It's called a Byronic Hero

My apologies in advance.  I generally don't like to blog and gush about Benedict Cumberbatch, but in this case I must do so to make a point.  You see, I saw Star Trek: Into Darkness and watched the entire Sherlock series, and became instantly hooked. Here you've got an actor who is handsome, if unconventionally so, but whose strength is his ability to really sink into a role.  When he plays the villain in STID, his voice is just low enough to rattle your entire chest cavity. It's like a sound check for subwoofers.  But he isn't a pure evil, but one of a villain who has taken matters into his own hands out of necessity to try to recover and protect his crew.

And when embodying Sherlock Holmes, he is every bit the completely socially-awkward genius.  The Dr. Sheldon Cooper of consulting detectives.  Yet unlike Sheldon Cooper, he is also alluring, enticing the audience one scene at a time with a subtle charm.  While calling himself a "high-functioning sociopath" you find it incredibly hard to believe that his personality is that extreme considering the subtlety of care that Sherlock exhibits to those who he keeps closest.

So, what annoys me about Scott Christian's brief blurb introducing the trailer for The Fifth Estate is this notion of Hero-Villain.  Frankly, there is no such thing.  It just happens to be that as his star is on the rise, audiences have started to transition from "Oh, it's that guy" to actually having a name for this fellow: Benedict Cumberbatch.

What we can surmise is that he's comfortable as both villain and hero, but not as flat, two-dimensional characters. And I believe we would find him far less interesting.  As an actor he is adept at playing complexity and it suits him.

In fact, I believe the part he plays best the Byronic Hero.  Namely, right now his best role has been Sherlock hands down.  I believe that Benedict Cumberbatch has become the poster boy for the modern Byronic Hero.  TVTropes.com defines it well:

Byronic Heroes are charismatic characters with strong passions and ideals, but who are nonetheless deeply flawed individuals who may act in ways which are socially reprehensible, and whose internal conflicts are heavily romanticized. Some of their attitudes and actions may be considered immoral, and their bad actions may be as numerous as those which are heroic, but never are they evil just [just for evil's sake]; some are portrayed with a suggestion of dark crimes in their past, but never enough concrete details to establish that they actually kicked the dog. 

I believe that Benedict Cumberbatch happens to be a phenomenal actor who plays a Byronic Hero well, and audiences lap it up.  And, if the trailer is any indication, he is going to be flat-out phenomenal as the extremely controversial Julian Assange in The Fifth Estate. 

So instead of calling a character archetype a Hero-Villain, let's be much more specific.  Hero and villain can't be just hyphenated and made in to its own archetype.  It comes across as just plain lazy.

It's not like we are unfamiliar with Byronic Heroes.  There is an air of them in many of the major film franchises like the Batman reboots from Christopher Nolan.  Even consider the fantastic qualities of Severus Snape in the Harry Potter franchise.  Dark and brooding, possible villain, or not, or as he turns out to be the ultimate Byronic Hero.  Obviously, the Byronic Hero is here to stay, and it would be really lovely if we could learn the tropes if we are going to discuss them in popular media.

Nerd Hope

Having just returned home from my second viewing of Man of Steel, this time in 3D, I do so from an entirely different perspective.  This round, I managed to read and watch a few interviews with Henry Cavill about landing the iconic role of Superman.

I knew going into the movie the first time that Cavill was a British actor who I had only seen years ago in The Count of Monte Cristo, and that he hadn't been in anything else that I had seen.  Oh, and I thought he looked the part from the production stills.  Probably the most naturally Superman-ish fellow since the childhood days of Christopher Reeve.

What I expected was an interview that revealed a usual handsome fellow.  In the states he would be a total jock from the day of his birth, a dozen babes kissing the hem of his garments.  Since he is from the isle of Jersey, I still expected a typically hot, popular, jock.  Maybe he plays polo or soccer or rugby.  And I have to out myself for journalistic integrity and say that I haven't researched what his background is in sports.  But Henry Cavill is proof positive that you cannot judge a book by its cover.

I have a revelation for you: Henry Cavill is a nerd.

By all rights he would earn honorary nerd street cred by just appearing as the quintessential comic book hero that launched an empire.  But there are actually two other reasons that make him fully-vested as nerd.

1. Henry Cavill was ridiculed for being fat. Looking at Cavill's rippling muscles beneath the iconic suit as well as completely shirtless it seems almost completely preposterous. I mean, when he enters a room, don't women's undergarments just fly off of their own free will?

From beneath an occasionally bowed head of embarrassment, in recent interviews he admits to having been called fat as a kid.  Rather than let that label control him the rest of his life, what did he do? He ate  better.  He turned it around.  

I'm imagining all overweight, self-conscious, prepubescent boys being immediately bolstered by this revelation.  There is hope that they too, may one day, be handsome grownups.  I like that.

2.  He missed the phone call telling him he won part because he was playing video games.  And what video game in particular? Was it Call of Duty? Maybe Halo? Nope.

He missed his phone call, saying he got the part of Superman, because he was playing....

WORLD OF WARCRAFT

I kid you not. 

Total nerd street cred.

So for other gamers like me, suddenly Henry Cavill is just a little bit cooler.  He's not above playing video games and missing hearing his phone ringing.  He's one of us.

Just one of us with ridiculous abs.

A New Era

Fall usually ushers in our love for scarves, hats, and crunching leaves. For me it always ushers in that sense of renewal.

While I could go into the many reasons why fall is the season of choice for me, one big and quite fantastic reason is that the last day of September is the illustrious day of my nativity.

Enjoying my birthday with a  Guinness.
 "They come in pints??!!"

This year's celebration of my birth marked a rather grand passing from one decade into the next.  Now I get to check out and try to prove correct the adage that 40 is the new 30.  I'll just have to see about that. What I do know is that just a couple days prior I was carded, did my little happy dance, and was given the "No way!" reaction when she looked at my I.D. and I told her I was about to turn 40.

And frankly, my last week of being 30-something was perhaps one of the most interesting yet and has absolutely added perhaps the most spectacular LML (Love My Life) blog entry yet. While I have yet to find a teaching position that works for me, that I would be qualified for, I realized that my roll-with-it mentality doesn't confine me to that particular job pursuit.  As some other doors have been opening up that, granted, don't make me large amounts of cash quickly, they seem to indicate what could possibly be a plausible career direction.

Case in point: Film Series Planning.

A good friend of mine is a professor at my grad school Alma Mater and was kind enough to offer me the job of helping him plan a film series.  This has proven to me that I am pretty darn good at publicity, public relations, planning events, and may possibly lead to an income doing grant writing for various non-profits. I love the idea of finding funding for worthy causes and utilizing my writing skills for making a difference!

As part of a discussion of the various mythologies of Greek and Early American Literature, my good professor friend has a fantastic way of including pop culture in ways that are different and creative.  The first in the film series was Meredith Willson's The Music Man starring Robert Preston and Shirley Jones.  I spent a good chunk of hours helping publicize and negotiate between departments, draw up a personal appearance contract, and schedule with talent management the appearance of Shirley Jones.

Sara's Shirley Jones Nirvana

In the end, I got to sit back and watch The Music Man on a large screen, and listen to Shirley Jones answer questions about the making of this classic film.  It was fantastic!

Having such moments at the end of my thirties has thrown down a gauntlet for my forties. What could top this? Why, just watch and see.

Ushering in my new era this way makes me all the more convinced that I have amazing things yet ahead of me in my life.














******************************************************************************

And to usher in this inaugural era of life, I'm joining the Ultimate Blog Challenge again.  This time, hopefully I will succeed!

Since I mentioned LML--> Blog Hop

Beyond "The Hunger Games" Hype

For months I've had friends aplenty reading the entire Hunger Games trilogy, so when my friends were touting the amazement from the rooftops, I had to retain my air of detached skepticism.  It's what I do.

I admittedly had read about a chapter and a half of "Hunger Games" before I felt like I was being bored to tears and wanted to skip ahead.  While I did get assurances of it getting better, I had my doubts so I abandoned ship.

So now "The Hunger Games" has been out long enough to make it to the sweet spot of risk.  When you are low on cash about the last thing I wanted to do was risk my dollars on some B-grade sci-fi flick at full price. Now that it had made it to my local discount theater it reached that low-risk sweet spot.

The first third of the movie suffered from NYPD Blue Syndrome.  That is what I term the documentary, shaky-cam style of shooting that seems like it's done so unnecessarily like it was the first season of NYPD Blue.  Shaky-cam style must be used sparingly lest your audience feel like they need motion sickness pills with their popcorn.  And frankly darting from caked on makeup to someone's elbow really doesn't add to the drama.

As well, our thrusting into post-apocalyptic was a little disorienting.  I had heard who Effie was from people who had already read the novels and seen the movie, but had I not listened to anyone say anything about this movie, I would have no idea who the wild, pink-haired, hostess was.  I still don't really recall her true introduction, except possibly in passing from Haymitch, and even then I'm not sure her name was actually mentioned.  When the movie was over I had to read the credits to figure it out.

As with most films, this one started to pick up when Stanley Tucci's character, Caesar. As an actor, I contend that addition of him somehow will pick up any sort of middling film. From then on, he ushered in a better sense of continuity, as though maybe in adapting the film they didn't quite know how to get us to where we needed to be in order for the main action to take place.

From then on, it was quite good with the only real distraction being the inability to film a decent fight scene.  Some critics have argued that the director was concerned about showing too much detail in teens killing each other.  While this is a valid concern, a decent fight scene doesn't necessarily have to show up-close gore to be effective.  Instead, fight scenes often were tedious because the audience member often didn't know which end was up.  Did the hero/heroine get the upper hand or did the enemy?  I believe it had more to do with directors not really knowing how to film a fight scene so as not to show too much detail and yet give the audience visual clues as to what is going on.  This was evident in the first three Bourne films.  The first Bourne film had amazing fight scenes, whereas the director of the subsequent two obviously didn't have that same eye.

All-in-all, it was a decent film. However, not nearly the landmark, GREAT movie that I had heard people raving about for months.  In my opinion, many walked into the film with a story that they gushingly fell in love with ahead of time, often spending sleepless nights to finish.  Since they obviously did a decent job of translating book to screenplay, the rose-colored glasses that came with the novel, remained on through the entire film.

However, those of us who wanted the pure film experience I believe will find it amusing, entertaining, but certainly not of the caliber of say "The Avengers."

Hidden gems

I don't know about you, but I have come to realize that marketing can be huge.  Sometimes the power of say commercials can cause a television network to dump an otherwise successful show, or can doom a movie to be a flop simply in the short clip presentation.

Lately I have become aware of the priceless nature of finding the hidden story.  Lurking out there are stories that someone should be reading, and movies we should be watching because you will walk away feeling happy, enriched, and perhaps even appreciating life a little bit more.

This week, I have encountered two such movies.  The first was "We Bought a Zoo."  My guess is that the people putting the clips together to advertise on television latched on to exactly two plot points:


1) There is a cute little girl.

2) There are zoo animals.

Cute girl + zoo animals = schmaltzy kids movie.

WRONG.  So wrong.



These are NOT the point of the movie.  If I were to give a fair summary, I would say this movie is about reinventing yourself after tragedy.  It is about family.  It is about determination.  It is about hope.  It is not about cute kids and parading animals.

While I personally love superhero movies, things exploding, and spies jumping off of skyscrapers, in a world as tense as ours is these days we need things that keep hope alive.  That celebrate the goodness in people.

Love and determination I believe are themes that we can't dismiss.

And not Hollywood love, either, but demonstrations of loyalty, courage, and generosity.

Which brings me to my second undervalued movie this week, which is "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel".

What I believe this drama suffered from was an older cast.  What should be an asset, in the eyes of marketing, becomes a hindrance.   While the movie stars what I consider to be some of the best actors over the age of 50 out there, they are all older.  And the movie is about being older, but also about getting out of your comfort zone and living life to the fullest.

However, we've seen with successful television shows like "Harry's Law" that unless it appeals to an audience of 18-49, you don't exist.  Nevermind the fact that baby boomers are over 49 and assuredly financially strapped...so are 18-49 year olds.  We're all a little more cash poor than we were a few years ago.  Money is money.

I really believe that were this film marketed more and better it would have appealed to a wider audience, much like "We Bought a Zoo."  And much like the other movie, theater patrons would have been treated to solid acting, interesting dramatic plot, and a definite feeling of warmth and goodness to carry with you.

Truly there is value in film, much like literature, that leaves its mark on you for days and years afterwards.

Shouldn't we all be striving to take in films that enrich our lives?