|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 19, 2017 15:47:11 GMT
Oops! I just listening and they have very mixed comments. They loved BC and KM's performances and their scenes together but were not convinced with the metaphysical aspects, the sub-plots and Charles character. They called the project self-indulgent because BC is the producer and they think it's something very difficult to sell.
There was a very silly comment by one of the women who said she usually doesn't watch these kind of dramas because the theme which I think it's cool for a random spectator but an extremely stupid comment by a professional critic!
Also slightly confused because Paul Whitelaw sounded very excited after watched it. He said it was a powerful piece of TV and that it was excellent on Twitter a few days ago. He even told someone that maybe it would change his life again (after he told him the book changed his life). It would be interesting to read him in an actual review instead that listening on radio with other people.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Sept 19, 2017 17:27:20 GMT
Another podcast I can't hear right now!
Anyone having second thoughts about seeing this should definitely listen to this podcast. The three people reviewing TCiT here LOVED it and explained thoroughly how beautiful BC's performance is is this piece. They also all agreed that it isn't melodramatic or morose in tone and that you end up caring so much for Stephen that you live his journey with him throughout. One of them said that this role is his finest one yet. :-))
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 19, 2017 17:42:54 GMT
I posted it but I can't listening right now. I read the three of them gave it 5 stars out of 5.
|
|
|
Post by onebluestocking on Sept 19, 2017 18:49:05 GMT
I agree! Talking in a group isn't the same, as thinking it over and figuring out all of the important points to write out. People might also influence each other, in a way they wouldn't while writing independently.
I haven't had a chance to listen to these, though.
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Sept 19, 2017 19:38:46 GMT
Nothing comes up when I look up this Unmissables podcast.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Sept 19, 2017 20:28:50 GMT
Mllemass try this ... player.fm/series/1423823/187316654just scroll down a bit and there should be an episode #24 button to click on to begin the recording of the podcast. :-))
|
|
|
Post by mllemass on Sept 19, 2017 23:11:34 GMT
Thanks! I just listened to it. It's great to hear such rave reviews! They describe his performance as "magical" - but I see him that way in all his performances. And they say he'll win Baftas for this.
I really hope that they don't release this on DVD before it airs on PBS so that it can qualify for the Emmys!
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 20, 2017 0:42:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Sept 20, 2017 1:58:18 GMT
I just heard the podcast and yes, they were very excited with it.
I can't wait to watch BC's performance. Clearly it's one of his very subtle ones. There are people out there saying he overacts but they rarely consider the kind of characters he is playing. I remember once he described Sherlock as "pyrotechnic" opposite to Peter Guillam, a subtle performance with a (relatevely) modern way of talking. Even those characters with idiosyncrasies because they are from another time (Tietjens, Turing, etc.) or supernatural (Sherlock) have very subtle movements and gestures but it's easy to call those performances too much. Not by critics, the NYT's ones have always say he is layered and subtle. But random people on Internet who doesn't care for details.
The thing is it would be completely ridiculous to play Moffat's Sherlock like a natural everyday man from London. It's a "pyrotechnic" character but still it has a lot of quiet moments. It would be ridiculous to do a non-theatrical Richard III. And like a good British actor he plays Historical characters with the correct way of talking and moving.
Then there are Guillam, the modern men from The Third Star and Wreckers, the leading character in Little Favor and, probably, now Stephen. He is very natural (in a modern way) in all those roles and it's always exciting to watch him doing them. I guess we will have more of those kind of performances if he continues to play modern characters.
|
|
|
Post by coolclearwaters on Sept 20, 2017 2:35:30 GMT
I just heard the podcast and yes, they were very excited with it. I can't wait to watch BC's performance. Clearly it's one of his very subtle ones. There are people out there saying he overacts but they rarely consider the kind of characters he is playing. I remember once he described Sherlock as "pyrotechnic" opposite to Peter Guillam, a subtle performance with a (relatevely) modern way of talking. Even those characters with idiosyncrasies because they are from another time (Tietjens, Turing, etc.) or supernatural (Sherlock) have very subtle movements and gestures but it's easy to call those performances too much. Not by critics, the NYT's ones have always say he is layered and subtle. But random people on Internet who doesn't care for details. The thing is it would be completely ridiculous to play Moffat's Sherlock like a natural everyday man from London. It's a "pyrotechnic" character but still it has a lot of quiet moments. It would be ridiculous to do a non-theatrical Richard III. And like a good British actor he plays Historical characters with the correct way of talking and moving. Then there are Guillam, the modern men from The Third Star and Wreckers, the leading character in Little Favor and, probably, now Stephen. He is very natural (in a modern way) in all those roles and it's always exciting to watch him doing them. I guess we will have more of those kind of performances if he continues to play modern characters. I agree completely. The style of acting should fit the style of the film. I particularly don't understand people who think that actors should mumble Shakespeare and ignore the poetry.
|
|