Tom Hiddleston has a pretty decent interview in the new issue of TimeOut London. You can read the full piece here – he talks a bit about The Night Manager (which is airing in the UK right now), but the bulk of the interview seems to be about High Rise. While I’ve been feeling like Tom has been making the effort to tone done the Tumblr part of his fandom (like Bendy Cumberbatch before him), I also think Tom has been making an effort to work on better answers to some of the more sensitive questions he gets frequently. Like, in his Guardian interview a few months ago, Tom came across as rather blasé about the whole posh-versus-working class actors issue, but in this interview, he tries out a new argument.
Power: “The film and the novel could be read as a reflection of what is happening today. Power lies in the hands of a very small percentage of the populace, in all professions: politics, law, the media and, yes, the arts too. That’s why the education of actors, including myself, has become a recurring theme and a cause for debate in recent times.”
Acting should not be dominated by posh actors: “It is unhealthy for any society to be represented in any sphere of life, including the arts, by one social group. I understand that. I strongly agree with that. More must be done to keep the doors open for everyone. The picture of your life shouldn’t have to be dictated by the circumstances in which you were born. Everyone deserves the chance to follow their chosen vocation. Britain is not yet a meritocracy. I hope that changes in my lifetime. If I could think of an easy solution, I’d advocate it right now. These are complex, uneasy times.”
What makes him angry: “Prejudice. If I witness prejudice, it drives me bananas. It’s incredibly limiting, on any level. Race, background, religion. I mean, look at Trump, and the sort of things he’s said about Muslims. I was furious about it. That’s hate speech.”
Whether he’s experienced prejudice: “Probably. I try just to dodge it. Of course I think people have got me wrong; I think people have certainly made quick judgments which are perhaps not accurate, but then you spend your life trying to prove people wrong – I love doing that. I don’t get angry about prejudice towards actors. That’s just part of the job.”
Whether he’s considered what he would be like serving in the military: “Yes I did, and the answer is: I don’t know. I’ve thought about it a lot because I’ve played so many soldiers. If you take Loki out of the equation, almost everybody I’ve played is a soldier. There was Captain Nicholls in “War Horse” and Freddie Page in “The Deep Blue Sea”. I’ve played Shakespearean soldiers in “Coriolanus” and “Henry V”.’
British actors finding consistent work in America: “Maybe there was something that happened around the time Hugh Laurie started to be in “House” on TV. What trickled down to my generation was a sense that as a British actor you didn’t need an invitation to go over to America, you could just go and try your luck. I think that is what’s happened. British actors who are succeeding – like Tom Hardy, Benedict Cumberbatch, Nicholas Hoult and Idris Elba – these are people who decided to go out there and see what happened. Before then, you had to be in some extraordinary British success and then you could head out there. I remember that new sense of possibility.”
It’s both amusing and upsetting to continually hear about British and European reactions to Donald Trump. Like, I get it. After eight years of Obama’s even temper, America is working out some internal drama and it’s messy and people out there are concerned. But… the UK has hyper-conservative wingnut politicians too. As does France, Germany and nearly every NATO power. As for Tom’s poshness and his hope that the doors are kept open for everyone… it feels like he’s still shrugging and saying, “But what do you want me to do?” While I agree that it’s not like he should refuse to work until more working class actors get jobs, there are things he could do. I mean, even Benedict Cumberbatch is an ambassador for the Prince’s Trust, which hands out scholarships to poor and working class kids.
Photos courtesy of WENN, Fame/Flynet.
And what is it, specifically, that he should be doing? I understand he financially supports a scholarship at RADA. And he does something with a regional theater somewhere? There are probably other things he does that we don’t know about.
I predicted this would happen in another thread. Now he’s got a decent answer for the privilege question, the next step is, ok, what is he going to do about it? Even though others have said that all they wanted from his was to admit his privilege, or to admit to the structural inequality of the system in which he benefits.
The *only* path to a meritocracy is providing equal educational opportunities to all children beginning at pre-school. This includes nutritional school lunches, and ideally ensuring that all communities have equal access to nutritional food to support intellectual development at early ages.
Obviously, I’m coming from an American perspective here, where many communities lack proper supermarkets for buying produce and other non-processed foods. I’m only guessing that this is also an issue in Britain.
Point being, the path to a meritocracy is obvious, but implenting and sustaining it is much harder. What he can do is speak about this publicly and often to impact opinion and support legislation.
I don’t disagree about opportunities starting with the very young. I do, however, question the sentiment that wealthy actors should be implementing changes for school lunches?
shouldnt we be looking to our politicians for that?
Sloaney, see my response to Sixers below. I may not understand the British dynamics at play, but I’ve explained my point of view a bit.
The supermarket thing, not at all. The UK and the US are significantly different in some ways due to geography. The UK is a minuscule island, no one lives that far from anywhere. For example supermarkets deliver to basically everywhere in Britain (except perhaps some of the very small islands that only have a small number of people living there). The UK does not have food deserts.
We definitely don’t have food deserts as the US does. I had a stonking row once on another American board in which the other posters flatly refused to believe me that I could order a home delivery of groceries with a 1 hour delivery window at a cost of £1-£2 – all from a major supermarket 24/7/365.
Having said that, eating healthily in the UK is considerably more expensive than eating unhealthily, as I believe is the case in the US. Fruit and vegetables cost more money than chicken nuggets and all the other unhealthy processed foods. Food poverty is a very real thing here. Access to food? Not so much.
So true but some people will not be satisfied no matter what he says
Equal educational opportunities are a start, but the elites protect their own when it comes to getting jobs. This happens everywhere and not just in the UK.
Perhaps I just see the imbalance more because I am a lawyer and the old boys network is strong, but I have seen way too many examples of the mediocre kids of rich parents get positions over the one who had the best grades and had a strong work ethic.
I don’t see that how that part changes.
Meritocracy ends when people have to get a job and then who you know matters a whole lot more.
Nin919- I absolutely see what you’re saying. My point was mostly that it’s disingenuous to say *shrug* but what can we do? Changing attitudes is a big part of effecting societal change, and high profile figures – whether actors, politicians, or philanthropists can be a big part of that.
Nic that is absolutely correct. I speak from personal experience when I say slogging through a mediocre school system to get top grades, all the while filling shelves in a super market to pay for the essentials, only to see the best jobs going to ‘mates’ can leave you very, very tired and very cynical. I would be happy if they started by getting rid of unpaid internships and made sure all positions in the public sector were allocated through a a fair selection procedure. That was something Nick Clegg proposed and Cameron vetoed, he didn’t see any problem helping out his chums kids, but lets face it, that was exactly why his parents sent him to Eton.
UK does have hyper right wing politicians but their political spectrum is way more large. Like the one comparable to Republicans would be UKIP who is their joke and no intelligent person takes them seriously. Their Tory’s would be a kind of right of center.
Also posh kids who act like they have no idea how to help out the poorer ones annoy me. James McAvy who came from so much a poorer background has his own scholarship. Think with that Oxbridge educated brain.
I was thinking about bringing James up. He has his scholarship and just got auctioned off for 14000 pounds in support of a program for young actors hosted by the National Theatre in London. Now imagine how much a lunch with Tom could rake in. He won’t change the system, definitely not, but there is quite easy stuff that he can do.
Also, a meritocracy?
There’s no way TH should ever auction himself off, no matter how worthy the cause. Not with his crazy fan base. That sounds like a prime opportunity to end up chained to the wall in someone’s Loki sex dungeon.
I wouldn’t call it a dungeon exactly…
given yourself away there browniecakes – we’ll know where to look if he goes missing. 🙂
::cancels contribution to @browniecakes’s TH auction Go Fund Me:: 🙂
I was at the NT auction, and it’s only a small part of the work they’re doing to increase diversity in all areas. Wonderful.
I would pay more for McAvoy than Hiddleston.
I think the big difference isn’t that we don’t have extreme right politicians. We do, in the sense of market fundamentalists, even in the mainstream Tory Party. Arguably, in the supposedly left of centre Labour Party, too!
What we don’t have is a religious right (unless you are in Northern Ireland). So there is broad, reasonably progressive, consensus on social issues.
PS: Corny – I’m trying to be nice about LEGS since he has improved his usual position in this interview. Credit where it’s due. But I do agree it’s disingenuous to speak as though the problem is intractable. Of course it isn’t. And everyone knows what the problems are: elite institutions dominating access; cultural matching in hiring. There are perfectly do-able solutions to these things. I still don’t think it’s on LEGS or any other individual to address the margins through philanthropy though.
@SIXER it obviously is not. But he speaks in such a way as if there is no solution in sight and that is grating.
@ Cornyblue, there is no solution IN SIGHT in the UK at the moment.
I don’t think most political scientists would classify most market fundamentalists in the Tories as extreme right wing. Cameron and Osborne’s economic policy, while not approved of by Paul Krugman, is centre-right in nature. There are more right-wing people like Iain Duncan Smith, but they don’t dictate Conservative economic policy.
And whilst it is true that Oxbridge-educated people dominate public life, both Oxford and Cambridge have made real strides toward admitting more working class students. It’s still not representative of the population, but I think it’s important to emphasise that there’s a difference between public schools like Eton and Harrow, which cost over £35k per year, and universities like Oxford and Cambridge, which cost the same as other universities in the UK (£9k per year) and are much more inclusive than public schools.
To add – our right wing but jobs have nowhere near the kind of support Trump had from laypeople.
I mean UKIP won one seat in parliament – that just doesn’t compare to the kind of support Trump is getting. Comparing our right wing crazies to Trump (and the scary as hell Cruz) is comparing apples to oranges.
Also kind of sick of the Oxbridge bashing – as someone who works at one half of Oxbridge, I wonder how many people who comment about our demographics are actually aware of how the admissions and outreach process works?
I hate the way that Oxbridge is treated these days, as if everyone who goes there is a toff. Half the students are from state schools. I applied to Cambridge – I didn’t get in, I didn’t get in to any of the unis I had to interview for, because I was rubbish at interviews. If I’d gotten in it wouldn’t have cost me any more than the uni I did go to. I’m first-generation university and went to the local comprehensive.
Nobody is bashing Oxbridge. What’s being bashed is the over-representation of Oxbridge alumni in the theatre, film and TV worlds in the UK, and the domination of that route into the profession: academic Oxbridge undergrad degree followed by post-grad training at other elite institutions. Other routes in, such as vocational routes through other universities, or pre-university drama schools are criminally under-represented as a route in to all areas except the less well-regarded ones, such as soaps. This isn’t a criticism of Oxbridge. It’s a criticism of cultural matching AFTER Oxbridge.
KTE, I agree with you. I don’t have a problem with Oxbridge, anyone can earn a place there if they are good enough. It is the public schools, particularly places like Eton and Harrow that I have a problem with. Those school fees ultimately open up a ridiculous number of doors to you Oxbridge contacts may do the same to a lesser degree, but at least the majority had to earn their way in.
he did not say it was intractable just that he does not think it is easily changed.I for one like it that he sticks to financial contributions and contributing through his position with the BFI and his writing.I admire James McAvoy for his acting not for his attendance at events although it is very noble of him.
I do believe that the school issue is cyclic.When i was at drama college there were only two people from boarding school and actors like Micheal Caine were all the rage.
It is also true that Eton has had an excellent drama teacher in the last 10 years who promoted drama and has counted for an increase in acting graduates from Eton
To be honest the actor issue is a red herring.It is health and education where most of the Tory damage is being done at the moment.Every time posh acting is brought up it takes the issue away from the welfare cuts etc
On top of that why are actors to often only deemed successfull l if they are famous or media centric.There are many actors happily working in community theatre, prisons,hospitals but all we ever here about are the media stars from private schools and it does become repetitious
He says HE doesn’t have a solution to offer, which is a completely different thing. And he does, in fact, use his celebrity and his money–his talk at (regional theatre) Nuffield raised tens of thousands of pounds for them. He financially assists at least one RADA student…we don’t know the extent of his philanthropy because it isn’t fully publicized. And when something he does IS publicized, then he’s clearly doing it for the wrong reasons. If some of us seem a bit defensive, it’s because we feel the bar is continually getting raised. At least acknowledging progress made (as Sixer is fair enough to do) before moving the goalposts would be more palatable.
Agreed. He said he didn’t have a solution. And it’s not his job to come up with a solution for an issue that clearly no one else has been able to solve yet. I think he did very well in this interview.
I think at this point, Tom doing anything short of dropping out of acting for being a posh toff, will be seen as an insult. And even if he DID do that, he would be picked on for being nothing but an attention whore. *shrugs*
and it still wouldn’t solve the problem.
+1000 Tom is not our messiah, he is not a diplomat, he is an actor. I don’t know why people expect SO MUCH from him, it seems almost entitled and it’s so clear now that with him, it’s damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t. It was a very good interview, he is involved in charities but the responses here come off as, “Do SOMETHING about it, Tom! Don’t just say it’s difficult, do SOMETHING! YOU’RE TOM HIDDLESTON. And this interview is not just an interview, you best have ALL the answers better than our very own POTUS.”
Ridiculous. Like someone pointed out, he said HE doesn’t have a solution, if he did, he would do what he could to implement and even then, who are we to demand that of a person?
To be fair, UKIP have only one seat because of boundary voting rules in the UK. Four million people voted for UKIP in the last election. It was just their bad luck they didn’t live in the same areas. Tory government persecutes poor people at expense of their rich friends. IDS perhaps does not dictate government policy but he charges poor people for having too much space in their houses, and universal credit has been a complete and yet entirely typical disaster for him.
The UK, France etc have right-wing nut jobs, but they are on the fringes. The scary thing about this US election is that all of the Republican candidates (including Kasich) are scary right-wing nut jobs. It’s not just about Trump. It’s also about where the centre is. Hillary Clinton would fit comfortably into the UK’s Conservative Party or the mainstream conservatives in France (Nicolas Sarkozy, not Marine Le Pen).
Exactly! For all the guises of an advanced nation US is very much conservative.
Trump scares me-i could see him starting the next world war
.
I love The Mac and his willingness to put his money and time into something he cares about.
There are differences, of course, but there is a segment of the U.S. population who are wealthy, usually children of someone in the business, who have much easier access to Hollywood than someone without those connections and resources. Is it worse in Great Britain?
I cringe at the Donald references as well, out of embarrassment that it’s even a genuine topic of conversation, but I can’t blame other countries for their concern.
I wasn’t completely comfortable with his answer about whether he has ever experienced prejudice. We have all been judged unfairly by someone who doesn’t know us, and I suppose that’s prejudice, but let’s not pretend it’s the same soul grinding, day to day struggle of many people experiencing systematic, societal prejudice on a daily basis. I guess he didn’t mean that it was, but that made me cringe a little.
And nowhere in Tom’s answer did he pretend it’s the same, or that it has the same gravity. In fact, he sounded rather dismissive about any prejudice turned his way.
I said as much.
“We have all been judged unfairly by someone who doesn’t know us, and I suppose that’s prejudice, but let’s not pretend it’s the same soul grinding, day to day struggle of many people experiencing systematic, societal prejudice on a daily basis.”
GNAT – this has been my ongoing critique of LEGS for some time. But what he says here is a huge improvement on the way he’s expressed it previously. So y’know. Progress! Baby steps are better than no steps!
Right! I didn’t mean it as a harsh criticism. Just that he might be a little more aware of his own privilege.
Are you American, GNAT? I only ask because there is a little language difference that has caught me out before when talking about race, privilege, discrimination etc.
IME, US “racism” = UK “institutional racism” i.e. the way society is set up to benefit white people.
US “prejudice” = UK “racism” – an individual reaction based on skin colour or ethnicity.
UK “prejudice” is a level below that again, it’s a relatively minor thing about not liking someone you barely know for a trivial reason. Like what car they drive or where they grew up. Obviously a prejudice can “scale up” to full blown racist bigotry, but I’m reading it as having the trivial meaning here.
🙂
so if someone does experience prejudice they are not allowed to discuss it unless you are poor ,sent to a state school,When i first came to the UK there was a lot of anti American prejudice and because they were unable to recognise a Canadian accent I came in for a lot of prejudice.Did it wreck my life no but it did effect employment chances on occasion quite possibly .
I was once told by a nurse in a very loud voice on the ward that my daughter had a boys name-i explained that in my country of origin it was a girls name-and she gave me a 10 minute lecture saying that if you are going to live in the UK you should live my its customs etc.
So…
I think it’s really great that actors, as public figures, are asked interesting questions about social issues…
but I just want to hear him talk dirty, or list the qualities of his ideal woman (which match my personality perfectly), or discuss how he is looking to find a lovely, chubby nerd to settled down with.
Is that so wrong?
Lol! Thank you Grump, you’ve made my morning.
It’s far too early on a Sunday for me to summon up any enthusiasm at all for discussing social inequality, prejudice vs. preconception, and God help me – Donald Trump. Can someone fetch me one of those chocolate-chip pancakes and fresh up the beverage station? The only rousing debate I want to have today is whether a bellini or a mimosa is the superior brunch beverage.
Colin is bringing you the pancakes and both beverages so you can taste-test.
Grump, no, it’s so right. The first moment I laid eyes on Loki, I wasn’t questioning his pedigree, just drooling, but now that this is a thing, I can’t look away. I want him to Loki up but then go all “Norma Rae” on the establishment.
Grump, I feel ya. I want to hear more naughty talk from The PuddleTom too. Who’s gonna find fault with his dirty little mind? Not me.
No desire to hear LEGS go all dirty talk here. When that other one went dirty in the Elle interview it was absolutely cringe-worthy. I’d prefer to keep my fantasy boyfriends as imagined in my head: reality is so disillusioning.
The Night Manager returns this afternoon. Maybe Jonathan Pine will have something dirty to say. And fingers crossed that a second season gets made and that Tom is in it.
Will be interesting lilacflowers, because the ending of the serial is, apparently, not the same as the ending in the book. If they called the second season the same title so to speak either Tom or a replacement Tom would have to be in it. But of course the second series, if it happens, might not have the night manager himself in it.
Right? Because Angela Burr, no matter how fabulous Olivia Coleman is and I do hope she carries over, isn’t the night manager and it wouldn’t make sense for every spy she handles to have been a hotel manager. So, either a name change or Tom carries over too.
THERE MAY BE SPOILERS.
I’m trying not to give things away for those who haven’t read the book. It will depend on what happens to Tom Hiddleston at the end of this series as to whether he is in the next (if there is one, and he wants to) or whose story they follow. Because we don’t who if any will survive the end of the first series. As I said, they have changed the ending from the one in the book.
Sorry if I didn’t make it clear.
I have read the book (it’s my boyfriend’s favorite) but I am interested in seeing what changes are made. Especially as I didn’t like the original ending.
Nothing dirty to say. Just the green henley of sex. And swimming. And tennis playing with a shirt that won’t stay put. There is absolutely no doubt that a woman directed this series.
And I bet you aren’t complaining lilac. I think this series is getting better.
Me too lilac, it was a bit unsatisfactory.
I think it’s a good idea to tone done the Tumblr part of his fandom, I searched a few actors names on tumblr (just out of curiosity) and some of the pages are downright scary, they’re deep into fantasyland.
On another note entirely, he really carries a suit well. Is there any other actor who looks better in suit? 🙂
Yeah, a lot of them actually.
Oh god yes, especially for British actors
For me it’s Colin Firth and Idris Elba. Love Tommy too, but they have the swagger.
Fair enough haha 🙂 ,maybe I exaggerated a little bit, saying that he looks best in suit (out of ALL actors).
I don’t think you did exaggerate D, TH does look the best in a suit, can’t agree that Elba and Firth match up, particularly when Colin trips occasionally and spills all those drinks and canapés on himself. I will freely admit my bias though…
No exaggeration at all D! Tom wears clothes and moves like a dream. That’s one of his superpowers. And hello people, Tom is a master swagger, has been since Thor and perfected it in Avengers.
Well, he’s gone from “POSH PEOPLE ARE TARGETS TOO!” to “Sigh. If only the world was a better place. Such is life, though.” This is A Good Thing. For the rest of us and him. They’ll stop asking him once he stops giving away that it’s a stinging piercing of his self image every time they do. Which, presumably, is his dearest wish and the dearest wish of his fans.
Despite the straw-manning, nobody expects him to spend interviews saying, “Yes, there are probably a dozen people from Manchester housing estates that would be better actors than me if only all the doors weren’t closed to them. I’m going to refuse all further jobs, man the barricades and donate every penny I’ve ever earned to community theatre in Little Village By The Marsh.”
I don’t think anyone should be obliged into philanthropy. In fact, I think there is such a fine line between doing actual good and doing good for PR purposes with celebrities, I’m not the least bit interested in what any of them do in that vein. Unless they are outstanding types, who are clearly and passionately committed to a particular cause, whether that be widening access or not.
I think there should be equality of opportunity for all. And there isn’t. It really is as simple as that.
Frankly, once a high profile figure makes a nonsense comment like “a meritocracy would be great but what can we do?” He has obligated himself to philanthropy..or at least being the public face of the issue. You don’t get to be a limousine liberal on my watch. If you said it, you now have to do something about it.
I’m kinda beginning to think there’s a bit of transatlantic culture clash going on in some ways. Cos I do understand what you are saying.
But the huge great screeds people post in defence of LEGS (and others) that go into lengthy detail about literally any charitable sneeze they’ve ever made to show that criticising them for claiming reverse classism is unfounded has been baffling to me. I’m like: but what’s that got to do with anything? How’s that a response to my position that reverse classism does not exist any more than reverse racism does? It’s apples and oranges.
But I wonder if that it is because philanthropy has been the tradition to any widening of access in the US, but not in the UK? In the UK, it’s been free education, both undergrad and postgrad, plus government funding of regional and community arts. Philanthropy nice but not needed. Plus, UK philanthropy from the poshies has traditionally been directed at what poshies consume (Royal Opera House, etc).
Are we all just talking at angry dolphins*?
(Angry dolphins > cross porpoises > crossed purposes. My favourite joke ever. Sorry!)
I hear ya Sixer, and it might be a transatlantic miscommunication, or a west coast elitist perspective. I grew up in CA, attended public (I.e. publicly funded) school here when they were still ranked among the best in the U.S., and I’ve pursued a career in expanding educational opportunities here in CA. I live and breathe this topic, so if an LA celebrity started mouthing off about it, I’d first ask where their kids go to school. And honestly LA still does have some great public schools, in large part because rich, influential people do send their kids to public school in LA, thus supporting a system that also benefits others.
@Sixer, yes, we are definitely at angry dolphins. Here in the US, private schools (i.e. the “better schools”) have long (going back to 1636) relied on donations, particularly charitable donations from alums to build endowments, fund capital projects, and subsidize scholarships for students. US government funding for the arts is risible so arts institutions have also relied heavily on charitable donations. For many arts institutions, they periodically go through panic mode when their subscriber audiences age and they must go out and recruit whole new generations of younger donors. Currently, our government won’t even fund the repair of thousands of bridges that are about to collapse so the plight of drama students isn’t on the radar. Obamacare actually contains provisions dealing with education debt for doctors and training and increased funding for primary care docs and pediatricians (we have a severe shortage) but the entire Republican presidential clown car ticket wants to wipe that out completely without any discussion of what it does.
You mentioned on an earlier thread the frustrations of Kevin Spacey in his attempts at fundraising for theatre. I had heard about those problems when he went through it – he was rather vocal. What’s fascinating to me is that Spacey is an incredible fundraising machine. He was here in Boston shortly after the Marathon bombing and visited survivors going through rehab at Spaulding Rehab, one of the hospitals in the Partners chain (Partners is out for world domination, but that’s another story -they are worldclass hospitals that have done amazing things and they do, particularly Mass General, provide many services to low-income patients free of charge.) Spacey then made huge donations to Spaulding of his own AND raised funds from others for the survivors. The Partners people thought it was a one and done thing for him but he now shows up every few months to attend fundraising events for Spaulding and continues to raise and give large amounts of money.
And middle class Americans thinking that “owning their privilege” in such circumstances somehow does anything to improve anything for the poor, working poor, or working class is just mind-blowing to me but what would I, a product of the working class, know about what is best for me? That’s really how they come across. Laws here need to be shored up and enforced, public schools k-12 and state universities need to be well-funded and employers need to look outside their own old school networks for hiring and promotion purposes. We need to invest our tax dollars in our infrastructure (which creates jobs!) and our education system and our own people instead of wasting it bickering endlessly about building walls and war machines. That’s when change happens and life improves for all.
In terms of funding, we are not much better these days. After 8 years of austerity, there are many bigger priorities than arts and arts training funding. Sad, but true. Some marginal good news is that public opinion is beginning to change and favour investment over austerity, with priorities of health, education and social care. So a cautious yay to that.
Something could be done about cultural matching right now though, you know? On the glorious day my revolution is successful and I become UK overlord, I will mandate the BBC to do a lot more than it’s doing (with all the licence fee cash paid by the plebs). On day one!
We will get to a full understanding of each other eventually!
@Sixer, yes, eventually, we’ll get there but it will have to be without bridges because ours are crumbling and, apparently, it will be without high speed trains also because, well, we really don’t have any here and I just was listening to a radio program in the car during which two congressional people were saying that we really need to do research and study the issue to determine whether they’re safe and they don’t know where the funding for such studies could be found. Because, you know, 50 years of the bullet train in Japan and 35 years of the TGV in France aren’t enough time for our brilliant US minds to decide whether high speed rail travel is safe.
I actually thought this was a very good interview Sixer. I don’t know what else he could say regarding inequality and he certainly can’t solve the problem himself. He has acknowledged it and might quietly in his own little way be doing something behind the scenes, so to speak, to help a less fortunate actor. Unfortunately, if he is and it gets out there will always be those who will say he is only doing it for PR.
Hopefully, probably in the slightly longer term a group of less privileged actors will come to the fore. And it is odd that the ones we talk about at the moment are are male.
It was a better answer than he’s given previously… someone is reading comments and adjusting their answers accordingly. The argument made on the Hollander thread that someone’s always asking Tom to show contrition because of his poshness is overreaching and implying something that isn’t being said by the OPs. I’ve never seen that stated or even implied in the critics comments. Perhaps when a poshie demonstrates unawareness as to how much their privilege helped them in getting to where they are, they’re called to “own it”; but otherwise, it’s more “get a clue” than anything else. The wealthy aren’t terribly aware of just how easy it is for them in comparison to the 99%.
(CHANGING THE SUBJECT)
Sixer, after jumping in Shetland at ep. 2 and watching to the end of series, it’s become one of my favorite dramas — up there with Happy Valley & Broadchurch, rounding out the podium. I wish I could watch the first two series for the background. I got the sads when Tosh said she was leaving. To me, she and Doug are the heart of that show and I can’t bear the thought of her not being a part of it.
Dougie is a cutie pie, I can see why you’d pull shanks on Archie for him. I find his peach fuzz quite hawt.
Did you catch Thirteen? I thought it was rather interesting… the score was a bit weird, but I thought the chick that played Ivy was impressive.
(Subject also changed. Play the ball, not the man, eh?!)
I love Shetland – always a fan of anything that builds in landscape. Same reason I enjoy Hinterland, you know? But I also think that entire Shetland cast does some fine acting and they always get in quality guest stars. Plus, Dougie. I’d let him into my boudoir sans ball gag. You won’t find Dougie defending privilege, that’s for sure! He looks fine and his opinions are right on too. What more could I want?!
Thirteen is sitting on my recorder. Hoping to get to it tonight!
Play the balls ON the man, you mean, right??
I enjoyed Hinterland, but thought the writing fell short and the characters didn’t grab me in the same way as in the other dramas. I loved the landscape and the accents however. I enjoy learning more about the culture, history and MOUNTAINS of Wales, so I tune in and learn.
Oh! Ha! I used a soccer analogy on a USAan. Sorry, darling! Yours is much better! Mine means kick the ball when tackling, not the opposing player’s ankle. We use it when debates are getting towards the personal rather than the topic. I think we have all been getting perilously close to that of late and LEGS might have nice legs, but he certainly ain’t worth us getting upset with each other over. Upset with the shite state of the world, yes. Each other, no.
Ah, thanks for the explanation, Sixer dear. I too would vote for a permanent change of subject matter except that I do find the transatlantic perspectives interesting. I’ve learned something from various posters hither and yon.
I took a peek at Dougie’s Twitter and I can see why you like him. He’s a lefty alright!
He was passive aggressive to Hillary and then wound up her supporters by pretending he wasn’t the other day. How rude! But made me laugh.
@Nutballs by the sound of it all of these recent interviews were done around the same time, so I think it’s the interviewers/editing making his answers sound different in them. He’s pretty consistent.
Quote: Despite the straw-manning, nobody expects him to spend interviews saying, “Yes, there are probably a dozen people from Manchester housing estates that would be better actors than me if only all the doors weren’t closed to them. I’m going to refuse all further jobs, man the barricades and donate every penny I’ve ever earned to community theatre in Little Village By The Marsh.”
Nobody expects that because it’s a stupid thing even to think about. If we went by that logic, (minimally) 75 % of all jobs everywhere should be redistributed. Because even among the poorest people I know here, people lobby to help their friends and kids get jobs over people who might be better suited for them (which is basicly what Oxbridge and similar connections are doing). People generally help their friends out, that’s how human relations work. And there’s nothing evil about it when “lower” classes do it for lower-paid jobs, so it’s actually hypocrisy to expect “upper” classes to do it. Pot, meet kettle. Sure it would be more fair, but life isn’t fair and attacking a working actor for taking jobs is an abysmal thing to do. Neither he nor any other similarly “privileged” actor owes anything to less fortunate actors. Because in case you have not noticed, they still have to work hard and compete and be good not to fall from grace. Very few shitty actors have long lasting careers unless they find themselves a weird niche (like martial arts dudes).
Darn, this type of talk always rubs me the wrong way. I know you said *nobody* expects that but the way people talk here and elsewhere, the hint that this should be happening is definitively there.
I enjoyed his interview and like anyone who adds positivity into the world. It’s not a competition and every little nice things counts, a kind word, gesture, thought.
I love him as he’s always well spoken and sweet.
Other countries have their versions of Trump and extremist parties but people generally don’t make them the front runners for one the two biggest parties in the country.
Trump has exposed a sizeable hateful group of people as in his supporters. He could be the next president just as much as Hilary. I hate the thought of both of them being president. So Sanders gets my vote.
Yeah that’s exactly it, Nigel Farage started out as a joke and remained a joke throughout the general election period even failing to win his constituency. Donald Trump started out as a joke and somehow became a serious presidential candidate at some point.
UKIP got nearly four million votes in the last UK General Election. The unfair first past the post system – ie no proportional representation – meant that they only won one seat, which did not reflect their vote. I say this as one who despises everything UKIP stands for.
UKIP and the FN in France are fringe parties. They have millions of supporters but not enough to make a difference in a parliamentary system like the UK or even a winner-take-all presidential system in France.
The US is unusual because it is so polarised. In 2002, Marine Le Pen’s father got into the second round of French presidential elections. (Nothing like that has ever happened in the UK). The entire French political establishment rose up against it, all of the mainstream parties combined, and Chirac won with over 80% of the vote.
In contrast, almost no one in the US Republican establishment has said that they won’t vote for Trump. If Trump is the nominee, could establishment Republicans hold their noses and vote for Hillary? I don’t think they will.
Tina – I recognise a political nerd when I see one, even if they are on the other side of the fold to me! Not sure which side of the Pond you’re currently on? If it’s the UK side, have you seen Les Hommes de l’hombre? It’s showing on More 4 under the English title of Spin. About the spin doctoring over the course of a French presidential campaign after the incumbent is assassinated. I’m on the second series and still thoroughly enjoying it. It’s under the Walter Presents section of C4’s catch up service.
Proportional representation can be difficult and sometimes smaller and sometimes quite extreme parties gain representation. In Ireland – which has PR – recent elections have left a fairly inconclusive and complicated situation. But it seems more democratic and requires more coalitions. But the current UK Government got around 36 percent of the votes cast but have a parliamentary majority to pursue their nasty agenda.
Anyhow, to avoid a just completely off topic post: I am really enjoying the Night Manager, it’s not great art but it’s bloody good fun.
Hi Sixer, I’m in the UK and have been for the past 15 years, but I’m a dual citizen who’s also spent time in Canada and the US. So I’m a multi-jurisdictional political nerd! Thanks for the recommendation, it sounds fascinating and I’ll check it out. And thank you (and really most people on this board) for being so collegial, I think it is so important for people on opposite sides of the fence to talk to each other and to do so calmly and respectfully and I think that is mostly done here.
Tina – I’m going to tell Mr Sixer that you called me collegial! As the commenters on the royal threads will tell you, he thinks I am the world’s worst bloviator and his nickname for me is Great Gob Almighty. So you have made my day!
Agree with you tina
Why are we back to the comparisons to Lord Bendy Cucumber? Hiddleston is active as a RADA alum mentoring and sponsoring students, which are two different things. For all anyone knows, he and other actors could be doing things quietly and privately, like Redmayne paying people’s living expenses for a year, and such things really should be kept private, otherwise it is just PR. Several of the Brits on here have been saying that they don’t want the posh actors to be handing out money; they want their government to go back to doing things the way they were before AND they want those who do the hiring to hire outside their own sphere and network.
In the interview, he mentions having made a documentary for UNICEF about the conditions of child soldiers in South Sudan. That should help a good number of children.
The veranda is open for brunch. We have chocolate chip pancakes today.
Thank you for the pancakes. They are much needed today.
Have a bellini too!
Sweet.
Well said Lilacflowers.
There’s no problem with a celeb’s charity work becoming public, and that doesn’t automatically mean it’s for PR. Sometimes the celeb’s role chosen by the charity itself is by its very definition meant to be public because they can lend an immediate visibility to a charity who needs it to grow and thrive.
It is more likely mainly PR if the actor doesn’t have any long-term associations with specific charities and/or groups or causes but randomly releases information. Redmayne’s dropping of supporting living expenses is actually an example of that. No one knew, his role isn’t public nor does he have a lot of prior work in related areas, so it really served no purpose other than to boost his own profile.
On the other hand, causes that are controversial are less likely to be solely for PR because the celeb is making themselves a target when there are “safer” causes that would garner just as much attention but in a more positive way.
I think it is interesting that he is working so hard on coming up with better thoughts on this. He isn’t there yet, but…. heheheh…. he’s listening to us. 🙂 Oh is he listening to us. He wants so badly to perfect this flaw in his PR. But hey, this is still an improvement.
Read the interview in its entirety. He’s actually just having a good conversation with the interviewer. He isn’t out to prove anything or perfect some flaw as far as I can tell. His answer to why he wanted to be an actor was lovely.
Cynic
Am I the only person who is observing that he is coming up with better answers and is likely listening to how people respond? I just counted about six people in this thread all sayi g the same thing.
He is an actor. This is an interview arranged by his PR. It is not an ordinary conversation. It *is* PR, and if you think he is not highly aware of that I think you are being a bit silly. This isn;t a criticism btw– it’s just a reality.
You’re not the only only one. Tom and his PR team are most definitely listening and adjusting his answers accordingly.
*waves to Tom and Luke et all…*
Reading the actual interview and the one that came before it (its mentioned that this is the second one this interviewer has done with TH) is really better. His answers make much more sense that way. FWIW, I thought his answers were good, well stated and thoughtful. When you take him at face value and leave out the over analysis and whatnot he comes off really well.
Exactly! It’s like a thoughtful conversation that is being continued from some earlier points. He does seem to keep reassessing, I enjoy going back and reading his deeper interviews in chronological order.
Where he says that Britain is not yet a meritocracy, implying he still sees that as a possible future: I’ve rather lost that hope for the US. And it makes me sad.
Yeah, most countries here in Europe have hyper-conservative wingnuts but there’s also much more political spectrum, whereas in the US it’s more radical right and the democrats, whose policies are basically what we consider centre or moderate left at best. At least that’s what it looks like from the outside. I’m glad Tom finally elaborated his thoughts about meritocracy and the class system without avoiding the question.
Why is it that we lambaste actors who get involved in political issues, because, why should we listen to actors? They’re just idiots who pretend to be other people as a profession. But if some actor we like to pick on doesn’t get involved in the politics that WE want them to, they are equally attacked?
Simple entitlement with a dash of over familiarity with the actor based in fantasy. I hope TH never gives in to the insane demands of the lunatics and so far he doesn’t seem to be giving an inch.
We all seem to tout this yearning for individuality and celebrating differences, but there seems to be an extremely narrow window of what is the “right” opinion to have or position to hold.
Just an observation.
Tell me about it. That’s what really scares me about society. People rave about diversity all the time but can’t handle individuality. It’s mind boggling.
Are you serious when you compare British or other European politicians to Trump’s stupidity? Just a question. Because Trump is not only an idiot. He is dangerous. European politicians are stupid but not dangerous for the whole world so I totally get Tom’s reply regarding Trump. As for his general replies. He is an actor. Not the savior of the whole world. People can vote. And hope that their vote will change something. I don’t need an actor to tell me something about political behavior as I watch the news as well. Putting actors into role model situations baffles me. Why pressuring them when they are normal people too…. Education is the key. Within and outside your environment.
Wild applause!
This “why is he not addressing this and that” makes me yawn…. Of course famous people can use their fame to draw attention to certain matters but it isn’t their job. Their job is called acting and transfering into roles…. I am screaming at my TV whenever I watch mommys and daddys pointing their finger at celebrities and degrading them because they should be role models. Every human has the right to live their life the way they want to. As for Tom: he is an ambassador of the BFI. I am sure they would not chose a d### but more someone who already is being active behind closed doors and has been for a lot of years.
Good point Anon.
@Anon, they also are not going to choose as their ambassador, which is basically a lobbyist position, somebody who is going to be too controversial.
“But… the UK has hyper-conservative wingnut politicians too. As does France, Germany and nearly every NATO power.”
Sorry to say but the above, in the context of Trump, demonstrates a woefully tenuous grasp on the reality of politics outside the US.
yes, specifically France and Germany dont have wingnuts that come close to Trump or anyone in the GOP and even Cameron would not be possible in both countries.
Merkel is a right winger in Germany (most people dont seem to know that), look at her way of dealing with refugees and look at Trump.
You forget Marine Le Pen.
Yeah, that’s not true. Le Pen is more right wing than Cameron, Osborne, Johnson, Gove, Hunt, and I would argue Iain Duncan Smith, Liam Fox and Jacob Rees-Mogg as well. Both France and Germany have right-wing fringes that are much more right-wing than Cameron or any mainstream UK Conservative.
Admittedly, American politicians became the punchline of every stupid joke way before Trump (I think Bush Jr. started the trend with his ignorant remarks and oneliners lol), but boy oh boy us Europeans have never seen someone so outwardly dumb and politically incorrect win so much support and votes so fast.
Or maybe I’m just too young to remember.
Anyway, if electing Obama finally looked like progress and ths US making an intelligent step forward, then electing Trump would be like bactracking 50 steps backwards…
Then again we all have idiots in charge in our respective countries so no news there.
When you think about it, it’s scary the kind of real power Trump actually has with all that financial weight of his. He’s got enough money to influence the world much more than any politician really.
@A.Key, I am Italian and I think you are forgetting Berlusconi. In terms of seemingly dumb with delusions of grandeur, politically incorrect and blatantly lying, I think he would be a good match for Bush (both) and Trump. He was admittedly more moderate in terms of social politics/welfare/immigration but just because this attitude gained him more votes (we like our socialist policies very much, thank you). I have no doubt that he would have gone the Mussolini way if he would have benefitted from it (he still thinks of himself as a great politician, deluded much?).
Let’s not forget that he conditioned 20 years of Italian politics, was Prime Minister more than once and Putin and Gaddafi were his buddies.
This will make non Italians laugh but it has been our reality for 20 years and all the screwups and international ridicule did not change him one bit.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1874098_1874099_2098982,00.html
Thankfully he is now busy with his young fiance and her poodle(s).
I think we are witnessing a man at an interesting crossroads in his life and career, and probably maturing because of it.
There’s an even better interview in today’ s Sunday Times Culture section entitled “The Unquiet Man” where the author sees in TH “the darkness locked inside a carapace of civility.”
Here’s a guy who, due to his own naiveté, overused social media at the beginning of his rise to fame and is now grappling with the consequences and reality of that as a double-edged sword.
And who’s to say he hasn’t experienced prejudice, albeit perhaps not in traditional terms? Isn’t it a form of labelling to brand him a Prince Charming who must be sexually examined and objectified every time he takes his clothes off for a role?
I think there’s some over-interpretation of the social media influence on him. I’ve been around the block in fan circles enough times pre-social media to have seen it all before – the crazies, the entitlement, the projection of fantasies. It’s par for the course, and it’ll calm down eventually.
I don’t think he did overuse social media, really, when he was using it. He was playful and chatty, but he didn’t share much more than his taste in music and his exercise routine.
@KTE – I’m going to have to disagree with you on the social media topic. It’s not so much what you say; it’s how often you use it and respond directly. Overuse encourages the crazies and obsessed fans by providing them a platform for a false sense of intimacy and perceived access that has proven, per recent events, to be a big miscalculation.
He stopped responding to people on Twitter long before the obsessive crazies became interested in him. They tend to be relative newcomers – the aura of ‘stardom’ seems to attract them.
There are jobbing actors right now interacting with fans on Twitter in much the same way as he did. While they remain jobbing actors it won’t cause them problems. It’s fame that makes Twitter interaction a minefield.
Fans have displayed just as much of a false sense of intimacy and access about famous actors who have never used social media, and before social media existed. It’s just that back in the day it was mainly kept to dedicated fanzines, cons, and then fan websites and webforums, which tended to end up with moderators who removed anything truly unhinged. Now it is broadcast on social media and blogging sites and is much more visible to the wider world – including the press.
I think Tom was too open and chatty with his fans in the early years and got burned a few times because of it. He’s using social media more responsibly now, imo.
@KTE – you make some interesting and valid points, although the “crazies” appear to have become invested during the first Thor movie back in 2011.
Social media has redefined fame. Appropriate boundaries need to be set and held for the protection of its recipient. lest they become its prisoner.
@Nutballs: Agreed. If you have the vast audience TH has, you almost have a responsibility to bring attention to your projects and charitable causes like the ones he champions. He seems to be wising up a bit, which I’m sure is a tough lesson learned.
I read the culture interview and thought it was a good interview as well think he is much better in discussion type interviews than interviews where all they want is sound bites.He also did a great article on spying in the Guardian I think it was.
The first episode of the Night Manager was fantastic!
So I read the whole interview and I was wondering about this: a couple of years ago Tom did an interview, stating that he were unsure of transforming into a role when physicality would be involved, means, losing weight like Fassbender for Hunger. Am I remembering it correctly? He said back then that he would not do something like that. Now he is saying the opposite, right? Meaning it is necessary when you want to show the truth and people want to see this. He wants to see it too…. So what changed during these years? May be he lost roles?
I think you are misremembering. He’s said he doesn’t like how physical transformations such as weight loss are treated like some kind of huge award-worthy acting achievement. He’s never said he wouldn’t do it, just that he thinks acting is about more than that.
Christian Bale’s weight loss for The Machinist was frightening but he seems to have regained it.
I THINK he was saying then that he wouldn’t take on a role where one had to morph to that degree–the two role referred to are EXTREME. But he is showing more appreciation now for specifically Fassbender in the Hunger than he did back then. People do change and opinions get modified. It might also be that he’s looking at different aspects this time. I also noticed the difference, and wondered myself. Some hyperacute journalist will no doubt ask him, or in a few years a fan will ask in an entirely inappropriate setting. 😉
But as for losing roles–I highly doubt that. He’s kept quite busy with an excellent variety of roles.
Yes, I think Tom probably meant losing weight the the extent of putting your health at risk. The nearest he came to that was for ISTL which is nowhere near what Fassbender of McConaughey did.
McConaughey still looks terrible.
I understood that as well but part of me thinks he is just to sensible.There are links to diabetes with actors and people who play topsey turvey with weight gain/loss. I can see him getting more deeply involved with a role like he did with ISTHL
I am sick and tired of him being the poster child for this discussion. Why is he asked about this more than other posh actors? I would rather know about new things about him or what not than this endless need to ask him about this crap.
Imagine how tired people who are actually victims of elitism are.
That would be me, but you pick yourself up and go. Sing me another.
I am with Madly…. Sick of hearing this. Go and point your finger at someone else for once, dear press…..
As for the Night Manager… Just watched the new episode and it kills me to have to wait für the next one…. Action starts from now on I guess.
The NIght Manager, Episode 3 The Green Henley of Sex.
Edge of might seat stuff tonight!!
or even my seat!
and Naked Debicki.
She doesn’t care who sees her naked.
She is just so beautiful and has rocketed to fame just 3 months out of college or something like that.She moves beautifully and holds her own with the more experienced actors’Her parents were dancers and you can see it the way she walks etc.
No sex, but lots of wet topless Tom to admire. I’m enjoying the story as well as the eye candy.
Loved episode 3. The tension gets worse and worse the more I watch!
It is appropriate to be frightened about a potential Trump presidency and the foreign policy that might accompany it. Right wing talk radio has been cultivating hatred among certain classes in America. Trumps ignorant chest thumping gives them an avenue to bubble and boil.
Whatever your opinion on him, this was a good interview and he came off as smart, informed to a good degree, with good intentions.I’m glad he is one of the celebrities who are publicly against Trump. Some celebrities who actually are American don’t dare comment (or probably have nothing remotely intelligible to say regarding the issue) because they’re too concerned about their public image and alienating a certain demo of fans. *shrugs* Good on Tom.
For what it’s worth, he’s got very posh ancestry on one side (his mother’s I think) and very un-posh on the other.
I think he’d make a great Bond and breath life into the BORING BEYOND BORING franchise. Please do not cast Tom Hardy and other macho types. Nerdy tech Bond (Andrew Garfield or Jack Whitehall or Eddie Redmayne), old-school gentleman-y Bond (Hiddleston), Ginger Bond (Rupert Grint), P*rn star Bond (Charlie Hunnam), 50 Shades Bond (Jamie Dornan), GOT Bond (Kat Harrington), Teen Bond (Douglas Booth or Jeremy Irvine), or even mute-comedy-geriatric Bond (the Mr Bean guy) would be soemthing different. Yawn with current take on Bond already. And and hire new writers please.
Can I respectfully make a suggestion that the next Tom thread doesn’t get drown in politics?
Spidey – Tom spoke about politics. Kaiser’s post parsed politics. So people responded to the topic of the thread. I can see that it’s not as enjoyable to fans of LEGS, but it’s probably more enjoyable to many other readers of Celebitchy who aren’t Tom fans. Commenters are on topic here, which is how it should be. Even though our lovely overlords hereabouts are generally very tolerant of off-topic comment threads, we should probably bear in mind on topic is better than off topic. Y’know?
I take that’s a no then.
It’s a “it depends what Kaiser takes as her topic the next time she writes about LEGS”.
Thank you, Sixer.
“Not as enjoyable to SOME fans of Legs”–
There, Sixer, fixed it for you. 😉
As a Dragonfly who is very in to the whole Tom, I for one enjoy politically oriented discussions. Certainly far more than speculations re his love life based on tabloid click bait, so there’s that.
I think we’re lucky he inspires a nice variety of topics.
I for one would get bored if discussions solely centered on his work, his body, his clothes and sex. I often enjoy the associated topics that come up and have learned quite a bit from other posters. If I’m not interested in the topic, I just skip over those parts.
Haha @ TB. Apologies!
Nutballs – I am the same. Never much interested in who’s going out with who or who’s wearing what. You won’t see me much on those types of posts. I mostly leave them to those who enjoy them – because why shouldn’t they?
Sixer, as you’ve seen, I find speculating and fantasizing about sex lives rather fun and tightly fitting shirts/pants a worthy discussion topic. It’s a rather nice counterbalance to the more intellectual discussions that I also enjoy.
This is why I only have time for CB… no one dishes up the variety that we get here!
ETA: Found Dr Thorne last night on ITV.
…the point is that a few decades post war uk looked like it was becoming more of a meritocracy then since say the late 80s things look like they’re going backwards…tom should just keep quiet…
The visual feast of episode 3 was a treat… the landscape, architecture, Debicki and of course, GUNS and LEGS and SCRUFFY FACE.
The screenplay though leaves a bit to be desired. Too many cheeseball lines and not enough character development. I’m on the fence as to whether they should do another series.
It’s fun and it’s eye candy, so I’m enjoying it, but it hasn’t lived up to my expectations, I’m sorry to say. HR is looking more enticing to me in light of the script disappointments of CP, ISTL and TNM.
I was really hoping for more too. Visually, it’s blows me away – but it feels like they are rushing through. The story easily could have supported 8 hours, maybe even 10 depending on how much attention they had given to the supporting characters and backstory. Without that character development, I’m having a really hard time caring what happens to any of the players.
Dara, I’ve gotten spoiled on some of the great writing I’ve seen on my other BBC fare and wasn’t expecting to cringe and feel so dissatisfied with this miniseries. I’m having a hard time buying Tom in the role of Pine with how the character has been written. I’ve always had trouble with Tom playing “angry”. He overplays it to me and never comes off as believable. I’m even more disappointed in how Jed is being portrayed mainly as a sexy side piece with issues. With all the changes that were made for the production, her character could have been better.
I’ve got to stop hoping for a great script and just be happily surprised when I don’t find fault with the character development or dialogue.
The visuals are wonderful however and I do love seeing Coleman and Hollander on screen so I’ll enjoy it for what it is, I guess.
Will you be seeing HR after all? I think I will be based on the trailers and my continued hope that the script will be good and that Tom will hit a home run with it.
Still on the fence about High-Rise, probably will depend on my mood. I know that Wheatley makes films to purposely f*ck with your head, so I’ve got to be in the right frame of mind, or I won’t enjoy it at all.
I wanted so much more from The Night Manager, and am still hoping it turns a corner. With a Le Carre pedigree I honestly expected something more like Homeland (spycraft and character development) and less Bond (pretty scenery, but superficial plot). I finally saw Spectre last night, and was bored out of my mind.