Little Dorrit

Little Dorrit This miniseries (really LONG miniseries, thank-you Charles Dickens), amazes. It astounds. It appalls. Although I highly enjoy both the leading and title roles, the actor whose true talent shines here turns out to be Andy Serkis.

Yes, my dears, Gollum. How ridiculous to pin him down to such a role! His thespianic (did I just coin a really stupid word?) talents rival Johnny Depp. Let me explain.

So I was watching Little Dorrit for the second time quite late last night when I just happened to begin reading the back of the DVD case. I glanced through the cast list. I think I recognize Claire Foy, Matthew Macfadyen, a few others, and then I saw Andy Serkis. Just the name, and I thought, "isn't he that weasely fellow on 13 Going On 30?" I pondered for a moment. Yes, he certainly is. I remember. That guy played Gollum too, although I'm sure he had a ton of help from SE. That trilogy was pretty CGI intensive.

Then I thought, "I don't recall any weasely fellows in Little Dorrit. None that look like HIM, anyhow! so I pondered a bit more. Wait. . . the French guy has dark hair. . .

I could barely believe it. I paused the film and rushed upstairs to check the computer. Sure enough, IMDB.com declares undeniably that the same actor who played Tesla's humble assistant on The Prestige also played our unfortunate Rigaud.

He's brilliant. Everything about him in this film differs widely from his other characters. His voice is completely different. His shoulders, his expressions, everything has been poured into this pitch-black villain.

I sing the praises of the actors craft, and I laud the skills of the character actor. Leading men so very often neither require nor use such extraordinary genius, but the character actors must pare themselves down into such extraordinary roles!

Andy, I am a fan.
Also, you owe much to your make-up artist and costumer :)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lost in Austen

Image
My co-worker warned me about Lost in Austen . She said it was cheesy, and from the few clips forced on me by a very fanatically-inclined little sister, I would have completely agreed. In context, though, I think it all sort of fit, although it's not exactly Emmy material. I really liked what they did to this story, but my reasoning is a bit complex. I have read Pride and Prejudice perhaps seven times. The only books I have read more often are Heart of Darkness (8) and The Book of Mormon (?). That doesn't mean that I like the work, just that my professors did. I admit, I liked the book very well the first three times. The romance was classic and endearing, and the language was fluid and fun. Then came Austenmania, and I jumped ship. Jane Austen wrote some enjoyable stories, but I wouldn't rank her any higher than Georgette Heyer (this coming from the same person who ranks Shakespeare with Steven Spielberg). And at this point, having seen every version of P&P ever fil...
Read more

Salt

Image
This film had all the elements of a classic cold-war spy thriller in much the same way State of Play reprised journalism drama. Both Liev Schreiber and Angelina Jolie played very well, especially off each-other, and although this film must essentially showcase stunts and physical effects, the plot and ending work quite well too, without becoming too belabored or falling into too many cliche traps. Salt is ultimately exciting and fun, but don't try to wrangle a classic out of it.
Read more

The Fountain

Image
This film should only be watched once. As a second-time viewer, I knew approximately how it ended, and how the three epic stories tied together, but it wasn't pleasant to watch. It wasn't pleasant the first time, but at least the images were striking, and felt like some kind of voyage of discovery. Watching this again was a bit like watching The Sixth Sense for the fourth time. The impact had disappeared. For most of the film, the camera moved toward those truly frustrating close-up, poser shots that so irritated me about Master and Commander . I understand that these are pretty people, and they earn the money, and so they get close-ups, but when it doesn't enhance the plot or the artistic composition as a whole - when it doesn't create unity, then it has no place. Actors should understand that, and have a serious heart-to-heart with their directors about it. I usually enjoy watching Rachel Weisz, but in this film she seemed flat, passive, and enervated. To be fa...
Read more