Of course,
quite like my attitude of denial in the beginning, the perpetual worrying
wasn’t completely unintentional. Imagine the worst, and there is a fair chance
that it will turn out better. As it did: so much better than I could possibly
have imagined. They really surprised me – as much as they surprised me with the
first film. The main reason for this I had always anticipated because I had
always appreciated the genius casting they had done on the Tolkien films. They
really employed the best people on every job to be done for these films, and
this is, of course, why they are so good. And the writing is genius, as it
always has been. But the most important thing that would decide the fate of the
films, in the end, they probably knew best. They knew what the most precious
material is these films are made of: great actors. As much as I had noted and
admired the genius casting for the “Lord of the Rings” films, I think in “The
Hobbit” they surpassed themselves. Of course it was an unbelievable stroke of
luck as well that an actor like Martin Freeman EXISTED to play the hobbit. And
it says a lot about priorities that they arranged the shooting in a way that he
was able to go home and shoot “Sherlock” for three months, rather than trying
someone else!
As, after
this, I will be singing the praise of only two actors for probably quite a long
time, this is the moment to be finally grateful. Grateful for my two favourite
dwarves, Balin and Dwalin, the “Scottish” brothers, played by Ken Stott and
Graham McTavish so brilliantly. Special thanks to Ken Stott for making me
ALMOST cry! And Dean O’Gorman shows
great promise as an actor. Although he has always to “stand down” for Aidan
Turner you can see how rather “dwarvish” he is, in these few moments we see
him. Thanks to him for making “us” have at least a glimpse of what I expected
Fíli and Kíli to be from the book! And I am grateful for Evangeline Lily who,
although she is mainly employed as an action figure, made me think about elves
TWICE, and maybe understand them better. She became my favourite elf, apart
from Cate Blanchett as Galadriel. And I think elves are actually the most
difficult “to do”. (And of course she looks great!) - Another very special elf,
totally different from what we were used to, was Lee Pace as Thranduil. It took
a while for him to convince me that he was “genuine”, but he came finally out
great in “The Battle of the Five Armies” as this important and rather sinister
war-lord. And Luke Evans as Bard is really good as well. He does everything
exactly right and beautifully. And of course there are more ... as Ian McKellen
and Andy Serkis, and, of course, Cate Blanchett, whom I almost forgot because
they have already been in the “Rings films”. They simply couldn’t have done
without them! And, how could I forget: Benedict Cumberbatch who knew he would
play a dragon as nobody had ever done before. And lots of others still who had
a bigger or smaller part in saving the films from insignificance. Best comes
last, of course: Thanks to Martin Freeman and Richard Armitage for saving the
films, full stop! And I offer my apologies in case I had doubted THEM!
I’d like to
say that I hadn’t, but it isn’t that simple. Well, I certainly never doubted
Martin Freeman for a second. It was just obvious that Bilbo was always going to
“work” and be great. And that the actor would be able to carry off his story
successfully, even splendidly, although it might have been drowned partly in
the “noise”. And if THAT story worked the films would basically be okay. Even if
they wouldn’t be as great as “The Lord of the Rings” there would be a lot of
things to enjoy. I remember now that, in the first place, I hadn’t been worried
about the dwarves. I had been worried about “who” Bilbo would be. But after
that first scene between Bilbo and Gandalf the issue was determined. Great,
everything will be fine, now I can safely enjoy the dwarves coming to Bag End …
And this may be strange to say, but he was so good that I actually “forgot”
about him for quite a long while and had my focus entirely on the dwarves. So
it was a great thing, by the time I really began to watch the acting, to
discover what an unbelievable “job” Bilbo has been. I am sure that I have never
before seen an actor with so much variety, depth, and precision in his facial
expression. As one of his colleagues said, I think it was Ian McKellen, who is
such a great actor himself, and who was surprised at this “new” kind of acting:
You actually can see on his face that he is thinking two different things at
the same time. And you even know what they are. - Well, even if you don’t care
that much about the films: it is just a pleasure to watch!
(I have to
make a kind of footnote here which I rather regret because of the way it might
reflect on what I have just written. But to praise what somebody else has done
doesn’t cast a shadow on any other achievements. There are just so many great
British actors … Of course I had seen it before! I had seen somebody do exactly
the same thing before, but you don’t see “him” in the film doing it. It was
Andy Serkis as Gollum. Now I think it is so great that the most enjoyable,
maybe even the most perfect appearance of Gollum is actually in “The Hobbit”.
And, the ultimate climax: seeing both of these actors together in that scene!)
I must now
appear to have lost my thread for a while longer because there is one important
preliminary thing to discuss. I’ll introduce it with something Richard Armitage
said in his interview for the documentation of “An Unexpected Journey”. It was
the one of the many funny or remarkable things he said that made me laugh
longest – although it probably wasn’t intended to be funny. He said that doing
the first read-through of the script had been difficult for him because he
didn’t have Thorin’s voice yet – and because he thought they might ask
themselves why they had picked this BRITISH actor for the part. – In case he
hasn’t done the counting himself, I’ll do it for him, as far as I can: Out of
the 37 most significant characters 20 are played by actors I know are British,
14 are played by actors I know aren’t British, and about three I couldn’t find
out. So, there were well over 50 percent British actors employed on these films
anyway, and if you add “weight” to the count the scale would even be tipped a
good deal more in favour of the Brits because most of the leading characters –
as Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, Smaug, and Bard – are played by British actors. How
come?
(And even though they were so proud to have cast over 50 percent New
Zealanders for the dwarves, it is tell-tale that, apart from the “sons of
Durin” (Thorin, Fíli and Kíli), only the three amazing Brits, Ken Stott, Graham
McTavish, and James Nesbit, have virtually any lines to say …)
There are
certainly a number of reasons for this, first of all that British actors are
“predestined” to speak “decent” English – which is rather important in this
kind of film. The other obvious reason is that there are SO MANY great and
really DIFFERENT British actors, for which, in turn, there are probably two
main reasons. The first being something like Darwin’s law of the
diversification of species and the survival of the fittest, the second the
theatre tradition, and Shakespeare. I suppose that my explanation why I think
working in the theatre, and especially “on” Shakespeare, makes them better
actors will appear strange to actors because I know nothing whatsoever about
acting (…)
This, of course, is still true, but in the meantime I had a
“theoretical” workshop on “Playing Shakespeare” (which is an amazing program
with members of the RSC broadcasted in the early eighties.). And I think most
of what they say, apart from comparatively insignificant progress – as not to
say things like “conclus-i-on” or “oce-an” any more, which is absolutely
unnecessary and hugely distracting! – still constitutes the main points about
playing Shakespeare nowadays. And I was enormously pleased that these were
EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS that I tried to explain awkwardly and never managed
because I didn’t have the actor’s perspective on it. First of all, that, as
there were no directors in our sense in the Elizabethan Theatre, and
practically no rehearsals, there was either a tradition of how all of this was
done conventionally, or, in the case of Shakespeare, who was probably hugely
unconventional to a point that he “invented” the “naturalistic” acting style
which kind of developed into the 21st century, the directions had to
be written INTO THE TEXT. So the first and most important thing is that
Shakespeare’s text is so rich in everything you need for your acting that
actors largely learn the right kind of acting “automatically” from rehearsing
Shakespeare’s plays. (Many significant British actors haven’t even played a
substantial Shakespearean character on the stage, but I guess that many of
them, like Richard Armitage, use some of these characters like musicians use études,
to “bring out” something they need for playing a character to perfection. Or
even use their experience in “reading Shakespeare” much more than their
personal experience to determine what a certain character should be like.) -
Most of this I had actually found out for myself by watching the CHANGES the
text undergoes when I am reading it aloud instead of “just in my head”, and
when I am trying to imagine how it may be acted – which sometimes happens
“automatically” – and, of course, by seeing it acted. Because then you realize what
a treasure of possibilities can be found in this text, and nothing like the
only way of doing it. Which is what makes actors better actors than others who
don’t have this scope of imagination. And who don’t have this tradition of
acting in a way that they trust what is in the language, and the text, and the
story, and the intense interaction with other characters (which I consider to
be vital “in” Shakespeare and miss most of the time). So they don’t have to
rely only on what is in their own imagination and experience – which always is
poor, compared to the possibilities contained in a great story, and, in certain
cases, might yield nothing at all. And one of the reasons why “The Hobbit”
finally works better as a film than “The Lord of the Rings” is certainly that
they had this kind of actors for every major character (but one), and that
there is no “fuzziness” and insignificance at any point. Which is so incredibly
important for THIS KIND of characters that have to be totally SPECIFIC and ABOUT
TEN TIMES LARGER THAN LIFE. There are two great examples for direct comparison
about what I just said, which are Elijah Wood as Frodo (who was really good, by
the way!) and Martin Freeman as Bilbo, and, for an elf-character: Liv Tyler as
Arwen (who was basically one of the ONLY three cases where they cast
insignificant actors for significant parts in these films) and Evangeline Lily (who
is Canadian but certainly “theatre-proof”) as Tauriel (a character that doesn’t
exist in the book, but I am so grateful they invented her because she kind of
“repaired” the first “fuck-up” about the elves.) It is this kind of brilliance,
exactness, and variety that these actors have, which “bring out” these characters
exactly as to what an elf and a hobbit ARE ABOUT. And it is not mainly in the
way they look, or their general state of mind, or how they grew up as
individuals, or whatever. It is all in THE STORY, in what happens to them and
how they deal with it, and, in this special case, the larger HISTORY of their
people.
The other two “fuck-ups” were in my opinion David Wenham as Faramir in
“The Lord of the Rings” and – as I am sorry to say because I know my readers
will disagree (if I haven’t lost them already anyway) – Aidan Turner (who – as
I am grieved to say - is a British actor!) as Kíli. But I examined this again,
and there is in fact exactly one scene where he convinced me of being this
character, which is his first scene when they enter Bilbo’s house. After that I
“lost him”. And I am even sorry because he probably isn’t a “bad” actor. He is
just not the kind of actor that works in this “environment”. In many films,
especially contemporary, you get away with the kind of actors that have become
actors because they are good-looking and confident, or they are even exactly
what you need when they “fit” the character. And the main reason I am writing
this – though I probably have an axe to grind as well for him damaging the
great work of other actors in at least two scenes because of his insignificant
acting – is that it is such great “negative proof” for the SIGNIFICANCE of
these films. As no other fuck-up, which certainly has happened on a project of
these dimensions, or stupid, unnecessary deviation from the book, which
happened as well, could damage the films for me as much as THIS did.
A kind of
synopsis for what I was trying to state still very awkwardly about theatre and
Shakespeare is what Richard Armitage said about playing Thorin, which is in the
documentation of “An Unexpected Journey” as well. He said that Peter Jackson
always had this great vision about Thorin that he himself “couldn’t quite see”.
Well, IN THE END we all saw it, I suppose! And for this, in my opinion, it was not
at all unimportant that, to get there, there were still so many unknown heights
and depths to explore.
And there is
another reason, besides “quality” why there are so many British actors on these
films. Which I’d call “variety” or “scope”, and which appears to be brought
about in a similar way as variety in nature, according to Darwin’s law of the
diversification of species and the survival of the fittest. Because as there
are already so many great and exceptionally skilled actors “on that patch”,
actors, like species, probably tend to “diversify”. That is, they “develop”
special features that will enable them to “fit” into a certain slot stories
provide quite often or regularly. This is the original meaning of “survival of
the FITTEST” (notwithstanding some of the actors demonstrating great pride of
their physical fitness in the specials to “The Hobbit”, and rightfully so!): It
is about which individual fits best into one of the divers slots nature
provides. But nature, not unlike what we call “luck”, tends to be a bit of a
bitch most of the time, with a will of her own. I suppose that Martin Freeman
already had rather a long carrier as a comic actor of the kind that is funny
through being rather serious and endearing, and just slightly ridiculous. He
certainly had a large British audience on “The Office”, but I, like most people
who don’t usually watch British television, first saw him in “Love actually”
with a rather tiny story. Then, about ten years later, he suddenly “emerges”,
almost at the same time, as Dr. Watson in “Sherlock” – which is “just” a BBC
series, but very successful and of the kind that acquires a large international
audience – and as the lead in a major feature film: “The Hobbit”. It appears
that his “slot” had just been opened big time, as the two stories are
“structurally” alike: At the core they are about the friendship of two very
different individuals, one of them being rather “normal” – somebody we would
understand and probably like if we met him in the real world, but not think him
to be very special. The other being rather important and special, but, most of
the time, rather difficult to deal with, if not a real pain in the ass. They
are both structurally identical stories which require two actors with the same
“special features”, basically, but very different nonetheless.
One of the
important features for both Dr. Watson and Bilbo Baggins was that Martin
Freeman is “so very English”. They use that in “Sherlock” – as Conan Doyle did
- by constantly showing how the typical Englishman would react to somebody as
eccentric and weird as Sherlock. And I suppose that came to Martin Freeman
quite naturally. In “The Hobbit” it is even more essential because this is the
reason why Tolkien knew so well what “a hobbit” was, even when he wrote that
first sentence of his book. Because a hobbit is the “essentially English”.
Everything he loved about his countrymen, and found, sometimes at the same
time, a little ridiculous – or even at least as ridiculous as endearing.
(Whereas he knew nothing yet about elves – compared to what he intended them to
be in the “Lord of the Rings” – nor dwarves, for that matter. This is why I
love the little paragraph at the beginning of the twelfth chapter (out of
nineteen!) of “The Hobbit” where the narrator suddenly feels the need to
explain what kind of people dwarves are supposed to be: “Dwarves are not
heroes, but calculating folk …” As if to say: Well, they are exactly the kind of
people you know and don’t like so very much.) Of course I know that Martin
Freeman, apart from being a small, very English guy, is essentially a great,
outstandingly intelligent actor. Which is finally much more decisive for
playing Bilbo than his personal features. But in this case they came in handy
as well.
With Thorin it
had always been more complicated and less obvious. As I had never tried to
imagine the dwarves I wasn’t really surprised at the difference between the
character in the film and the grumpy old dwarf in the book. But I felt that, choosing
this actor, they had done something rather interesting and daring. I approved,
even more than that, but nonetheless was watching rather suspiciously, always
feeling that I was in for more, maybe even unpleasant, surprises. And not
before Thorin’s death in “The Battle of the Five Armies” was I able to
understand that this was exactly as it should be. This was exactly what “they”
had in mind for this character. Quite unlike what was intended for Mr. Baggins,
in his case nothing was supposed to be “natural” or obvious. Of course nothing
ever is, but there was little doubt about how Bilbo was to be played, and would
be. Whereas Richard Armitage’s unease concerning the read-through is quite
understandable. Even if he himself was probably convinced that he would do a
great job he knew he still had a lot to prove. And as long as he didn’t fully
understand WHO Thorin was supposed to be he couldn’t be certain himself why
they had chosen him for that job. And, as it turned out, THIS was the most
ingenious choice they have ever made. Maybe with the exception of Viggo
Mortensen as Aragorn in the “Rings films”. I remember myself thinking when I
saw him for the first time: This guy cannot be Aragorn! There are a few
parallels in fact which I cannot explore here, but in both cases I noticed that
I hadn’t liked any of these characters in the books, nor had been able to
imagine them at all, but had felt that what they would do with them would be crucial
for the films to turn out right. And then, I do not think a long time before I
was far into the second film of “The Lord of the Rings”, I was just totally
amazed at what I saw. Actually, I think, they are both very different actors,
but with a similar attitude towards their work, what it means to them, and,
accordingly, a similar level of focus and energy in their acting. And that was
exactly what was needed here: somebody to take this difficult task EVEN MORE
seriously.
There were
some obvious features in the case of Richard Armitage as well, one of them
being that he stands rather tall. Which appears funny to say of somebody
playing a dwarf! I had a laugh noticing who he was for the first time when I
saw an interview with him and he literally tried to “fold” his long frame into
the interview chair. In fact THIS was the one of his physical features that
proved ideal for playing Thorin, especially in relation with Martin Freeman who
is rather short. It sets both of them off beautifully, and they never had to
worry here about the intended difference in height between a dwarf and a
hobbit. But there is a psychological dimension to “standing tall” which became
much more important. It is best explained through another character who is in
each of the six Tolkien films: Cate Blanchett as Galadriel. Physically she
doesn’t stand tall at all, but, although in her case they have to use “tricks”
to make her look taller, the main thing is a personal feature which is a
natural authority much beyond any usual level. This is what makes her so
convincing as an elf, in fact makes her “be” Galadriel in the same sense that
Ian McKellen actually IS Gandalf. And that means a character that is UNIQUE and
a lot “larger than life”. And even if height and beauty may be a big help, it
is natural authority that makes people stand as tall as they do. (And this “feature” was in fact the main
reason why they chose Richard Armitage to play Thorin, as Philippa Boyens
(“chief” writer on “The Hobbit”) stated on behalf of casting the dwarves in the
“specials” to the first film.)
But standing
tall might not always be an advantage for an actor because it is a “special
feature” that is not often needed, or might even get in the way, in the usual
kind of “naturalistic” context. Maybe some of the pride and delight you can see
on Richard Armitage’s face when he is interviewed about “North and South” is
due to the liberating experience of finally being able to play a character of
this “epic” format he clearly is “made for”. Because in some of the tv
productions he had been in before he appears to be slightly “out of place”,
trying to “fit into” a character that is a great deal smaller than he is, in
real life. And now, finally, eight years after “North and South”, he gets the
chance to play the dwarf Thorin, who is in fact a proper epic “hero figure” and
great battle commander. And for once he is EXACTLY the right size for it.
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen