Benedict Cumberbatch and the Fairy Tale of the SwedArt Band

Entrepreneur Margareta Lidskog is no stranger to Hollywood events, and her line of bracelets/leather bands now graces the wrists of the entertainment industry elite. But when Benedict Cumberbatch was frequently seen wearing a silver “Swedish band . . . my friend gave me ages ago . . . for good luck,” her business – and by extension, the popularity of traditional Lapland artists who make this culture-based art – gained new fashion stardom and a fandom of their own.

In many ways, Margareta Lidskog’s success story seems like a modern fairy tale. In the past few months, her business, SwedArt, has exploded in online popularity and, consequently, international sales. Her inadvertent benefactor is rising international star, Benedict Cumberbatch – the man recently touted as the Toronto International Film Festival’s “It” man starring in opening gala The Fifth Estate (as well as two other highly anticipated films) and the forthcoming recipient of BAFTA Los Angeles’ Britannia award as British Artist of the Year. When Cumberbatch was frequently photographed wearing what he described to a reporter as a "Swedish band, a silver band my friend gave me ages ago, which is for good luck,” his fan base took notice. Fan sites like Cumberbatchweb discussed the actor’s fashion statement. Fans began asking what he was wearing on his wrist and, more important for Lidskog’s business, where they could get one. Word traveled rapidly throughout fandom about the small company specializing in unique, wearable cultural art.

Lidskog and her friends/partners in Lapland collaborate regularly and design jewelry together. The business side of her creative company, including jaunts to Hollywood, takes up most of Lidskog’s time these days, especially since the flood of Cumberbatch-inspired orders. To assist her, in the past two years she has trained an “invaluable young lady who lives near the Arctic Circle,” but “designing new styles is [still] something I love doing. We are a small team, and we work very well together.”

These Sami artists follow traditional methods to craft each handmade piece, adding, for example, silver beads or swirled patterns of pewter thread to the vegetable-tanned reindeer leather. (Lidskog reminds me that reindeer are not an endangered species, and “everything from the animal is traditionally used for different purposes.” She also has used alternate materials for bracelets requested by vegans.) Lidskog takes online orders of items listed in her catalog, but the B12 Sami band in black leather is the one that Cumberbatch’s fans, now called the CumberCollective, want to wear. From her home base in Boston, Lidskog makes bracelets as often as time permits and forwards some orders to the artists back in Sweden.

Making jewelry is more than the Lapland artisans’ livelihood; their art makes its wearers aware of the historic significance of the friendship band and the culture it represents. Lidskog includes a printed history with each purchase. This document explains that the “indigenous Sami (Laplanders) have lived in northern Sweden, Norway, Finland and the Kola Peninsula of Russia for 10,000 years” and today “17,000 Sami live in Sweden but only 3,000 still have reindeer herding as their livelihood . . . . Skilled Sami artisans have been embroidering with spun pewter wires on reindeer leather and textile for hundreds of years.”

During the past few years, Lidskog has begun introducing Sami jewelry to Hollywood through gift lounges preceding important industry ceremonies. She notes that “there are gift lounges prior to all the major film festivals and all the major award events in a bunch of countries. Some are held over three days and others just one day. After my company did the Emmys in 2010, I have kept getting invitations” to showcase the jewelry line around the world--“places like Dubai, Paris, Cannes, Toronto, and Los Angeles.” Although larger companies with bigger budgets for promotions can more easily afford to send representatives to far-flung festivals, SwedArt, like many companies represented in gift lounges, is smaller, “and organizers like to present new, cool, up-and-coming, and unique products from small companies.”

Such industry-related gatherings are “held by many different companies, often started by people who have been in the entertainment industry for years and are well connected with actors, producers, agents, stylists, and media. Some have worked with events planning for celebs for a while or are still doing that as well. Without connections, it´s probably hard to attract the right kinds of celebs, because agents only want their clients seen at the best organized and best publicized events.”

To date, Lidskog has accepted two U.S. invitations to gift lounges scheduled before major awards shows--the Golden Globes and Emmys. These occasions are often “exclusive in the sense that only nominees, presenters, well-known stylists, and top media [are invited].” Often a charity element is attached to the gift lounge, “so we were required to gift a certain number of products to charity. I think the organizers of by-invitation-only gift lounges often invite around 500,” although fewer may RSVP to attend, and some famous guests may simply show up.

As might be expected, gift giving to celebrities can become expensive. The hierarchy within gift lounges begins at the low end with a company’s product being included in a gift bag. Lidskog explains that, in the events in which she has participated, the organizers suggested that a business send at least 100 products, “plus pay a few thousand dollars, [but] there is no personal representation” accompanying the merchandise. The next higher level of product placement “is usually a table presentation, but no company representation is allowed.” From there, the next levels include both a table and one or more representatives. Tables “with a rep or owner present often start at $5,000. After that, it´s a bigger space [and] several reps, and it can cost $15,000 to $40,000 for a big sponsor.”

Lidskog managed to negotiate down the fees so that having a table and two representatives would be affordable for her small business. She learned that it helps to have a unique, highly coveted product to display, because organizers may consider negotiating prices if they really want to include something new and cool. She also had help from her two children, who work within the Los Angeles entertainment industry.

“When A-listers arrived at my table, I would whip out a more exclusive bracelet from my extensive collection of over 100 different styles. I had a nice assortment displayed on my table, but those were teasers and for display mostly for media and stylists. I was able to stay within my budget for how much I gave away, and I was proud of that. My kids were a big help because they were excellent at guiding me about how ‘big’ the celebrity approaching my table was so I could prepare for their visit to my table.” Lidskog admits that “I´m terrible at remembering names and who was in what movie or show,” and her children’s assistance was much appreciated.

When one of the famous approached Lidskog’s table, “an escort introduced the guest to me”. Usually that escort was carrying “a huge bag that was filling up with swag. Some [guests] even came with their own cameramen, and I was interviewed on camera several times.” Being close to the stars comes with rules, however, and Lidskog could not ask a Hollywood heartthrob for a phone number. “At the Emmy event, we were strictly forbidden to ask the nominees and presenters for their contact info, but we were encouraged to ask media reps and stylists for their business cards.” Photo ops, on the other hand, were expected. “Each event had three to five professional photographers covering the tables to make sure at least one photo was taken of each guest with the product. We were not guaranteed to get a photo of each guest with our product, but I did, and I was happy about that. The guests are very well aware of the fact that our payback and purpose is to get their photo with our product.”

Lidskog found that the majority of famous people wanting to check out the jewelry were “easy to chat with” and “friendly and relaxed. Some wanted us to be in the picture as well, and there were many laughs. If a celeb or important guest said something I could use later for marketing purposes, I asked my assistant to write it down.”

Publicizing SwedArt is key to her job, but Lidskog simply gets a kick out of seeing guests enjoy the jewelry. A benefit of these bracelets/bands is that they can be custom sized, and Lidskog loves “meeting people with tiny or huge wrists, because they always have trouble finding bracelets to fit their wrists. I love seeing their happy faces when I tell them I can custom make any size and that I might even have their size in stock. At the Emmy event, the smile of talented Quinton Aaron, from the movie The Blind Side, was priceless when I placed an XXL bracelet around his wrist that was a perfect fit.”

Candy Spelling also “said she loved” the bracelet she received. “She asked very sweetly if she should hold up her hand so that my SwedArt sign would be visible in the picture”. Such encounters not only are good for business but create lasting memories. Lidskog says she fondly recalls that meeting “every time I take my grandkids to the playground near Bel Air,” a few minutes away from the house where Spelling used to live. (Another “pretty special” memory is “a kiss on the check” from “charming and handsome” Eric Roberts.)

Among the company’s famous clientele is Sheryl Crow, who Lidskog met before a concert six years ago. Crow bought several bracelets, which she can be seen wearing on tour. Look closely on television and in movies, too, for more SwedArt. Lidskog “designed custom pieces for Drea de Matteo, worn in Desperate Housewives,” and Rachel McAdams wears SwedArt in The Vow.

Then the CumberCollective arrived. “For a small company like mine, I felt that I had been very lucky to be able to have that many celebs wear SwedArt jewelry already. . . . And then along comes Benedict Cumberbatch,” and his fans “are even more excited” and appreciative of the bands.

Before this year’s Emmys, Lidskog considered sending Sami bracelets with a friend who would be working with gift bags in the hope that Emmy-nominated Cumberbatch might visit the gift lounge and learn more about the band he has so elegantly, if unexpectedly made more famous. She decided against relying on serendipity and learned later that Cumberbatch did not make it to this year’s ceremony because he is filming The Imitation Game in England. Nevertheless, Lidskog would like for Cumberbatch to know more about the band he so often has worn in public and contacted the actor’s London agency to present a thank-you gift of additional styles of Sami art.

Despite meeting A-listers and knowing they wear her bracelets/bands at home as well as in public or on screen, Lidskog is humble when discussing her business. “My company is just me, a couple of Swedish artisan friends, and my husband helping out”. Nevertheless, she estimates she has sold “thousands of bracelets to more 30 countries, maybe even close to 40 now. Orders are coming in on my computer around the clock, seven days a week. Right now, it´s a lot of ‘Benedict Cumberbatch’ bracelet/band orders,” but the business also benefits from repeat customers pleased with their initial purchase.

In addition, the celebrity factor plays a role: “I do know for a fact that many of my customers are impressed, intrigued, and even feel part of the excitement around my participating and being able to tell stories about the celebs I met in Hollywood and Beverly Hills. I love sharing stories”. Still, much of the company’s success can be attributed to “the passion and pride I feel for my bracelets and the ‘journey’. Even people who have never seen or heard about these tribal bracelets will often buy one after they have stopped at my table at a show, listened to me talk about their interesting origin, and heard me explain why so many celebrities shown [on my] posters wear SwedArt.”

Like most fairy tales, this story has a happy ending for everyone. Fans from Pac-Asia, North America, and Europe now sport matching bands that are becoming a tangible symbol of their fondness for Cumberbatch. Their wrist art also marks them as fans of SwedArt--and supporters of artists thousands of miles away.

It's Elementary, Sherlock: U.S. and U.K. Interpretations of the Popular Mr. Holmes, Plus Writing News

Lots of new Sherlock Holmes- or Benedict Cumberbatch-related writing news:

On Saturday, October 5, I'll talk about Sherlock Holmes and John/Joan Watson during the Popular Culture Association in the South's conference in Savannah, GA. Entitled "It's Elementary, Sherlock: U.S. and U.K. Interpretations of the Popular Mr. Holmes," my Saturday morning presentation illustrates the very different approaches to Holmes and Watson taken by, respectively, the BBC and CBS. (I might even have a few things to say about the season premiere of Elementary, filmed in London, and #setlock rumors for Sherlock S3, so I probably should issue a spoiler alert at the beginning of the discussion.) If you're planning to attend PCAS, I hope you'll come to the lucky 13th session (13.3 Television Sights and Sounds), where I'll be a panelist. To give you a better idea of my topic, here's the conference abstract:

Since 2010, the BBC’s hit television series Sherlock has intrigued audiences and accumulated numerous awards for the series as well as its lead actors, Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock Holmes) and Martin Freeman (John Watson). This modern adaptation emphasizes Sherlock’s bromance with John almost as often as it twists Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s canon into interesting new stories. Although Sherlock became a cult favorite on PBS, U.S. producers approached Sherlock’s creators to discuss developing an American version of the British hit. When that approach failed, CBS went ahead to modernize its own Sherlock Holmes adaptation, Elementary, which debuted in 2012. In part to legally separate itself from the BBC’s series, Elementary’s Holmes (played by Jonny Lee Miller) is a former New Scotland Yard consultant now living in New York City following a stint in drug rehab; Joan Watson (Lucy Liu) begins the series as his sober companion. Elementary primarily emphasizes Holmes’ addictive personality and his passionate mood swings. The series fits well with CBS’ preference for CSI-styled detectives and hour-long police procedurals, whereas Sherlock builds movie-length story arcs that often involve a growing personal threat to its title character (e.g., that posed by Moriarty, S1-2). Sherlock underscores the detective’s “otherness,” but Elementary often strives to make Holmes seem more “normal.” As viewed through the lens of very different cultural expectations for a modern Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock and Elementary say a great deal about their creators and audiences and our expectations for a modern Sherlock Holmes adaptation.

I'm thrilled that author/editor Carlen Lavigne allowed me to develop a much more in-depth look at both Sherlock and Elementary in a chapter for her new book, Remake Television: Reboot, Re-use, Recycle, which will be published by Lexington Books. In my chapter, "Smart, Sexy, and Technologically Savvy: (Re)Making Sherlock Holmes as a 21st-Century Superstar," I cover not only character development in and comparisons between characters in Sherlock and Elementary, but I also draw comparisons between Cumberbatch's and Miller's portrayals and that of Jeremy Brett in the popular Granada series.

And, while mentioning Miller and Cumberbatch, I'll introduce the article recently published in the scholarly journal, Studies in Popular Culture (35.2, Spring 2013, pp. 1-21). "It's Alive! National Theatre Live's Frankenstein" offers my analysis of the phenomenon of NT Live's famous broadcasts of Frankenstein, starring Cumberbatch and Miller. I consider whether a recorded theatrical presentation broadcast to cinemas worldwide can ever meet the definition of "film" (even as a recording) or whether it always will remain a unique hybrid of live theatrical and filmed performance. For those who want to read the article but aren't members of the Popular Culture Association, just be patient a few months longer. Back issues "come alive" online for public viewing, and--ever self-promotional--I'll be sure to post the link when it's available.

I've had some good news this week about future presentations/publications.

"Khan Games: Benedict Cumberbatch and Star Trek: Into Darkness" will be my presentation at the Popular Culture Association's annual conference, which will be held in Chicago in April 2014. Not only do I enjoy researching Cumberbatch-as-Khan, but now I have to read IDW's Khan comic book series that starts in October. Life as a researcher/writer is difficult....I guess I'll also have to review how many fan sites include the Cumberbatch shower .gif--you know the one. The text of my presentation most likely will become a book chapter during the next year.

Finally, I can't quite announce officially but will say that it looks very promising that my next academic book will be about Vincent Van Gogh. And you thought I only write about television, film, literature, and actors.

In the name of full disclosure, I should probably mention that I'm fond of "Vincent and the Doctor." And there's Benedict Cumberbatch's lovely performance in Painted with Words....However, the Van Gogh book is the result of a glorious trip to the Netherlands and Belgium this summer and my research at the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam in particular. (Remember my FB posts featuring chocolate hedgehogs and wheat fields blowing in the breeze? All research.)

Now I merely have to find time after teaching and developing a new course about film/television adaptations from literature (The Hobbit? Sherlock? Elementary? Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy?) to take the books and papers from inside my head and get them onto my laptop--and eventually to you.

Playing Politics: Benedict Cumberbatch and the Actor’s Role in Political Debate

Do an actor’s political concerns warrant media publicity? More important, do an actor’s comments have an impact on the way the public thinks—or the government reacts?

In the past few days, photos surfaced from the Sherlock set showing Benedict Cumberbatch holding up signs to the paparazzi. That alone is an interesting act that seems to have burgeoned into both an effective way to get information to the global media and to “interact” with the media without talking with them (and increasing the possibility of being misquoted or badgered into saying more than Cumberbatch intended). A Wales Online article first reported the actor, head down, in a dark hoodie and shades, holding a white sheet of paper with a political message in front of his face. The photo wasn’t the focus of the article about Sherlock’s latest filming around Cardiff; in fact, the headline emphasized a new cast addition and featured several upbeat photos of Martin Freeman and Amanda Abbington. Nevertheless, as you might expect, media quickly picked up on the Cumberbatch photo and the message clutched in his hand: “Go photograph Egypt and show the world something important.”

Within four days, approximately 50 news outlets around the world had republished the photo and commentary, and websites had received thousands of hits each. Some comments regarding the photo were positive, praising Cumberbatch for wanting to focus on an increasingly volatile situation in Egypt and underscoring why he is many fans’ favorite celebrity and justifiably the “thinking woman’s crumpet.”

An Esquire blog on August 19 summarized the potential of using celebrity for political awareness. Lt. Col. Robert Bateman wrote about Cumberbatch’s Egypt sign: “Yes, it is a futile gesture. Holding up a sign? . . . But, what if ALL celebrities started doing this? . . . What if all of the stars, hounded by the dogs of photography, started blocking their image and holding up signs about what is really important in the news? . . . There is no shortage of topics that matter more. And I suspect, being humans before they were celebrities, some of those [actors mentioned in this blog] might agree, regardless of their PR apparatus. . . . That would renew my faith in the nation that I defend--if her stars, her glitterati and her icons set the people of Egypt before themselves. But perhaps, maybe, possibly, those public figures that make their living by being public, can earn their acclaim by doing something that is right. Redirect social attention to places and people that need this attention.”

Others, however, raised questions about the propriety of an actor (in this case, Cumberbatch, who has been the focus of media criticism for his words in the past) stating his politics, especially when such a famous man knows that the paparazzi waiting for him to emerge from his trailer will photograph his every move once he stepped outside. On August 19, Now Daily asked, “What gives Sherlock star Benedict Cumberbatch the right to take the moral high ground?” The article questioned why Cumberbatch should trivialize the photographers’ jobs and added “one could argue that his job isn't exactly doing much to change the world either.”

Both writers note that one man’s—even sought-after Benedict Cumberbatch’s—words or the rather passive action of holding up a sign may not change anything. However, Cumberbatch’s recent “sign posts” are far more than most of us do, whether we are celebrities or actors or people seeing the photos online. Cumberbatch occasionally explains during interviews that he admires the careers of Brad Pitt or George Clooney. Perhaps part of that admiration and desire to emulate their success and film-making power is also respect for these stars’ political actions, whether overseas (e.g., Darfur) or at home (e.g., post-Katrina New Orleans). Even Clooney’s direct action of smuggling cameras into refugee camps in an effort to show the world what’s really going on in Darfur failed to generate the public outcry or intervention the actor had hoped for. (See a 2010 article for more Clooney comments about his “greatest failure.”) Pitt’s innovative, affordable housing development has not had quite the impact on residents that he (and some vocal residents with whom I’ve spoken) envisioned. (See a 2013 article for more information about the New Orleans homes.) Nevertheless, actors—no more, no less than anyone else—have the freedom-of-speech right and moral obligation to stand up for causes in which they believe. They may be no more successful than any of us non-celebs, but they surely will get more publicity for their political activism.

After the initial success of the Egypt note, Cumberbatch followed up with a four-page note concerning a political issue closer to (geographically, his) home. On August 21, Metro published a photo of Cumberbatch, dressed in Sherlock’s trademark form-fitting suit and his own shades as he prepared to film more scenes. He stood out in the open, holding up a page at a time and, in the Metro photo, almost seems to be smirking in the sun as the media photograph his message. It is a very different look from the presentation of the Egypt sign. This time, too, the media—such as the Metro article—focused solely on Cumberbatch’s political statements and his “silent protest” against the government’s decision to detain the partner of a Guardian journalist under anti-terror laws. The four pages illustrated “Questions we have a right to ask in a democracy – [David] Cameron, Theresa May, GCHQ, teachers, parents, each other . . . Hard drives smashed, journalists detained at airports. Democracy? Schedule 7 Prior restraint – is this erosion of civil liberties winning the war on terror? What do they not want you to know? And how did they get to know it? Does the exposure of their techniques cause a threat to our security or does it just cause them embarrassment?”

Whereas video from Egypt has been on most global television news for weeks and Cumberbatch’s fans were at least somewhat aware of what is going on (or at least being reported) in that country, they collectively may not have been as aware of David Miranda’s detention without arrest over the weekend. Now they are more likely to follow this news story and its political implications.

Again, the signs ask questions without Cumberbatch positing any answers, but the tone and phrasing of the questions indicate the actor’s political disquiet about the journalist’s detention and surrender of personal property. Cumberbatch would hardly put himself in an increasingly prominent media position to state a political message if he didn’t believe in what he is doing.

Given the intense interest in his first message, Cumberbatch expanded his delivery style and message content for the next political photo op. This isn’t a criticism—it is merely an observation that Cumberbatch now understands exactly how much media attention his political views will garner and chose to use the same forum to further ask thought-provoking, perhaps action-promoting questions. It will be interesting to see where, publicly politically, he goes from here.

A very cynical interpretation is that the escalation of printed messages has garnered Mr. Cumberbatch more publicity even during a month when his name is seldom out of the media for a day. Furthermore, it has won over, I suspect, the majority of his fans who have a new reason for adoring him. It further establishes him as a “thinker” aware of world issues. Shortly before the first of three films in which he has a role premieres at the Toronto International Film Festival—with the Cumberbatch-starring “WikiLeaks movie” The Fifth Estate having the honor as the gala opening film on September 5—such alignment between actor and political awareness, especially when the topic concerns journalists tangentially linked with an information “leaker,” can possibly be used to help promote the film. It certainly gives TIFF’s journalists more to ask during press conferences with the actor.

However, waving aside cynicism or pragmatism about the effect Cumberbatch’s printed words will have on his career or the promotion of a film, I think that the actor’s recent time-saving method of discourse works. His message is succinct and not easily misquoted. It gets just as much international attention as his spoken words, with far fewer potentially negative consequences for the actor. (Once he committed to holding up those signs, he put himself out there for critical evaluation by the media, public, and huge fanbase.) We have a pretty good idea what Benedict Cumberbatch thinks about the paparazzi waiting outside his door or flocking to Sherlock filming locations. We can’t know the depth of Cumberbatch’s concern about Egypt, Schedule 7, or David Miranda because even a four-page note large enough for the media to photograph doesn’t allow details, analysis, or answers. We can infer that, after so much publicity about the Egypt comment, Cumberbatch is savvy enough to use his celebrity to bring up something timely and provocative.

Most important, though--he made us think, forcing our attention to his Sharpie-scrawled words. Fans who weren’t aware of these political issues might at least learn more about them. Perhaps education of the fan-masses is a valuable outcome of a favorite actor’s politics, however effective or ineffective Cumberbatch’s recent flurry of messages may be in getting politicians, much less nations, to change course. Cumberbatch may have reached in particular young Sherlock fans who avidly follow him, and their awareness of recent political developments may have more of a long-term personal impact than the Esquire or Now Daily writers, anyone who questions an actor’s political clout, or even Cumberbatch himself can imagine.

Oddly enough, when the actor is mute and relying on written messages, he has the loudest voice of all.

Script, Performance, and Authorial License: Alan Dean Foster’s Novelization of Star Trek: Into Darkness



MANY MAJOR SPOILERS FOR ANYONE WHO HAS NOT SEEN STAR TREK: INTO DARKNESS




















Alan Dean Foster’s novelization of Star Trek: Into Darkness gives readers insights into the film’s script, the actors’ performance, and the author’s own development of iconic characters. In particular, this novelization offers a slightly different interpretation of Khan even from the screen version—one much closer to Benedict Cumberbatch’s description of his role during the many press interviews surrounding the film’s many international premieres.

As Foster mentioned in an interview, he wrote this novelization at a time when e-publishing permits changes to be made nearly to the last minute before official publication, which gave him the ability to merge the script and information gleaned during filming and post-production with his own take on the story. In particular, characters could be significantly expanded in print—a film audience usually isn’t privy to a character’s innermost thoughts or interior monologue.

Of course, I chose to study Benedict Cumberbatch’s portrayal of John Harrison/Khan, but Foster also gave him special treatment in the novel. As Cumberbatch restated during publicity for Star Trek (but perhaps said best in the Rolling Stone interview), “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Putting his character in a more favorable light, the actor noted that “The care he has for his people, his crew and his family is a complete parallel to Kirk.”

In his novel, Foster expanded upon this idea, not only in descriptions that go beyond script direction or elements of Cumberbatch’s performance. At eight separate points in the novel (I can share page numbers if you’re as obsessive as I am with documentation), the author referred to Harrison/Khan as a savior, whether his actions save a child or a Captain. Harrison/Khan’s “gifts,” ranging from extra firepower to the ability for cellular regeneration, are also mentioned several times. This language balances the portrayal of the story’s villain (although I’ll still quibble that a certain Admiral is actually more villainous). Instead of making Khan only a bad guy, the novelization supports Cumberbatch’s performance that Khan is capable of doing great harm, but he also can use his considerable learned skills, as well as his genetically enhanced body, to save others.

Not all characters accept Khan’s beneficence at face value, however. Both Spock and McCoy caution Kirk about Khan’s possible motivation for saving Enterprise crew members [i.e., McCoy: “If he saved your lives, he did so because he saw something in it for him” (p. 162); Spock: “A man like Khan does nothing without a reason” (p. 221)]. Foster followed the script in providing these warnings, but he repeated savior, save, and gift to remind readers that Khan is not a one-dimensional villain.

Harrison/Khan may seem godlike by deciding who lives or dies by his hand (or blood), but Foster emphasized that his actions are decidedly driven by love of his own crew and desire to be reunited with them, just as Cumberbatch discussed in the Rolling Stone interview. The novel, much more than the film, explains the Spock-Khan chess match late in the film that determines where Khan’s crew ends up. The author’s license to explain actions and motivations in greater detail is a benefit to Khan’s character development. Once the Enterprise is (temporarily) safe, McCoy’s page-length speech elaborates on Khan’s decision to beam his crew aboard the appropriately named USS Vengeance. This monologue provides a great deal of insight into Khan’s reasoning, actions, and time frame for decision making, all which would have slowed the movie’s pace as it built momentum toward the final fights. In the novelization, Khan errs primarily because he is in a hurry; in the film, this mastermind seems suddenly stupid in underestimating Spock. Although I can’t condone Khan’s violence—he is, after all, efficiently ruthless in getting what he wants—I appreciate Foster’s ability to layer Khan’s characterization in print as much as Cumberbatch layered it on screen.

Foster, as readers might expect from such a masterful author, excels at precise word choice. Although Spock’s voice also is emphasized during key scenes when he must be in command or exceptionally emotional, Khan’s is the voice “heard” most forcefully throughout the novel. As in the memorable trailer that introduced audiences to Cumberbatch’s character, readers “hear” his voice before they read a physical description. What Cumberbatch termed Khan’s “scalpel precision” of thought and speech is personified through Foster’s careful selection of descriptors, with verbs like snarl and roar and tones that, at different emotional high points in a scene, are pitying, condescending, firm, sharp, relentless, matter-of-fact, unshakably confident. As Foster illustrated through a crew member’s dialogue, “Listen to him too long, and he’ll have you believing anything.”

Foster’s novelization underscores the nuances that make Cumberbatch’s portrayal of a summer blockbuster villain more than just the typical psycho or megalomaniac. Throughout the novel and film Khan is a man with a plan, one that only hints at the depths of his focus and determination to mold the world according his personal vision. This character could have been one note, but, especially by highlighting Khan’s vocal qualities in this novelization, the author referenced Cumberbatch’s alluring voice, which is key in bringing audiences or Captains under Khan's spell.

What is particularly interesting about this novelization is its close connection not only to the finished film but to specific aspects of an actor’s performance, most notably Cumberbatch’s. This novel is the first book (not script) to incorporate Cumberbatch’s performance in the text’s discussion of the way a character sounds or behaves. Although Sherlock scripters probably write more toward the specific talents of Cumberbatch or Martin Freeman in series three than they did in the pilot, Cumberbatch’s previous roles on film, television, or stage were written long before casting. The novelization was written simultaneously with the film’s production/post-production, and specific aspects of Cumberbatch in the role of Khan, from physical appearance [“His face was narrow, his eyes remarkably penetrating” (p. 36)] to performance [“the tear that ran down his right cheek” (p. 93)], have been included. Wherever the character of Khan goes next in the Trekverse, this novelization clearly blends Cumberbatch’s performance with the scripted characterization, as well as Foster’s own insight into the character. In fact, given Foster’s description of writing a novelization as “work for hire,” far fewer of his original ideas make it into this type of writing than in one of his original works. Thus, Cumberbatch’s performance gains even more weight as a source for this print “adaptation” of the film.

Certainly Khan’s physical appearance mirrors Cumberbatch-as-Khan in the recent teaser cover of IDW’s forthcoming (in October) six-issue comic book series. Star Trek: Khan should provide more than a rebooted backstory for this character—it also may rely more than a little on Cumberbatch’s interpretation from Into Darkness. If so, Cumberbatch will have more of a direct influence on the rebooted Khan, on screen or in print, than he may have imagined when he first signed on to play one of the most interesting Star Trek characters of all time.

That Voice: Benedict Cumberbatch’s New Voiceover Roles

Think of “that voice”—the one you recognize immediately because it belongs to a famous television or film actor who is now explaining why you should buy a product or believe in a cause. You Pavlovianly respond to the richness and sheer pleasure of the sound. In the U.S., Morgan Freeman is one of the top film actors whose voice is sought for a memorable voiceover. If he tells me I need a new Visa card or explains why penguins migrate, I listen—and, more important, I remember that he was the one who informed me.

In an article about voice acting, Dan Hurst explained why Freeman’s voice is so popular with marketing execs and casting agents as well as audiences: it is unique, comfortable, and confident. It also has that “park bench” quality—as if you and your buddy Morgan were sitting together on a park bench while he explained something important. You trust him; he sounds friendly and approachable.

Cumberbatch has the first three “Morgan Freeman qualities”. His voice, especially in the deeper ranges often used in his narrations, resonates with authority. It’s confident; Cumberbatch sounds like he knows what he’s talking about, whether the topic is scientific theory or dog food. Fans may also associate him with his intelligent, informative interview style, a plus for a voiceover actor trying to gain an audience’s attention. Cumberbatch’s natural enthusiasm for new ideas or experiences provides that “comfort” level Hurst describes; if this actor seems genuinely interested in a subject, listeners will be, too. However, I don’t know that Cumberbatch’s voice has a “park bench” quality, given his previous voiceover work and recent high-profile roles in Sherlock and Star Trek: Into Darkness or his upcoming role as Smaug in The Hobbit. These characters do not exude a “buddy” quality or suggest the easy warmth of a friendly Morgan Freeman.

What Cumberbatch offers, however, is what I call “dark chocolate.” It is rich, deep, and seductive. It’s alluring and compelling. Addictive. His “let the games begin” conclusion to the BBC’s introduction of the Summer Olympics made me want to watch simply because that voice implied Intrigue. It suggested competition, hard-won triumph, and even danger. That voice has a quality other actors lack—it can be informative or persuasive but hint at delightful darkness. That doesn’t mean that his voiceovers are sinister—they simply offer another potential layer of meaning, when appropriate, to pull in listeners.

When Cumberbatch acts a role, rather than serves as a narrator, for example, his voice becomes whatever the character requires. Martin Crieff sounds distinctly different from Islington. That’s why I look forward to meeting his character in a new animated series, Poppy’s Fields, which was announced this week. I’m curious what this character will sound like, what his accent may be, how he emphasizes words or finds the humor in a line. I’m also interested in a travel-doc to Jerusalem, also revealed this week, because, with it, Cumberbatch adds yet another narrator credit to his already-long resume of non-acting vocal roles. I enjoy the actor’s voice as much as that of one of his characters.

Such work adds to the breadth of his career and, quite efficiently, allows him to fill in possible break times between television or film projects. No matter what else Cumberbatch decides to pursue, voiceover work can always be part of his long-lived career. Because his name is seldom out of entertainment news this summer, the Cumberbatch-associated projects announced this week likely will reap a much bigger, more diverse audience. It's a win-win-win, for actor, project, and audience.

I smiled when I read one post to the Benedict Cumberbatch In Transition Facebook page: “Just tell us about his voice.” Certainly that’s not the extent of this actor’s entertainment or educational value, but, within our popular culture that often extols primarily the visual, That Voice is a very good reason to simply sit back and listen.


Benedict Cumberbatch, In Transition is available through Amazon US and Amazon UK.

Benedict Cumberbatch’s Performance Shines through “Darkness”

SPOILERS for Star Trek: Into Darkness—If you don’t want to be spoiled about plot and character developments, please don’t read this week’s blog.



















Although I’ll probably write more about Star Trek: Into Darkness, if not here, then for conferences or journals, this time I’m focusing only on Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance. After seeing the film more than once in the U.S., with a vastly different crowd each time, I was pleased but not surprised that Cumberbatch’s name is the one most mentioned when the movie is over.

When I first saw the IMAX 3D version last Wednesday (the first U.S. screening for the public), I had a long wait from the moment we were allowed into the theater until the show started more than an hour later. Naturally, with hundreds of friendly Trekkers/Trekkies in the same place, we were bound to start talking to each other. In my row alone were fans from the U.K. and Australia—perhaps not surprising when our IMAX venue is located at Universal City Walk in Orlando. “I’m not here for Benedict Cumberbatch. I’m a long-time Trekkie,” one woman confided after our hellos. “But I want to see what he does in this movie.” Her friend said, “I’m a Cumberbabe,” then added, “although I guess we’re now supposed to be part of the Collective. Sounds kinda like the Borg, though.” Could work, I thought—another Star Trek reference.

On the way out of the theater the next time I saw Star Trek on an IMAX screen (a few days later), my friends enthused about Cumberbatch all the way down the stairs to the lobby. Words like “creepy” and “perfect villain” matched the general group assessment that Mr. Cumberbatch is very, very good in this role. There’s something about watching his expression on a screen stories high and hearing that voice surrounding us in the dark that makes an IMAX-sized impression.

In Benedict Cumberbatch: In Transition, I comment that, although Star Trek certainly would gain the actor a much larger global audience—and, more important, a mainstream audience of blockbuster-lovers worldwide—it likely won’t earn him an Academy Award. SF or fantasy movies don’t tend to receive Oscars for acting or directing, or as best picture, no matter how much money they make at the box office or how much media attention they generate. (Return of the King, with best picture and directing Oscars among its 11, is a big exception in Academy history.) That type of recognition may come with Cumberbatch’s work in other films out later this year, closer to nomination time. Of course, only hindsight will tell where Star Trek ultimately ranks in his list of career-changing films. For now, Star Trek (including its media publicity) is doing a great job of showcasing Cumberbatch (whose name truly does take up the width of the screen credits), but the role is only garnering so much attention because Cumberbatch did his job well first.

The role Cumberbatch was given to play is vastly different from the one scripted for Ricardo Montalban in the 1982 Wrath of Khan. That character sought to avenge the death of his wife and beloved friends, exiled by Kirk to what became a barren planet and then abandoned. Khan's motive was simple: revenge. He had a very personal grudge against Kirk. The “superman” of genetic engineering awakened in theaters in 2013 has much more of a motivational problem; he becomes a terrorist working against the Federation, presumably because his crew is being held hostage and sabotaging the Feds after he has been “fired” by them is his best way to free his friends.

Cumberbatch “Khans” us into believing that rather awkward backstory and assumes the role of a prime villain (even though Admiral Marcus is really the evil mastermind catalyst behind much of the plot). What does Cumberbatch do that’s so effective? Consider Khan's eyes, emotional range (which, for the movie’s “heavy,” is surprisingly wide and deep), physical grace and power, and voice.

When Kirk angrily addresses the incarcerated Khan, Cumberbatch lets the moment build before his response. It’s not a long pause by any means, but he drags his eyes slowly up Kirk until he makes unblinking eye contact. Instead of Kirk being in charge of his prisoner, Khan assesses Kirk and decides best how to talk with him. It’s subtle, but it works beautifully to illustrate that Khan is hardly incapacitated. One critic called Cumberbatch’s eyes serpent-like—and there is a mesmerizing quality to his gaze. Without moving, Cumberbatch-as-Khan exudes menace—he seems all-seeing.

Did you notice how many men tear up in this movie? Best teardrop still goes to Spock. (I could hear the splash!) However, most villains never show the emotional “weakness” of shedding even the quietest tears, and, if they do, their emotion is highly suspect because, well, they’re villains. They’re supposed to lie to us. When Khan gets emotional about his crew, he turns his back to his captors, but the audience can clearly see his eyes fill. A single drop overflows down his cheek. Khan seems truly moved by the loss of his crew, his “family.” The believability of every other action he takes in the movie rests on this teardrop. If we believe he genuinely loves his crew and will do anything to get them back, then we accept Khan’s motive for everything from destroying swaths of major cities to surrendering to Kirk to manipulating others to get what he wants. Khan can become a multidimensional character only if we accept that he is more than just a bad guy who mindlessly seeks the Federation’s destruction.

Cumberbatch sells that scene. It’s quiet. It seems real, even if it manipulates our perception of Khan. It makes him human, not just a killing machine.

When Khan takes over Marcus' ship, he again could seem way over the top with avenging anger, but--although looking every inch the Big Bad as he crushes skulls--Cumberbatch never trips over that fine line into silliness. He does look manic when he turns kamikaze—but the emotion still is grounded in the story's reality (well, as much reality as a summer blockbuster is going to give us). All that emotional control in scenes where Khan sits quietly (and with perfect posture) just explodes when there is no reason for him to rein in his emotions.

Speaking of explosions (and in this movie there are many), I was especially impressed with Khan’s (or rather Cumberbatch’s, and in some scenes his stunt double’s) graceful movement and sheer physical power. I love the sweeping motions and dancer's grace as Khan fires weapons to wipe out a Klingon patrol. (That doesn’t seem like a civilized sentiment to write, but I like the battle choreography.) Better yet, on Marcus’ ship, Khan knows the meaning of stealth—he alertly, quietly progresses toward the bridge, but when he encounters a security force, he immediately, violently dispatches them. Those moves made me truly fear Khan. He switches into machine mode and efficiently disposes of anyone in his way—there seems no way to stop such a vicious attack.

I like the man’s moves, but I also appreciate his coiled stillness. Again, in the brig scene, Khan awaits the result of a private conversation between Kirk and Spock. Holding his arm, from which a blood sample has just been taken, Khan watches and waits. When it becomes apparent Kirk is going to talk with him, Khan immediately drops the “weak” stance of holding his arm and instead holds his arms slightly out to his sides. The pose emphasizes his bulk and indicates that he is ready for anything. Even such slight, deliberate movement illustrates the thought behind the performance.

And then there’s the voice, almost a character unto itself. I was impressed with the dark “slithery” quality of Cumberbatch’s delivery—it sounded seductively evil. (I listened to the radio play of Neverwhere a few months ago, and Cumberbatch’s Islington gave me chills because of a similar vocal quality for that character.) One of my favorite Into Darkness lines is “Captain,” a one-word mocking rebuke after Kirk attempts to smash Khan into submission on Kronos. Even two syllables can be nuanced.

Mesmerizing, beguilingly voiced, chilling—Khan compels me to follow him on screen, which is another reason why I continue to follow the career of the captivating Benedict Cumberbatch.

Fast and Furious with Fallon

As an addendum to yesterday's commentary about Benedict Cumberbatch's interviews on talk shows, I’m posting just a few thoughts about this morning's interview with Jimmy Fallon (Late Night with Jimmy Fallon). As far as informative interviews go, the content wasn't the best ever, and the pace was so fast that the audience might not remember details about what was said. So--content-wise, average. However, from a media persona perspective, Cumberbatch was entertaining and more than kept up with Fallon during their mutual fan-fest.

To introduce Cumberbatch to the audience, Fallon mentioned the award nominations that U.S. viewers are more likely to recognize (Golden Globe and Emmy), but he also praised Sherlock at two points in the show, linking the actor with two key projects that American audiences should see. Fallon excelled in elevating Cumberbatch's energy and being so enthusiastic about the actor's work that Cumberbatch seemed empowered. The whole "Who can you impersonate?" game could have led to disaster, because Cumberbatch briefly seemed at a loss for an explanation, repeating his words before launching into a description of a spontaneous impressions game he and Martin Freeman play on set. I wish this moment had smoothly led to more examples of Cumberbatch's mimicry, but at least the guest turned the tables on the host, who then couldn't think of a way to impersonate Hilary Clinton (tough one) or Miss Piggy (at least he tried). The five-minute interview (with Star Trek clip) left little time for long answers or involved stories (although the Harrison Ford anecdote was a winner), but Cumberbatch and Fallon still covered quite a few topics as they ping-ponged words back and forth. Cumberbatch seemed to be with “his people”—Fallon as his greatest fan—and accepted the applause and effusive praise graciously. The nervous mannerisms were still there (at one point upstaging the camera's view of his face), but Cumberbatch seemed to be having fun and was incredibly animated in this interview.

What is interesting is the variety of "Cumbarbatches" U.S. audiences met in just a few days. Of the U.S. television interviews to promote Star Trek this week, Letterman created the most awkward scenarios, which resulted in the weakest “performance,” the Today show only briefly spotlighted Cumberbatch’s film role but presented a well-spoken, confident actor, and Fallon encouraged the hyperactive playmate not everyone in the audience may have yet met. If audiences seeing all three interviews were interested in continuity or had to describe their impression of Cumberbatch based only on these shows, they might have difficulty coming up with a unified conclusion about who he really is (at least in public). On the other hand, the actor showed that he could handle wildly divergent interview styles and present himself differently to each show’s individual audience demographic. It will be interesting to see if, during future promotional appearances, he will present a single “persona,” no matter who conducts the interview or what he is asked, or if Cumberbatch will surprise us with his reactions and responses. Funny, fun, frenetic—a good reason to be watching Fallon and Cumberbatch late night Friday/very early Saturday morning.

The best interview this week—albeit in another medium—is Caitlin Moran’s substantial and well-written article in the Times (full article by subscription here but already available in its entirety on other sites). I enjoy Moran’s books and articles; I admire her style and outlook on life. The new interview is yet another excellent conversation, this time with Cumberbatch and his parents. Moran's word choice is so descriptive that I could "see" the family home and practically sit down to Sunday dinner. For pure enjoyment, Moran's interview is well worth a couple of reads this weekend. It allows Cumberbatch to express himself in depth and to have more control over the way he will be perceived in the media during this incredibly busy time.