerersupreme on Sept 4, 2021 22:16:06 GMT
And I know some critics are incapable of see the the differences of his interpretation of characters that sounds similar on paper and that they ignore his vast and TBH superior work on TV but yeah, I hope TPOTD liberates him of these roles and he being offered more risky characters. Sadly it happens a lot when the film isn't as strong/popular the great performances are often overlooked. Like Patrick Melrose was a magnificent performance, a tour de force, but because the show itself isn't strong/popular it gets overlooked. As you said, let's hope TPOTD can help him secure more roles with incredibly talented directors where you know the movie is going to be strong. The movies are sadly a lot of the time, eh, but Benedict always gives great performances. But because the movies aren't as strong, his performances are being overlooked. Only way to solve it is for him to work with directors such as JC and hopefully similar ones in the future.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 4, 2021 22:31:30 GMT
The thing with Patrick Melrose is that it was in relatively not so popular cable channels (Sky and Showtime). It probably would had been different if it were on the BBC and HBO. Allegedly, the project was rejected by a few majors in the UK because the thorny and disturbing nature of the project. And that was another issue, it is a difficult series that was acclaimed but, like TPOTD, is not for everyone.
And then you have the snobbishness and ignorance of some film critics who would never know the work of an actor beyond the movies even when, like Jane Campion as said, nowadays TV is where daring stuff goes.
Still, he won praise by people like Paul Schrader and James L. Brooks so VIP knows his work and, yeah, I hope this new film helps him with new more excitement projects.
By the way, in the interview he did with KD in Italy, he repeated that he is now more interested in working with directors he admires than in going after a particular character.
|
|
|
Reviews
Sept 4, 2021 23:03:26 GMT
via mobile
Post by roverpup on Sept 4, 2021 23:03:26 GMT
Got to disagree about your remarks about Patrick Melrose.
There was nothing "less" about PM (IMO) as a production. BC's performance wasn't dragged down by anything about this miniseries. It was almost universally praised and beloved by most who saw it. It's writing, directing, visuals, production values and acting - everything - was top drawer.
I think any weakness lay in the fact that Showtime didn't publicize it enough and just isn't Netflix (who could have given it a much wider PR exposure). So, could it have used more publicity? Definitely! But that wasn't the production's fault.
I also think fabulous TV projects like Patrick Melrose suffer from a particularly strange North American outlook that TV work isn't as "important" as film and it seems to devalue the work right from the get-go. It's systematic.
So PM was at a disadvantage from the start. TV stuff tends to get ignored much more when movie critics are doing analysis.
Actors, especially in the past, seem to be looked down on if they "lower" themselves to "do TV" in the US. It wasn't as respected by critics and even the public.
In UK acting isn't as "ghettoized" into "Upstairs"= movies/ "Downstairs"= TV as it is in the US. The public is much more used to seeing highly respected actors on TV projects and they flow back and forth from TV, stage and film with much less built in prejudice.
It is changing (especially since the pandemic) but old attitudes are hard to eliminate entirely.
I certainly agree that TPOTD is a great opportunity for BC to gain more recognition of his talents and build on it with working with exciting directors. And I think TV remains an excellent outlet for exciting work as well with interesting directors. I'm especially excited about the new Berger project, The 39 Steps miniseries!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 4, 2021 23:26:36 GMT
I think it’s funny how daring American TV is compared with American movies. I mean a weeks ago something like The Whites Lotus was the show to see! It was extremely politically incorrect, full of extremely dark humor, nasty and even had a close up of someone’s testicles in the first episode! And people were watching it! But yeah, I think it depends of the network/streaming service. Showtime isn’t just what it used to be 20 years ago. But agreed that Patrick Melrose was acclaimed and probably on HBO machine behind it, it would had been more popular.
In the UK, it was an interesting case because allegedly the channels passed it because the theme. BC was attached to it for years before it was taken by Sky! There is an almost unknown adaptation of the fourth book by a respected British indie director. Actually someone who is mostly known for his documentary. It has a cast much less popular than BC and company in Patrick Melrose but it was a movie nor a series or for TV so they didn’t mentioned the pedophilia, incest nor even the drug addiction. It was just about rich people fighting for an inheritance!
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Sept 5, 2021 1:36:44 GMT
I don’t think the caste system between TV and movies exists anymore. I think it’s been on the wane for at least 10 years now, ever since HBO started producing their own stuff, at any rate. It used to be the case, maybe in the 80s or 90s that tv actors were viewed as less than their counterparts working in film, but those days are long gone. Think back to the 70s/80s when there was a plethora of tv actors that everybody looked down on. Now that was a caste system. You just weren’t going to book Peter Ustinov on Carson alongside Loni Anderson, lol.
With PM I think the fear of content put people off. They didn’t want to watch a little boy being sexually abused, and if that had been shown I might have agreed with them. They didn’t, but you know how people have fixed opinions. My brother told me that’s why he didn’t want to watch it, even after I explained. Secretly I think it’s b/c he doesn’t care for BC that much. Don’t know why I let my brother in my house anymore, lol. The disrespect!
On my cable package, HBO and Showtime are paired so if you get HBO you also get Showtime. But ST is HBO’s dark little cousin. I look at their offerings and it’s a lot of thrillers, horror, and other things I have no desire to watch. Although they’re now showing The Mauritanian, so I got to see that for the first time last night. It was very good, made me angry as heck at my country, but that section of torture I couldn’t really watch. Horrible.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 5, 2021 1:57:38 GMT
I don’t think the caste system between TV and movies exists anymore. I think it’s been on the wane for at least 10 years now, ever since HBO started producing their own stuff, at any rate. It used to be the case, maybe in the 80s or 90s that tv actors were viewed as less than their counterparts working in film, but those days are long gone. Think back to the 70s/80s when there was a plethora of tv actors that everybody looked down on. Now that was a caste system. You just weren’t going to book Peter Ustinov on Carson alongside Loni Anderson, lol. True! But I think a lot of people doesn’t watch anything beyond the hyped, which it’s comprehensive because you spend more time following a series than a movie. The problem is a few critics are still snob about it and some give opinions about his career without knowing half of it.
|
|
|
Post by queenzod on Sept 5, 2021 2:24:20 GMT
I don’t think the caste system between TV and movies exists anymore. I think it’s been on the wane for at least 10 years now, ever since HBO started producing their own stuff, at any rate. It used to be the case, maybe in the 80s or 90s that tv actors were viewed as less than their counterparts working in film, but those days are long gone. Think back to the 70s/80s when there was a plethora of tv actors that everybody looked down on. Now that was a caste system. You just weren’t going to book Peter Ustinov on Carson alongside Loni Anderson, lol. True! But I think a lot of people doesn’t watch anything beyond the hyped, which it’s comprehensive because you spend more time following a series than a movie. The problem is a few critics are still snob about it and some give opinions about his career without knowing half of it. Everybody has an opinion. Some are educated opinions and some are people just flapping their gums, I guess. It is annoying when people who should know better write BC off as always playing posh, intelligent, autistic characters. Even if he has played “that” character a number of times, each one is unique in their sensibilities and their approach to the problems they are beset with. None of them are remotely the same outside of that superficial description. A point I think BC himself approached when he dismissed the idea of playing to a label and the dangers inherent in doing that as an actor. I’m trying to imagine how Alan Turing would react to meeting Sherlock. I don’t think it would go very well for either of them, lol.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Sept 5, 2021 3:13:22 GMT
And just what is so wrong with an actor playing intelligent people?
I think I heard last week that some Fast and Furious movie was the highest grossing movie last year, so of course they’re going to keep making more. I have no idea what they’re about, and I don’t care. But I can’t imagine a film critic writing a review wondering why The Rock (or whoever else is in it) always plays the same type of character. The reason they don’t ask is because those loud action movies make so much money, and they hand a lot of it to The Rock so that he’ll keep playing those roles.
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 5, 2021 17:49:03 GMT
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Sept 5, 2021 20:21:25 GMT
The Grinch is a history-shifting oddball? This sounds like a reviewer who needed a list of BC roles, but only knows a few of them. I mean, he did play Van Gogh if you need a fourth.
|
|