|
Post by sgev1977 on Mar 4, 2018 3:44:55 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sgev1977 on Mar 10, 2018 12:45:28 GMT
I just saw this comment on Mikey Walsh Twitter. I haven’t seen it before: Of course, I don’t believe most of these child actors accounts are managed by the actual kids but even if it’s his parent it’s a nice comment!
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Mar 10, 2018 13:23:55 GMT
The child actor’s account says right up front that it is run by his mum, so you were correct.
And it was a lovely comment made by his mum about BC.
:-))
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Mar 12, 2018 8:47:14 GMT
I've finally managed to read "Gypsy Boy" and while I rather enjoyed the book, I must say I am not at all excited about B. playing the father. Not because he is a "villain": B. is great playing villains, as well, but because he doesn't seem an "interesting" villain to me. Frankly, I cannot see what on earth would draw Benedict to this role other than willing to play someone so out of his safe zone.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Mar 12, 2018 13:06:42 GMT
I haven’t read the book yet, but this review from the NYT certainly made the character of the father sound like an interesting villain - www.nytimes.com/2012/02/17/books/gypsy-boy-a-memoir-by-mikey-walsh.htmlAnd I can, from this description anyway, see why BC would have found this an interesting (and villainous enough) role to play. The father certainly seems to be described as a monster of man who had a profound impact on the protagonist and the author. I am very interested in seeing what BC does with this material. I think you unwittingly hit the nail on the head exactly - he wanted to play someone very much out of his “safe zone”. And why not? It’s an entirely legitimate reason for taking on a role. He has always said that he is on the lookout for new experiences in the characters he portrays because he wants to be challenged as an actor. This role seems to be tailor-made for him in that regard. And as a bonus, maybe, for once, no one will be accusing BC of playing once again just another version of the “posh genius Brit” or “Sherlock” role! That will be refreshing! :-))
|
|
|
Gypsy Boy
Mar 12, 2018 13:48:07 GMT
via mobile
Post by sgev1977 on Mar 12, 2018 13:48:07 GMT
I have the book but I haven't read it yet. Of all his recent projects with a literary source, How to stop Time is the less interesting book to me but the adaptation could always change things. Great books aren't necessarily Great movies and awful novels are sometimes great films. The importance or nature of the characters could also be very different in an adaptation. Maybe he saw something in the script if not in the book. I will try to read the book soon!
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Mar 12, 2018 16:38:54 GMT
And I can, from this description anyway, see why BC would have found this an interesting (and villainous enough) role to play. The father certainly seems to be described as a monster of man who had a profound impact on the protagonist and the author. I am very interested in seeing what BC does with this material. Well, as I said, having read the book I don't see the father as an interesting role. Women's roles: mother, aunts etc. are much more promising. The father is just a violent jerk - maybe B. will be able to transform him into someone more nuanced, but it would need adding something there that in the book doesn't exist. Even B. cannot make more than the material lets him: like in the "Black Mass": he did his best, but the part just didn't give him opportunity to create a well-rounded character.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Mar 12, 2018 18:54:01 GMT
But is it really fair to compare a very minor role that he had in BM to one that seems to promise to be a much more substantial one (at least from all the descriptions I have read and from comments from Mike Walsh himself)? Just because the character is a violent jerk doesn’t make it a role that won’t be important in the story. And with importance comes more on screen time to develop the character with acting. Am I wrong in thinking that especially in the first half of the book his father was instrumental in the story? Mikey Walsh seems to think (from his comments) that his father was an instrumental force in his life. And he seems very much involved in the production of this movie. If that is the case then I think BC can bring his acting skills to bear and produce an interesting character with all those factors playing into it.
Being a violent jerk has never been a barrier to interesting characters IMO. I am thinking of Bull Meechum in The Great Santini, Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull, Brigadier General Paul Mireau in Paths of Glory, Nurse Ratched in One Flew Over the Cookoo’s Nest, Amon Goeth in Schindler's List, Frank Booth in Blue Velvet, Dwight Hansen in This Boy’s Life, just to name a few. Some of the most memorable characters in film and literature have been completely irredeemable reprobates. And I just thought of another example of a horrible character making an interesting one as well - David Melrose in the Patrick Melrose series! I have just finished Never Mind and I shudder at what David Melrose did in that one - but I can’t deny I am sure Hugo Weaving will make him very interesting to watch in Episode #1!
:-))
|
|
|
Post by miriel68 on Mar 12, 2018 23:09:19 GMT
Oh,Hugo Weaving looks terrific (and terrifying) in Melrose trailer. What I mean, my being skeptical about father's role in the Gypsy boy is because his great influence on Mikey's life seems confined to his being a sadist and a brute and his motivations - as presented in the book - are simply that he wants his son to be "though guy", so father-son interaction is reduced mainly to the scenes of father sadistically beating the son. Now, it could be a substantial part of the screentime, but more scenes of violence don't necessarily make a character more interesting (I've just seen "Red Sparrow" - what a wast of Jennifer Lawrence's talent).
Of course, there are cases of characters who are flat and uninteresting in the books but become more interesting on the screen, so let's hope this will be the case.
|
|
|
Post by roverpup on Mar 12, 2018 23:45:44 GMT
I trust that BC wouldn’t have taken such an unusual role if all it entailed was being violent without anything else. He must have saw something that he could work with characterwise.
After all, I do believe that even his desire for doing something different, wouldn’t take precedence over his need be immersive in that character and understand the character’s motivation for behaviour at a psychological level. It’s what he does so well. He has spoken already about the character’s as a patriarch in a culture that was so at odds with who his son was and working with that dynamic. That just shouts an understanding of motivation on the character’s part. So maybe the screenplay is more focused on that aspect than the book.
:-))
|
|