Okay. I just have to say something about some of these points, because I do think that several of the ideas it expresses and has elicited from commenters are missing at least part of the point here.Ā
1. Itās a cultural thing. Iāve seen several people say things along the lines ofĀ āmaybe you have to be British to understand (whatever), butā¦.ā To that, I have to say, YES, maybe you do. Maybe it bears remembering that, common language aside, this is actually a different culture, one which has been poignantly and rather dreadfully marked by class warfare. To understand it first means needing to get inside an understanding of that culture at a deeper level. A lot of pop culture things are extremely America-centric. This isnāt one of them. And thatās okay.Ā
2. Morality is not the point of acting. Iāve seen several comments asking what the overallĀ āmessageā orĀ āpointā of this story and/or character is, and in my view, thatās just not the right question to be asking. Not everything is about a moral point, or conveying a specific message. Acting is, simply point, the art form of telling a story by living it out. Does every story have a moral message? No. Some stories are just - stories. And thatās okay, too. Itās also okay not to like that story, but to not like it specifically because it doesnāt hammer home some sort of moral message isnāt really fair. In my view, thatās a rather specifically puritannical demand to be making of any art. Itās like asking what Monetās WaterliliesĀ āmeansā. It doesnātĀ āmeanā anything: itās just waterlilies. Patrick Melrose is just a story about a man. If anything, itās about an author working out his own traumatic experiences and his rather tragic life choices through his own creation. Again, itās fine not to like it, but to fault it for not existing specifically to teach a lesson of some sort is a flawed critique, in my view.
Actors choose to play characters generally because they find the character interesting, compelling, because it would challenge them to live another person (real or fictional)ās experience in ways that would stretch them. Itās not about teaching the audience something, necessarily. Some of Benedictās projects have had a secondary point along those lines, such as shedding light on Alan Turingās historical contributions and the injustice of the way his own countryĀ āthankedā him for it, and he spent a lot of time talking about that in the press junket for that film. But as an actor, thatās very likely not the first priority he had in mind when choosing the role. As a (former) opera singer, I always went for roles and characters that I found interesting, and they were most frequently not good people. (In opera, voice types and character types generally go together, and my type is generally strong, often destructive women - goddesses, valkyries, queens, nobility - women who self-destruct or are destroyed by others, etc). I chose them because playing that kind of thing is fun. Itās an outlet to live out something that hopefully you donāt do in your own life. Again, if thereās a life lesson for the audience to take away, thatās sort of a side bonus, not the main point.Ā
As to Benedict himself, in choosing this role, I fully disagree with the comments Iāve seen that claim that he essentially is the same sort of class as Patrick Melrose. Patrick speaks with a different (higher class) accent than Benedict does, and his familyās finances are not comparable with the Carlton/Ventham householdās when Benedict was growing up. Itās true that he went to public (private, to North American ears) schools and such, but his parents are pretty frank about how they scrimped and saved to be able to send him to places like that. He may have become wealthy through his adult success, but he didnāt grow up in the same circles at all, and while it may look similar from the perspective of another culture, itās not the same thing, and in the UK that still is a BIG difference. Itās definitely true that he was privileged, but these arenāt the same social strata.Ā
3. About the story itself: Iām reading the novels right now, and while I find them bleak, I also find them completely compelling. The roving narrator irks me, but the prose is rather beautiful. Then again, I also adore dystopia, so bleak is not a strike against these novels for me. Itās not everyoneās cup of tea, but again, not being a fan of the genre or content is not a strike against the showās quality. This is a general distinction that I find people, in the fandom and out, tend to fail to make.Ā āYou wrote this and I donāt like that kind of thing; therefore this is a bad quality storyā is a flawed and unfair argument. Just to be clear, Iām not just talking about your post specifically, @alexxphoenix42; Iām also talking to and about a lot of the comments and asks Iāve been seeing in response to it. I agree that this is difficult material to watch. Itās meant to be: Edward St. Aubyn clearly had a really difficult, painful life, and one of the ways people deal with trauma like his are by trying to express it through art and writing and music. I find his expression of it painful, yet utterly compelling. Itās also a story about addictions and how incredibly difficult they are to overcome, especially when the underlying issues behind them havenāt been adequately dealt with. If weāre going to discuss morality, then I donāt think that theyāve glamorized Patrickās behaviour in any way at all: if anything, I see them drawing incredibly clear parallels between the damage his father inflicted on him, and the damage his behaviour is inflicting on his own son. Heās definitely not coping with it well, and itās painful to watch a man spiral out of control the way he was in this episode. Heās not meant to be an entirely sympathetic character: heās meant to be a real person.Ā
Just to summarize these very long comments (apologies!), I feel that the better questions to be asking of the series are more like this: is this character realistic? Is he being well portrayed? Is the story interesting? Is the cinematography good? Is the casting/acting good? Does it hold my attention? Does it make me feel something? Is it a good page-to-screen adaptation (if youāve read the books)? @alexxphoenix42, I hope you donāt mind my comments? (You did invite other perspectives!) To sum up, I do very much think that itās a well-made show, that the acting is brilliant, that the source material is compelling, and from an acting perspective I can absolutely see why Benedict might have wanted to play this character. But itās not comfortable to watch, thatās for sure. I watch it to watch his range, and the story hooks me and pulls me into its despair. I can absolutely grant that itās not going to be everyoneās cup of tea! Iām going to go and find something lighter to read before turning in, but I also canāt wait for the final installment. To each their own, of course, but there are my (five) cents! Iām very much open to discussing any of this with anyone, though it should be noted that I donāt accept anonymous asks and I will unhesitatingly ignore and delete mindless hate speech on the subject of Benedict. :)Ā
kianamaiart
dailybridgerton
ellievsbear
prguitarman
blakekathryn
stormborns
gummygunk
origamiaround
