Another Perspective on Richard III

Last week I had the good fortune to see the first and second nights’ performances of Richard III at Trafalgar Studios in London. Although I had intended to write a review upon my return home, today’s articles about the play and fans in the Daily Mail, Times, and Telegraph, plus comments I heard from fans during and after the play, prompted me to put aside my jet lag and present another perspective on this production’s very early days and my experience as an audience member. I admit that I am a fan of theater, Shakespeare, and Martin Freeman, and undoubtedly those “fandoms” color my experience of the play. I’m also a critic, an author, and a humanities professor, and those roles also have a bearing on my comments in light of what seems to be a continuing media and public-forum discussion about the nature of “fans” and the essence of “theater”.

Please be aware that, although I do not think I have included spoilers for those who will see the play, I do comment on aspects of performance and staging. I may assume that you have read or seen the play and are familiar with the material. Just to be clear, IF YOU DO NOT WANT DETAILS ABOUT JAMIE LLOYD’S CURRENT PRODUCTION OF RICHARD III OR MARTIN FREEMAN’S PERFORMANCE, PLEASE DO NOT READ FURTHER. YOUR DEFINITION OF “SPOILER” MAY DIFFER FROM MINE, AND I DO NOT WANT TO UNDERMINE THE THEATERGOING EXPERIENCE OF ANYONE WHO MAY SEE THE PLAY.









Now, about the performances on Tuesday, July 1, and Wednesday, July 2 . . . .



The Play and the Lead

Jamie Lloyd has successfully pared what would have been about a four-hour play into a powerful two-and-a-half-hour (roughly, with interval) theatergoing experience. The official opening takes place in a few days (July 8) with press night and the subsequent reviews. I have seen two performances very early in the run, and previews may differ significantly from what becomes the “standard” version (although one reason I enjoy theater so much is that every night’s performance is unique because it is live). The version I watched on Tuesday night had been changed by Wednesday night. I noticed differences in blocking, the amount of blood on stage, the increase in humor, and dialogue in the final scene before the interval. Although I enjoyed both performances immensely, I found the emotional build-up stronger during the second night’s performance. I only wish I could watch the play again and again to learn how this production evolves (but that would be immensely greedy, and I hope as many people as possible can see this production. Trafalgar Studios is an intimate venue, which is another reason why I enjoy seeing plays there so much.)

This production differs from the interpretation of Richard III, as a play or a character, that many Shakespeare lovers may expect. The setting, for example, is England only a few decades ago--and I encourage patrons to read the program for an excellent explanation of the shift in time period. Modernization does not detract from the play, and if some in the audience don’t understand the hazy black-and-white television images at the beginning of the play, that’s OK. The actors’ dialogue (which has not been modernized) and actions clearly illustrate the political chaos. The only awkward line for me as a result of the modernization is Richard’s cry for “A horse! A horse!” but what would Richard III be without that line?

This production is vibrant, violent, engrossing, and sometimes just gross (depending on how much you like to see blood). It is more dynamic and physical than I had expected, but, since seeing Lloyd’s Macbeth last season, I should have anticipated more action for the lead actor. This production invigorates the characters and, to use a cliché, makes them relevant.

Richard is surprisingly witty and humorous. For those who read this comment and automatically assume that Martin Freeman is playing Richard as a variation of The Office’s Tim, let me assure you that Freeman’s repertoire includes many shades of “humor,” just like he has the ability to make every character he plays surprising and different. He doesn’t rehash aspects of other characters he has made recently famous. His Richard understands the power of words and ably twists them. His humor lures followers and then entraps them. Because Freeman’s gesture, expression, or line delivery can make the audience laugh, they--like Richard’s inner circle--may want to like this man because he has a keen wit and sharp sense of humor. Richard, however, is not a likeable man, and the use of humor makes his callous cruelty all the more horrific. Yet Richard is not like one of Freeman’s most recent successes, Fargo’s increasingly violent and immoral Lester Nygard, either. From the beginning of the play, the audience knows exactly who Richard is--a villain. He does not change from good to bad or seek redemption. Still, Freeman does not play a one-note baddie. He lures the audience, too, with softly spoken dialogue, only to shout later. Richard may have that famous hump, as well as a slight limp and a useless arm, but he can be lethally spry when necessary. Both Richard and Freeman are compelling because they can still surprise the audience, even those familiar with the play.

On Tuesday night, I sat at the back of the stage, which, for that performance, had cons as well as pros. I chose that location because I enjoyed sitting there during Macbeth (even if a wayward branch got a wee bit too close as the forest marched on stage). I like watching the larger part of the audience seated in front of the stage, because that the actors' view while they perform, and I also enjoy seeing the actors entering and exiting stage right next to me. At times an actor makes eye contact (that happened twice on Tuesday night), and I feel much more part of the performance when I’m seated only a few feet away from the action and alongside a main entry/exit.

Those positive aspects of being seated up stage made my experience of Richard III special, but my location also meant that I had a little more trouble seeing everything that was going on. The set, while minimalist, still obstructed my view a few times when the action was down stage. When eerie smoke arose, it became so thick that the people around me started fanning their programs. There were a few mishaps and mistakes, and my vantage point made them seem more obvious than they likely were to those seated farther back, but those kinds of problems are expected at this stage of a production and likely will be worked out.

On Wednesday night, I sat four rows from the front of the stage. I had a much clearer view of the entire set, which made the special effects more understandable because I had a complete visual context for their use. On a second viewing, I also had a better idea of what to expect from the actors. The second night’s performance included more humor—or, rather, lines were punched up a bit more, and the play just seemed to work better.

Lloyd’s productions of Macbeth or Richard III may not be for everyone, but I find them exhilarating and provocative. Of course, I still enjoy a more “traditional” approach to the Bard, but I am challenged by Lloyd’s productions--I go home thinking about the characters and the actors’ performances. I want to come back and see more. To me, that is what good theater is about.


Fan Behavior and Theatre Etiquette

I hope the focus of reviews after previews returns to the production and performances, instead of fans and fan behavior. The Daily Mail, The Times, and The Telegraph (providing a summary of the complaints presented in the other two articles) today have blamed Hobbit fans for ruining the play for other audience members. The thrust of the argument seems to be that young fans of an actor maybe could contain their enthusiasm or express it more appropriately, but they don’t. They may not understand theater etiquette because they either do not know how to behave during a performance or don’t care. In particular, a venue like Trafalgar Studios, because of the theater’s size and the configuration of seats for Richard III, brings fans closer to the actors. The setting is more intimate and, because of seating on two sides of the stage, automatically involves the audience in the performance, which could lead to inappropriate behavior. Also, to encourage more people who typically don’t attend theater to come to plays at Trafalgar Studios, the producers have marketed plays to and made some tickets more affordable for a younger audience to come see what theater is all about.

These are purely my opinions shared in reaction to these articles:

Theater should be for everyone, not just those who can afford a high-priced ticket, and I like the way that Trafalgar Studios is helping to make theater more accessible to more people. I increasingly have problems with the “haves” and “have nots” division between those who are fortunate enough to attend a play, concert, or another type of live performance, especially those events starring a celebrity, and those that cannot get in. That “good fortune” may be the result of a lottery, fastest Internet connection to the box office, or ability to pay membership fees or the highest prices to get a ticket. Of course, the entertainment industry is a business--and popular, high-profile actors attract publicity and audiences. In recent years, the number of plays featuring a film or television star has increased. People like to see stars on stage, and fans of a popular actor may be very determined both to get a ticket and to interact with that actor. In a celebrity-driven popular culture, there will increasingly be a clash between people who want to attend the theater, for example, to see a television or film star in person and those who want specifically to see the play, no matter who plays the lead. The problems stem from individuals who do anything to ensure their own enjoyment at the expense of the experience for others, whether actors or audience members.

Not everyone who sees Richard III may be well versed in theater etiquette, which seems to be the focus of complaints about fan behavior. My experience may have differed from that of people who watched performances later in the week, but here are my observations of the audience and stage-door fans.

During the two performances of Richard III that I saw, I heard the audience laugh and applaud at appropriate times. I didn’t see or hear anyone around me applaud or cheer when Martin Freeman began his first speech; if Richard’s famous opening lines had been drowned out, I would have been annoyed, because I wanted to hear Freeman say those lines, even though I already know them. On the second night, as I previously mentioned, the audience laughed more often, and more people smiled or laughed at (in particular) Richard’s or Buckingham’s lines. The audience was involved with the performance, but no one that I saw or heard disrupted the flow of the play or made the dialogue impossible to hear.

The applause during those two performances took place right before the interval and during curtain calls. On Tuesday, during the first round of curtain calls, the entire cast was loudly applauded, and some people hooted and cheered. When Martin Freeman came out alone for his call, the audience began to stand, but I don’t think everyone gave him, or the cast joining him for the final bow, a standing ovation. Many people did, but a standing ovation is not unique to Richard III, even after the first performance, which probably was not as polished as it will become throughout the run. Within the same week, I saw Skylight (standing ovation), The Crucible (standing ovation), and the opening night/press night of Great Britain (partial ovation--a lot of people remained seated at the back of the Olivier, where I was, although their applause was just as enthusiastic as that of the people closer to the stage who gave an ovation).

It seems that most audiences nowadays will give a star a standing ovation. Regarding the plays and performances I saw last week, the response seemed justified. Perhaps there are so many standing ovations these days that the concept has become meaningless; an ovation has become an expectation rather than a true response to quality. That should be a separate issue from the problems of inappropriate fan behavior mentioned in the press today. The people who stood and applauded the entire cast of Richard III genuinely seemed thrilled by their theatergoing experience and appreciative of the performances. Those standing and cheering were not all Hobbit fans, or Sherlock or Fargo fans, or Martin Freeman fans. They were people who had a great evening at the theater.

I did see some examples of lack of theater etiquette that the staff tried to stop more than once. Some people walked across the set during the interval to visit friends or family seated in the opposite block. Walking across the stage if you’re not an actor in the production should seem like an obvious no-no, but in a small venue with seats on two sides of the stage, some people opted to take the shortest route to the other side. The staff courteously explained why that was not a good idea. Similarly, most theaters have a rule that photographs or recordings of any type are not allowed. A few people around me needed to be told, some more than once, that taking photographs of the set or trying to get a close-up of an actor is not allowed. That was about it as far as inappropriate behavior, and I have no idea whether the people who were asked to stop doing something against the rules are fans of a particular film, TV series, or actor.

During performances of other plays last week, I was annoyed by people around me who talked through the show, checked social media several times (not during the interval), sighed loudly enough that people two rows away turned around to glare, or opened cello-wrapped food and noisily ate during quiet scenes. That behavior is disruptive, self-indulgent, and inappropriate. I see it not only in the theater but at other live performances or during movies. Audience etiquette, not just theater-audience etiquette, needs to be taught and enforced so that the entire audience can enjoy the performance they paid to see. By the way, the people who annoyed me weren’t fans of any particular actor, nor were they part of a specific age group.

I seldom try to do stage door because I am afraid of being trampled or pushed, as I have been at red carpet events. I’ve heard the stories about actors being chased down the street or long queues braying for an actor to come out, then becoming unruly if he chooses not to do so. I’ve talked with theater staff who have worried about fans not understanding why they have to do something (like queue or wait patiently) or not to do something (like record a performance or grope an actor entering or exiting next to the audience) and disregarding staff or security members’ instructions. I was relieved that the fans awaiting Martin Freeman were well behaved; a few even said that they realized their behavior could affect whether actors continue talking with fans at all after a performance.

On Tuesday night, the cast had a party after the first performance. Martin Freeman sent word that it would be a very long time before he would be outside. The group standing outside the stage door wasn’t huge, and it was respectful. Sure, there were some louder conversations about fandom (or Sherlock, or Benedict Cumberbatch), but most people were fairly quiet, more so as nearly two hours passed. Some people left, and some pros wanting autographs to sell joined the crowd.

When Martin Freeman came out, he looked tired. It was nearly midnight by then, after he gave an intense performance and attended to other responsibilities after the play. Nevertheless, he signed for many people. (I don’t know if he signed for everyone who waited, because I left before he did.) He warned off one pro by saying that he would only sign for people who had seen the play. He posed for a few selfies, and he said thank you many times for fans’ kind words. It seemed that most people brought Richard III posters or programs to sign, but a few had Sherlock books or DVDs.

On Wednesday night, Martin Freeman came out much more quickly but did not stay very long. He was cordial and signed quickly for many people. He patiently waited while a starstruck young woman in front of me asked him to personalize a book and painstakingly spelled the name. He was more outgoing than he had been the previous night and kept thanking everyone for coming to see the play. Before he had come outside, the crowd received word that he would not pose for photos but would sign, and he stuck to that rule. Before he hopped into the car waiting to drive him away, he wished everyone a good evening.

At both times I was at the stage door last week, the crowd was friendly and respectful. I only hope that the fans who wait at a stage door remain that way and understand that meeting an actor is not an expectation or a guarantee that comes with a theater ticket.

Before I conclude my long ramble in response to today’s media reports, I want to mention one other aspect of theatergoing and fandom that troubles me, because it reflects that schism between people who primarily go to theater only to see/meet an actor and those who primarily go to see the play--and I realize that many people (me included) often go for both reasons equally. When I said, online or in person, that I was excited about seeing Richard III’s first two performances, the response I sometimes received surprised me: Why would I go on a first night, when famous people are more likely to attend the press night/opening night or final show? The gist is that I was not terribly bright to buy a ticket to these two previews because they would only be attended by fans. (Personally, I was ecstatic to even get a ticket, much less two, on dates when I would be in London for other reasons.) I dislike the idea that a performance is only or especially worthwhile to attend if a) a famous actor is in the play and b) the famous actor’s equally famous family and friends might be in the audience. I enjoy meeting actors, and I was thrilled to tell Martin Freeman that his performance was fantastic. But that’s not the reason I go to theater. If I don’t see anyone famous on stage or off, my experience of going to the theater, 90 percent of the time, is positive. Even when I don’t like a play or a performance, I generally have learned something or been given interesting ideas to think about. In the long run, that result is more satisfying than an encounter with someone famous, no matter how exciting that can be.

The short version of this review/cultural critique is that Richard III, currently playing at Trafalgar Studios, is an exciting adaptation of Shakespeare’s text. The cast is very good, and their interpretations should give audiences a new appreciation for the play and individual characters.

The long version is that what constitutes appropriate public behavior, whether in a theater or another venue, is going to be a focal point of media analysis and discussion, and individual fandoms (e.g., Hobbit fans, Sherlock fans, Freeman fans) will be scrutinized. While a discussion of appropriate theater etiquette is important--as is the ongoing discussion about appropriate behavior in lots of public venues, including social media--it should not overshadow the hard work of the cast and crew who diligently and creatively, performance after performance, bring a play to life.

Six Performances, Five Weeks

During October and November, I was privileged to see a range of Benedict Cumberbatch’s stage and screen performances. Of course, because I’m in Florida, I had to see the stage performances as they were shown on screen in Vero Beach or Palm Beach, but the effect was the same—I was mesmerized. I had previously seen some performances, most notably, Frankenstein. However, that did not reduce my joy at seeing a favorite once more. During five weeks, I watched bits, if not all, of six performances: in Frankenstein, The Fifth Estate, 12 Years a Slave, Little Favour, the National Theatre’s 50th anniversary celebration (broadcast in the U.S. as part of NT Live), and the trailer for August: Osage County. These pivotal roles in his career illustrate that no matter when they were recorded or where they took place, whether they were part of a larger ensemble cast or a starring role, Benedict Cumberbatch is truly one of his generation’s best actors. Even among those who noted, as several movie critics have, that The Fifth Estate did not perform as well as expected, Cumberbatch performed superbly. His performances in recently released films prove that this year’s Britannia award was no fluke, and this autumn’s range of roles appealed to an equally wide range of Cumberbatch fans.

Different Skills for Different Roles

Comparing Frankenstein and The Fifth Estate is truly the apples-and-oranges of comparisons, but think of them as equally important but opposite ends of a scale “measuring” physicality. Although some critics seem to think both productions were “monstrous” (a positive for Frankenstein, not so much for Fifth Estate), they illustrate oppositions in the requirements of a role and Cumberbatch’s performance to meet these requirements. In Frankenstein, as the Creature, Cumberbatch is a miracle of movement. He crawls, bounds, leaps in the air, stretches, and sinuously moves his body around the circular stage. Those who have read Benedict Cumberbatch, in Transition know that the Creature is one of my favorite Cumberbatch roles because of the actor’s physicality and dramatic intensity. Seeing Frankenstein on Halloween was especially key to my enjoyment of the holiday this year. I already knew the performance and the story intimately, at least from an audience perspective, but on the drive home from Vero Beach I thought about the connections among humankind, God, that which we create, and our responsibilities for our acts of creation. That Cumberbatch’s performance still made me think of connections among life, death, eternity, and immortality says a lot about a production that, to date, I have seen more than 20 times.

As WikiLeak’s Julian Assange in The Fifth Estate, Cumberbatch’s is an interesting performance for a completely different reason. I see this as a physically confined role, the opposite of the physically demanding, movement-liberating role of the Creature. Although in Hawking, Cumberbatch was often confined to a wheelchair and had to brilliantly convey Hawking’s emotions within a delimited range of motion, in The Fifth Estate, the actor’s movements are instead constrained by the script. In fact, many critics complained that the story became boring because so often the lead characters were shown only typing on a keyboard, looking at a screen, or, like the audience, watching instant messages scroll. The “action” in The Fifth Estate is intellectual, analyzing the conflicts inherent in determining what should be leaked, when, and by whom. The “chase” is often electronic, as WikiLeaks is shut down, pops up on mirror sites, or releases incendiary information. Cumberbatch’s non-computer activity involves walking, public speaking, or staring moodily at the landscape. (Perhaps his character’s most impressive physical quirk is opening a bottle with his teeth.) The actor’s hands often are either stuffed in pockets or speedily keying information onto a laptop. Because the actor had to rely on subtle facial expression and body language instead of dramatic gestures or displays of physical strength, this performance shows how good Cumberbatch can be on film even when the performance relies more heavily on dialogue and minute variations in body language. The character’s smiles, for instance, tell a lot about his mood and thoughts. When not suffering fools well, Cumberbatch-as-Assange’s tight smile is a mask of forced civility, but when he comes on to a beautiful woman, the smile becomes genuinely animated before turning predatory. Cumberbatch always has an expressive face, but in The Fifth Estate, his body language and line interpretation are even more important in getting the audience to understand Assange.

In 12 Years a Slave, Cumberbatch’s role is one of many in a highly anticipated, highly scrutinized drama that many critics have named Best Picture of the Year long before awards season rolls around. In this large ensemble cast, Cumberbatch’s character stands out as a “good man,” even though he is a slave owner who plays a pivotal role in lead character Platt’s future torture. In period garb once more, Cumberbatch and his dialect convincingly portray Southern U.S. plantation owner Ford. The actor makes Ford’s moral contradictions obvious to the audience, which makes the character all the more troubling to watch. As a Christian, Ford feels compelled to read the Bible to his slaves on Sunday and, in a moment of what many slaveholders would call “weakness,” listens to Platt’s engineering advice and praises the slave when he proves his idea is sound. However, for all the “humane” treatment of his slaves, Ford is still a man with debts and must make a profit from his plantation.

Perhaps what is important to his career is not so much this performance, which, as expected, is note (or accent) perfect, but the fact that Cumberbatch is featured in such an important film. His inclusion in this cast indicates his growing importance in the film industry. Although a small role in 12 Years a Slave will not erase Hollywood’s memory about The Fifth Estate’s poor box office, the film flopped commercially, as many critics also pointed out, because of script problems, not Cumberbatch’s performance. As a fan, I am more impressed that Cumberbatch accepts roles that pique his interest and offer him something new or different to play, even if that role ultimately is not a box office hit. It is unfortunate that Cumberbatch’s first lead in a major motion picture, one that kicked off the Toronto International Film Festival, received so much negative press.

It’s Not the Length, but What You Do With It

Two noteworthy performances fit into the “good things come in small packages” category: Wallace in Little Favour and Rosencrantz in an NT Live scene from Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.

Indie short Little Favor provides another starring role for Cumberbatch. (The amount of his screen time is greater in this 26-minute film than in some full-length features now in theaters.) What is striking about this role is that Wallace is the entry character for the audience. [Often, as in Sherlock, for example, another character (in this case, John Watson) is the “everyman” who provides insights into the plot or other characters. In The Fifth Estate Daniel Berg leads audiences to the first glimpse of Julian Assange. However, in Little Favour, Cumberbatch not only plays a lead role and is onscreen the most time, but he also is the character the audience follows.] Ultimately, the audience’s “fate” is the same as Wallace’s—to the surprise of both. Crowd funders who supported the making of Little Favour are rewarded with a shocking (and shockingly well-made) short film. I expected Cumberbatch to be good in this indie, but what pleases me more is that he still is not only willing to act in one, especially a short film, but to personally back it and use his considerable celebrity to help get the film made. Coming off Star Trek publicity, Cumberbatch immediately filmed and helped promote Little Favour, not a project every rising star would take on, even for good friends wanting to make the movie.

Of the many Cumberbatch roles seen on screen in Florida during October and November, two originally took place on the stage of the National Theatre. During the National Theatre’s 50th anniversary gala, Cumberbatch tackled a short scene from Tom Stoppard’s Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead. The scene allowed Cumberbatch to show off his comedic timing in hitting the right beats to get a laugh from the audience. Although he was only on stage a few minutes during the multi-hour showcase, what was more important to me, as one who documents his performances, was to see him join fellow thespians of his generation on the National Theatre’s stage for the curtain call. Actors from the most recent plays took a bow first, with the progression continuing to actors starring in plays a decade ago, then two decades past, until the audience finally honored those who first performed in the National Theatre 50 years ago. Not only was Cumberbatch applauded for his role during the prestigious anniversary production (and resulting NT Live broadcasts worldwide), but he is being lauded as much for his stage performances as those on television or film. This production/broadcast also reminds audiences and critics that Cumberbatch’s career is not going to be that of the typical “Hollywood” star. Not only have some of his most memorable roles to date been on stage, but he seems eager to return, perhaps as early as next year.

He’s Everywhere This Season

Even when I went to the cinema to see a movie that does not star or include Benedict Cumberbatch in its ensemble cast, I was made aware of yet another of his projects coming to a screen near me in the next few weeks. A longer trailer for August: Osage County played before Philomena during the Thanksgiving holiday. I haven’t decided whether it is fortunate for Cumberbatch’s role as Little Charles Aiken to be shown so fully in a trailer. His total screen time in the movie is far less than that of many A-listers, such as Meryl Streep or Julia Roberts, but his “trailer time” is disproportionately greater. Audiences can hear Little Charles’ noticeable Oklahoma accent, see that this sensitive soul is willing to cry in public, and wish to hug him for that shy, endearing smile.

Moviegoers who heard or read bad reviews about The Fifth Estate or worried about watching the brutality of 12 Years a Slave and stayed home may go see August: Osage County. This may be the first time that many U.S. moviegoers will see Cumberbatch in a key role—and know who he is before they go to the theater. Audiences may have found Cumberbatch’s performance memorable in War Horse, for example, but, unless they were already Sherlock fans, few in the U.S. holiday crowds were likely to know his name back then, much less to go to the movie simply because he was in it. Cumberbatch’s higher media profile—including U.S. interviews on talk shows like Katie (in October) and Jimmy Kimmel Live (in December), as well as his appearance at the recent The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug LA premiere and in all those Hobbit trailers—pretty much guarantees greater recognition among a wider audience by the end of this year. Having two roles in much-hyped holiday films Hobbit (December 13 in the U.S.) and August: Osage County (opening on Christmas Day in the U.S.) will only add to his international fame.

Although it is easy to joke that Benedict Cumberbatch may have provided something for everyone during the latter months of 2013, from the intellectualized The Fifth Estate to the star-powered adaptation of August: Osage County, many of these films (12 Years a Slave, Fifth Estate, August: Osage County) are rated R and theoretically limit the audience to adults, which, granted, is a large portion of his fan base. Under-18 fans who came to Cumberbatch because of Sherlock primarily can look forward to The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug (as well as the return of their favorite consulting detective in early 2014). Additionally, because in the U.S. NT Live broadcasts are limited to one-time screenings in a few venues per state, many Cumberbatch fans have to travel miles if they want to see one of the recorded stage performances. I am fortunate to be able to drive 3 to 5 hours to see NT Live broadcasts. If my conversations with audience members before and after Frankenstein and the National Theatre’s anniversary celebration are anything to go by, many new Cumberbatch fans have been made through these broadcasts. (People who attend NT Live screenings may not be film aficionados or may not be aware of PBS’s Sherlock.) If Cumberbatch is not truly providing something for everyone, simply because not everyone can easily view his most recent work, at least he is showing his range of professional interests and skills.

These six performances released in October and November (as well as trailers promoting holiday films and TV series) illustrate that Cumberbatch is an actor who will not limit himself to “either/or” acting challenges: to roles in mainstream films or indies, leads or supporting roles, theatre or film (or television). His is the actor’s quest to stretch himself as a performer, sometimes quite literally, and to take on characters who might not be fashionable or easy to like but are thought-provoking and illuminating. Perhaps that diversity is what Benedict Cumberbatch can uniquely offer the entertainment industry.




Lynnette Porter is the author of Benedict Cumberbatch, In Transition: An Unauthorised Performance Biography, available through MX Publishing, Amazon US and Amazon UK, among other booksellers and book sites.

Cancer, Survivorship, and the Power of Film

Even when life seems incredibly dark, I find refuge in film’s remarkable power of storytelling and revel in sharing movies with a beloved storyteller, my brother, Bart.

Cancer doesn’t discriminate, but it does seem to enjoy being hosted by some families more than others. Three grandparents and my father died with cancer. My brother is terminally ill—his second round with colon cancer, but this time it’s Stage IV. Bart has a remarkable vitality of spirit and a strong faith, and so the upcoming holidays are just another season among many that we’ve shared.

“The cancer is mine, but the tragedy is theirs,” terminally ill James tells the audience of Third Star, the movie a bottle of pinot grigio and I probably shouldn’t have watched on the evening after the phone call to tell me that Bart’s cancer had returned. It doesn’t help that I’m far more of a Miles—who is too busy working to be a caregiver but demolished in his own way by grief—than faithful helper, Davy. I don’t handle tragedy well. I easily deal with the logistics of making appointments or arrangements, managing flights and visits, and, some of the time at least, being a good long distance listener. But I still cringe in fear at facing the prospect of being the lone survivor of my childhood family of four. As the older sibling, I should still be able to protect my little brother.

Bart not only has known me longer than anyone else on the planet, but he knows me best. We share memories of a Hoosier childhood filled with pop culture references. We know what it’s like to house a book in our head and struggle to bring it to life on our laptop.

But Bart is a storyteller, and, around chemo and its side effects, his work schedule, and a loving household made hectic with three generations living together, he still writes. He is impatient to make tangible his latest story, but he also painstakingly returns to early chapters to smooth the rough places and polish the words. One way or another, this novel will be published.

Blessed are the storytellers, for they show us both truth and hope through their talent with words and ideas. Bart is a gifted writer, and fiction is his specialty. By day, his job requires his writing to be factual and technical. Off the clock, however, his creativity comes out to play.

Although writing fiction is not my gift (if you’ve ever read my dialogue, you understand that well), I can illuminate and guide, explain not only what is key to a film or a performance but why it is significant. Unlike Bart, whose health has become a catalyst for further creativity, his cancer ate away at my interest in writing.

In the past few months, people I know well and those who only know me from my writing have asked why I haven’t been publishing online as frequently. It’s nice to know that people read what I’ve written, but my answer has been “I’m not in the mood.” Writing something new seemed rather pointless, when I considered the Meaning of Life and my top-priority relationship with my brother. Nothing much mattered beyond the day-to-day needs of my students and my conversations with Bart. When I should’ve been helping him, he instead helped me to start getting back to myself—by returning me to our mutual love of story, especially those on film.

In October, Bart and I watched Star Trek: Into Darkness together. We’d seen it individually during the summer, of course, and discussed it thoroughly in our Sunday afternoon phone marathons, but we hadn’t seen it together. Curled in our loungers in the living room, we transported onto the Enterprise for a few hours and returned to being just Bart and Lynnette—two long-time Star Trek geeks who have seen every movie together . . . and gone to cons and listened to Nimoy and met Next Gen and classic Trek cast members. When I worked at an Ohio radio station years ago, Bart sometimes drove to visit. Once I knew he was in range, I switched from adult contemporary to Nimoy’s or Shatner’s Greatest Hits, which partly explains why my career in radio was rather short lived. Sharing a movie with Bart, and making plans to see The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug in December, was an important part of our most recent visit.

Since then, films, more than ever, have become a way of coping. When I go to a cinema, I’ve forced myself to leave the house—as if not going out just because Bart often can’t is a reasonable “punishment” for being healthy and free from chemo pumps and 17 daily medications. When I see a movie, I escape from worrying about what might happen tomorrow. And specifically when I watch a film, I know that someday I’ll feel like writing about it again. In October and November, I became notorious for taking notes during multiple screenings of The Fifth Estate or the Doctor Who 50th anniversary special—and someday I’ll incorporate what I noticed, and applauded or questioned, into my ongoing book projects.

Going to a movie also connects me to other people and reminds me that we all face death but what is more important is how we embrace life. I haven’t felt like being around my friends as often as usual, because all that’s on my mind is Cancer. It doesn’t make me the most scintillating companion. Nonetheless, I need to remind myself that life goes on, and all around me are people with their own tragedies and joys. Talking with strangers connected by interest in film helps.

Standing in line outside the Enzian for an early screening of 12 Years a Slave brought me into discussions with fellow film buffs and historians. Seeing Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2 from a child’s perspective (and hearing my friend’s daughter giggle next to me) gave me permission to laugh, too. On an afternoon when I couldn’t stand to be at home yet didn’t have the motivation to write, I drove three hours south to see—yet again—the NT Live broadcast of Frankenstein and ended up having a lovely conversation about theatre, Shelley, and Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance with a half dozen women attending the matinee. A few weeks later I drove even farther to watch the NT Live’s 50th anniversary performances and, while waiting out the monsoon so I could go to my car, was pulled into a conversation about favorite scenes. I enjoyed introducing my film class to some of my favorite shorts--Dog Eat Dog, the Guerrier brothers’ The Wizard and Cleaning Up, and Little Favour--and seeing my students' reactions. Next week, for our final class meeting, we’ll “bond” over a movie—this time going to see one together at a local cinema. When I went holiday shopping this week, I picked up the extended edition of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. My brother and I liked Tolkien first, but our shared admiration of Sherlock adds a new dimension to our enjoyment of Martin Freeman’s Bilbo. Bart and I want to watch the first movie together again before we see the sequel. Given his determination and upbeat attitude, I’m confident that we’ll find a way to see it at the cinema.

Movies are an integral part of my life—and my brother’s. He introduces me to b&w classics from the ‘30s on and shares his research about actors. I forced him to listen to more about LotR than he could possibly ever want to know. We learned from the commentaries of Fritz the Nite Owl and the MST3K 'bots. When I play Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in my film class, I remember three consecutive nights in the mid-‘70s when Bart and I watched it in an art house cinema a few blocks from where our dad grew up. So perhaps it’s natural for me to find a way to express my emotions by finding a corollary to a movie character’s, or to turn to film as often as to a friend.

Writing and film are "immortal," and by feeling connected to storytellers past or current, and to one storyteller in particular, I am reminded that each of our life stories is important--moving, remarkable, unique--even though the stories inevitably come to a conclusion. I wouldn't revise mine, even this autumn, when I begin to see the back cover looming behind pages or sense the credits approaching. I do, however, want more chapters or sequels with my brother.

Unlike Bart, who’ll spend part of this weekend diligently writing a new chapter, I’m still trying to find my way back to the keyboard for long stretches of time. But I am in the mood for a movie, and Philomena has a matinee only a few blocks from home.

A Quick Review of Little Favour

Please note that this review contains information about plot and performance. If you want no details about either, CONSIDER THIS REVIEW SPOILERY AND DON’T READ IT. I have not revealed anything that I believe will diminish your enjoyment of Little Favour, but if you prefer having no knowledge of a film before you see it—please wait to read this review until you’ve seen the film.






At 26 and a half minutes, nearly 3 and a half of them credits, Little Favour may be a short, but it’s big on packing action—and symbolism—into a few scenes. A first viewing reveals the violent, shocking plot details, but a second look shows the careful way that plot has been developed, shot by shot, line by line. That “second look” makes the film far more intriguing and proves that writer/director Patrick Victor Monroe not only has a suspenseful story to tell, but, more important, knows how to frame it with specific shots that, on second viewing, unveil a deeper meaning to dialogue or a lingering close-up. This layering makes Little Favour far more than another example of Benedict Cumberbatch’s acting skill or testament to his popularity. (The film received immediate, overwhelming support from Cumberbatch fans, who contributed £86,240 last spring so that it could be made. True to Cumberbatch’s recorded promise to funders, the money was well spent by first-time filmmaker Monroe.)

Like any good short film, Little Favour prompts its audience to ask questions and want to see more. Just what is the “favour” that Wallace, known as Ace (Cumberbatch), owes old friend James (Colin Salmon)? What is the history between them, and why, as so many old friends do, did they become estranged? When James calls in the debt, he surprises Ace with a request--to look after his little girl, Lilah (Paris Winter Monroe, a talented young actor making her film debut). Of course, the cliché is that this job is not as easy as it sounds.

Monroe gets good performances from his actors but also reveals more about these characters from the shots he chooses. Even wardrobe tells part of the story. In the opening scenes, emotionally compressed Ace walks stiffly next to the much looser limbed, more confident James. Ace’s wardrobe--a form-fitting, tightly zipped leather jacket--matches his tense demeanor; he keeps his hands stuffed into pockets as he warily walks into an unknown situation. That James and Ace are opposites is clearly delineated in a silhouetted profile shot of the pair standing in front of a brick wall, separated by the visual line of a girder. Once Ace goes into action, however, the now-famous image of Cumberbatch-as-Ace, stripped to undershirt, shows his apparently natural state as a fighter.

The camera angles ably direct the audience’s attention to important details. Monroe relies on close-ups of expressions (through which James and Ace hold an entire conversation) or frequent rack focus shifts between points of view, for example. In a few places—such as intercut images reminding the audience of Ace’s promise to James—the editing seems a bit heavy handed, but overall the film easily holds audience attention, and its style keeps the story moving briskly.

By the time the lengthy credits roll and the film’s many supporters are duly thanked, viewers are aware that there’s a much deeper story yet to tell (especially for those who have not read the Indiegogo plot synopsis that reveals more backstory). Here’s hoping that SunnyMarch, including the trio of actor/producer Cumberbatch, executive producer Adam Ackland, and writer/director Monroe (who, with Will Hensel, even composes the original music), either turns Little Favour into a full-length feature or gets busy with another transfixing tale.

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.