Bit of a geek,
Questions? Silly questions, nice questions, little notes.
bit of a writer, bit of...whatever the hell that is.
the moment when you find out you’ve done very well in your first year of uni but you’ve been bullied so badly in school for being a know-it-all that you’re afraid to tell anyone at all
I don’t think luck comes into it much. I was recently speaking to an old acquaintance who used to work at the RSC and remembers his first season with them (and, as a total unknown just out of drama school, he was recruited because of his talent alone - unlike some other actors cast in big parts around then largely because they were the son or daughter of a big star or had other connections) - she said that Stratford was buzzing about his talent. She also said he was one of the nicest, politest actors she has ever worked with, which has probably helped a bit, as well - not being an arsehole can be a real career advantage for an actor.
I’ve heard the “very little range” accusation lobbed at Freeman a lot and I disagree. He’s a quiet, unshowy actor who follows the internal, Stanislavskian method of living the character’s emotions from within, rather than impersonating other people. If he looks like he’s just being himself in every part, IMO it’s because he makes the character’s thought processes and feelings so natural and believable. I don’t need him to look radically different in every part he’s in - I just need to feel 100% convinced by the character. Which I always am.
Don’t often quote from comments in articles, but this was blackbroom talking about Martin Freeman in the Guardian’s review of Richard III, in response to an accusation that Martin had ‘limited talent’ and had gotten ‘lucky’ to be where he is now. (via missmollysolverson)
We have seen Martin in Sherlock, we have seen him in Fargo, and even if we had seen nothing else at all, we would KNOW he has talent. So very much talent.
His acting style is somewhat understated compared to others - but that’s his strength. He is subtle. He has some mannerisms that you can pick up on (e.g. his restless hand gestures), but they vary between characters. Comparing them shows you the distinct differences between these people he portrays. There is so much going on under the surface. But you have to look for it, so to appreciate him the audience needs to be smart.
When I gushed about both Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin playing Richard III, a friend of mine (who is a semi-casual fan of Sherlock) said “Not to step on your toes, I know how much you think of Benedict, but there is NO WAY he’ll be better than Martin”. I reluctantly agreed with her. Benedict will be great as Richard III - but BETTER than Martin? No, probably not.
There is just so much contained anger underneath his performance (I think he said as much in an interview), and the audience picks up on it.
tl;dr - Martin is amazing, there’s no luck involved, rumor mongers need to shut their pie holes.