Martin Freeman News

[Carol the Dabbler]

Even though Martin Freeman is my favorite, I think I'd still be more at ease around him than Benedict Cumberbatch, simply because I find the way BC talks a bit bewildering.  I think it'd feel more natural to have a conversation with MF.

 

[Pseudonym]

Really? What do you find bewildering?

[J.P.]

Cannot say anything about Martin, but even if BC is approachable and sweet, he's somehow… otherworldly. He has an enormous presence, and it feels like you meet a royal… Well, I don't even think I would be starstruck talking to the queen. Maybe it would be different, if I didn't know anything about him, but he makes me feel so beeping inferior with his talent, his education, his upbringing, eloquence… That's what I find intimidating about him. Or maybe it's respect.

 

With AS it felt like we were long time buddies after he said the first line. After a while it felt like he was as starstruck with us, as we were.

 

MG is somewhere in the middle. :D

 

But I digress…

[Arcadia]

Digress away! I never mind hearing nice things about people.
 

Really? What do you find bewildering?

 
The rapidity of speech and the way he flits from idea to idea without a break? :D That's another thing that makes him attractive to me, I love the breadth of his interests and his goofy eagerness to share. No denying that Martin's more coherent, though. ;)

[Carol the Dabbler]

Really? What do you find bewildering?

Maybe it'd be different in person, and "bewildering" is perhaps not the best word -- but I just can't picture myself having a conversation with BC, beyond an exchange of pleasantries. I feel like our conversational styles are too different. From what I've seen, he tends to go on at great length and also meanders a bit. Though of course what I've seen is his interview style. Maybe his actual conversational style is quite different. But with MF, even his interview style seems more like the sort of conversation I'm comfortable with.

[Pseudonym]

Hm, I don't have any problem with his flitting about or the speed with which he talks - I don't find him a particularly fast speaker when he's talking as himself. I come from an area where we talk very fast though, so maybe that has something to so with it - when I worked in a call centre we were all told to speak slowly so people could understand us.

Of course I'm going from interviews too, but I find MF a bit abrupt, and he is the one I could only see me exchanging pleasantries with. I'd rather talk to someone who can happily go on without a huge amount of input where as I'd find it exhausting to keep the conversation going with MF with him giving concise answers every time and needing another question. 

[gerry]

Though of course what I've seen is his interview style. Maybe his actual conversational style is quite different.

Ive always assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that actor interviews especially the ones on entertainment shows and late night shows are just another form of a performance so I never know how much of what they portray is really their true personality. Like Robin Williams in interviews always seemed like an affable happy man but in his real life was often depressed to the point of being suicidal. This is why I rarely watch those shows. Print interviews seem to have different tones to them though I don't know if they are any more reliable.

[Pamela]

Steven Moffat described both Benedict Cumberbatch and Lara Pulver once as "exotic creatures."

[Arcadia]

 

Though of course what I've seen is his interview style. Maybe his actual conversational style is quite different.

Ive always assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that actor interviews especially the ones on entertainment shows and late night shows are just another form of a performance so I never know how much of what they portray is really their true personality. Like Robin Williams in interviews always seemed like an affable happy man but in his real life was often depressed to the point of being suicidal. This is why I rarely watch those shows. Print interviews seem to have different tones to them though I don't know if they are any more reliable.

 

That's true. All conversation is performance to some extent. I'm always wary of print interviews, though, because you don't know what's been left out, and the writer can't always be trusted to accurately portray the tone of what was said. How someone says a thing is sometimes as important to me as what they actually say, especially if they're trying to be funny. Robin's a great example; half of what he says is funny just because of the way he says it. Brilliant, brilliant man. Such a loss. I still miss him.

[Pseudonym]

Have you seen the MF ads with him as an awkward wedding guest? I get the impression there's going to be a long series of them. 

 

 

 

[Pseudonym]

Hm, not sure why that last one didn't post as a video. Is there a limit? Anyway here it is. 

 

[gerry]

I just wonder that if in print interviews with no camera if the actor feels like they don't have to be "on" as much but yes I'm sure the writer and how the interview is transcribed can affect how what is said is perceived.

[Pseudonym]

I don't trust print interviews as much as video interviews. As much as you can trust either. 

[Arcadia]

"That video is not available in my country."

 

There is a limit on how many images you can put in one post, so I guess the same applies to videos. I didn't know two was the limit, though.

[Pseudonym]

Aw, that's annoying. None of them are available?

[Arcadia]

You Tube's got it. At least, the first one, probably the others too if you hunt a bit.

 

​https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=58&v=ZaKMeOD7a38

[gerry]

I don't trust print interviews as much as video interviews. As much as you can trust either.

I think it depends on the publication/website. People, Variety and EW are a generally lot more reputable than others who just want click bait.

[Arcadia]

Oi, I wouldn't trust any of those to be accurate, I'm afraid. Not that I think they would misquote, exactly, but they edit heavily and editorialize ("she said breathlessly" "his eyes flashed") extensively.

[gerry]

People does do that but the quotes seem accurate. They do the friends of so and so at times as well but the quotes don't seem misleading to me or spliced but I think it's because People tries to toe the line between trying to be popular to the general gossiper but also trying to be reputable in the industry. They don't achieve the latter all the time if you go by how much they just pissed off Jennifer Garner. I don't find EW and Variety doing that much but they seem to interview directors, producers and creators a lot. At least the interviews I read. I also find the dramatic descriptions just in keeping with Hollywood types of hyping everything. Actors, directors, producers all do that to some degree. I just focus more on the quotes than anything. Then again, it appears I don't have a general distrust of journalists. I do share it for the paparazzi and tabloids types but I do think there are still journalists with integrity out there.

[Pseudonym]

I can't remember if I said this elsewhere (probably), but I find it really interesting that reporters used to be seen as the plucky, fearless good guys (ie Clark Kent, Lois Lane), but have now swung around to be seen more as the untrustworthy bad guys (Rita Skeeter, Kitty Riley). I'm always more inclined to look at any writers and reporters with a suspicious eye rather than trusting what they say. 

[gerry]

I think it's because journalists/reporters are generally lumped in with the click bait websites or are competing with the internet based news so there isn't as much of a perceived consistent standards of fact checking and sourcing as there used to be. I think publications with integrity still exist but you have to pay attention to what you're reading. Printed newspapers are a dying breed because of the immediate nature of the internet. Television news is very different now too and people notice the biases now than ever before.

 

Interviews with actors on those entertainment shows to me are unreliable because they are basically staged reality bits meant to entertain and sell a product by their very nature. Supposedly printed interviews are intended to be news so I like to think the interviewer is more objective and independent but maybe that's naive.

[Arcadia]

Oh, I think reporters are still sometimes portrayed as the plucky hero/heroine. Just depends on what you're watching. 

 

Scary to think newspapers are becoming obsolete, as they are about the only source I trust. It must be very frustrating to be a real journalist these days.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Bet none of you saw this coming:

 

Martin Freeman is set to executive produce a television adaptation of Paradise Lost.  That's right, John Milton's epic poem about the struggle between heaven and hell.  It must be true -- I didn't read it in the paper, I saw it on both the Empire and Variety websites.  Both sites speculate that Freeman may end up on screen as well, but at this point that's *just* speculation.

 

P.S.:  FremantleMedia is a mega-comglomerate production company -- no relation to Mr. Freeman.

[Arcadia]

Pshaw, I knew it all along. :p

 

No, that is a surprise. Doesn't exactly sound like you usual TV fare, does it?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Not the usual TV fare, no -- but I'm even more surprised that Freeman is choosing to take a role behind the camera.  I'm pretty sure I've heard him say he has no desire to direct, he just wants to act.  But of course executive-producing is apparently different, since so many lead actors do it.  And I do doubt that he'd do this unless it was related to his acting somehow.  So I'm going to guess that he's planning to take a major role in the production, and therefore wants to make sure that it remains the sort of production that he will be proud to be in.  And that's why he wants to executive-produce.

 

I further deduce that he has his eye on the role of Lucifer.  He's expressed an interest in making the role of Hitler relatable, but apparently no one has yet been willing to give him that opportunity.  So maybe he's decided to one-up them by casting himself as Lucifer -- and making that character relatable.