Martin Freeman's "relatable" characters

[Carol the Dabbler]

Split off from the "Portmanteau 'Ship Names" thread:
 

My closest experience to "shipping" in the more wistful / wishful way I think the term is usually used is Tim and Dawn from "The Office" (UK). I really, really wanted them to have a happy ending together and I did not believe that was going to happen because the show was just so bleak. But lo and behold, they made that lovely Christmas Special in the end where not only did they make it happen, but they made it work, and for that, I will be eternally grateful. Thank god you can't really create one single word out of the names Tim and Dawn...

 
Heavens yes, Tim and Dawn!  I had heard of The Office, but hadn't watched any of it till I bought the entire DVD set, including the Special.  I had read just enough of the customer reviews online to know that the Special had some sort of a happy ending, but despite knowing that, I was ridiculously depressed after watching the last of the regular episodes.  I told myself it was silly to feel that way over two fictional characters on television, and besides everything would turn out fine when I watched the Special the very next day -- but it really didn't help much until I did watch the Special, which was wonderful.  I still love that show, and a huge part of the credit goes to Martin Freeman, who made me care so much about Tim.

[T.o.b.y]

Heavens yes, Tim and Dawn!  I had heard of The Office, but hadn't watched any of it till I bought the entire DVD set, including the Special.  I had read just enough of the customer reviews online to know that the Special had some sort of a happy ending, but despite knowing that, I was ridiculously depressed after watching the last of the regular episodes.  I told myself it was silly to feel that way over two fictional characters on television, and besides everything would turn out fine when I watched the Special the very next day -- but it really didn't help much until I did watch the Special, which was wonderful.  I still love that show, and a huge part of the credit goes to Martin Freeman, who made me care so much about Tim.

 

He really did make all the difference, didn't he. It's his character who turns the series from a bitter satire into something human and true. It's something he's really good at in general, it seems - in The Hobbit, it was also little Bilbo who managed to add a spark of real feeling to that operatic melodrama / action fest, and in Sherlock, it is John, crusty and prickly though he may be, who represents "heart" where Sherlock is "brain".

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I still love [The Office], and a huge part of the credit goes to Martin Freeman, who made me care so much about Tim.

 

He really did make all the difference, didn't he. It's his character who turns the series from a bitter satire into something human and true. It's something he's really good at in general, it seems - in The Hobbit, it was also little Bilbo who managed to add a spark of real feeling to that operatic melodrama / action fest, and in Sherlock, it is John, crusty and prickly though he may be, who represents "heart" where Sherlock is "brain".

I hadn't exactly thought of it that way before, but I see what you mean.  My brother can't understand why I don't like Seinfeld, and I just realized it's because Seinfeld is what The Office could have been without Tim, a show with no soul.  Tim is the soul of The Office, just as John is the soul of Sherlock.  Moftiss are fond of saying that he's Sherlock's moral compass, and that sounds like John is supposed to be some sort of saint, so some people get upset when he isn't.  But you don't need to be a saint in order to have a soul.

 

(Not saying that Sherlock doesn't have a soul, mind you.)

 

[T.o.b.y]

I'd say what Martin Freeman is really good at is bringing a character really close to the audience. Know what I mean? Sherlock, for example, is a very dramatic, theatric, heroic figure, not utterly unrealistic like a superhero perhaps, but just outside the range of what we ever will ever meet in real life. I find him believable within his universe, mind you, it's just that he's so clearly not of our world. John, on the other hand, while actually a pretty extraordinary character as well, feels as if he could live downstairs from you. He brings the ridiculous adventures full of murder, madness and mayhem right to my / our doorstep, so to speak. I guess that's how Freeman got stuck with the "everyman" label, but I don't think that is quite accurate. He can and does play people totally unlike your average man on the street, but he plays them in such a way that they seem right there with you in the room and you can totally relate to their sometimes extreme and impossible experiences, whether it is meeting Vogons, finding out they're married to an ex-assassin and don't even know her name, losing a friend in a battle against orks or just having a boss like David Brent.

 

Wow, was this thread hijacked. I am so sorry, I just felt like gushing over Martin Freeman a bit after having watched a lot of The Office lately. (I'm still more in love with Sherlock than John, but I recognize that it is John who brings Sherlock close enough to the audience to be loved).

 

Anyway. Ship names. Ugh. I just can't get used to them. It took me a while to just get used to the term "shipping". I kept picturing boats.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... John, ... while actually a pretty extraordinary character..., feels as if he could live downstairs from you. He brings the ridiculous adventures full of murder, madness and mayhem right to my / our doorstep, so to speak. I guess that's how Freeman got stuck with the "everyman" label, but I don't think that is quite accurate. He can and does play people totally unlike your average man on the street, but he plays them in such a way that they seem right there with you in the room and you can totally relate to their sometimes extreme and impossible experiences....

 

Yes, definitely!  Freeman's characters "get to me" (in a good way) far more reliably than any other actor's have to date.

 

As for "everyman," that's actually a standard literary / dramatic term, referring to a character who represents the audience and acts as their guide through otherwise-incomprehensible situations (sound familiar?).  Unfortunately, a lot of people think "everyman" means "nebbish."  I assume that Mr. Freeman (having attended a well-respected drama school) is well aware of the former, so what he's objecting to so strenuously (and rightfully) is the latter.

 

And regarding the hijacking, it takes two!     I think we're about done with this discussion, but if not I'll move it to a more suitable spot.  It's an interesting subject.

 

[sittything]

I've only seen Martin in The Office, Hitchhiker's Guide, Love Actually, and Sherlock... but based on those I get how he has gotten the "everyman" label.  I'm a bit fuzzy on The Office because I haven't seen it in quite some time, and I tend to forget that he's even in Love Actually, but as far as Hitchhiker's Guide and Sherlock, Arthur and John are very normal, relatable characters for the audience compared to the utter nonsense of Hitchhiker's or Sherlock's eccentricities.  I had to look up nebbish, because it's not a term I'm familiar with, but I don't think of those as "everyman" characters because they're timid or meek. 

 

I've referred to Molly before as "everywoman," and it's not because of any timid or meek tendencies.  She's downright normal and relatable compared to Irene.  And assisted fake-suicide aside, her actions and reactions to the events of the show are very representative of a "normal" person, whatever that means.  She's me if I was there.  She could be my friend, my sister, my neighbor.  She's believable as a real person.

 

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the term "everyman?"

 

 

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Come to think of it, I do have one thing to add.  :P

 

As you say, T.o.b.y, even Mr. Freeman's rather extraordinary characters tend to be highly relatable.  It occurs to me (probably due to your making a very similar point in a PM) that this is probably due to his belief that nobody (in the real world) is either 100% good or 100% evil, and that everybody does whatever it is that they do for reasons that seem perfectly reasonable to them at the time.  Assuming that he plays the characters that way (which he seems to do), then of course they will tend to be relatable -- though we may not agree with their rationale.  For example, throughout most of Fargo I can relate to Lester Nygaard, at least in the sense that I feel sorry for him and wish him well to a certain extent, even though he's such a wimp-turned-weasel that I never do particularly like him.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I've only seen Martin in The Office, Hitchhiker's Guide, Love Actually, and Sherlock... but based on those I get how he has gotten the "everyman" label.  I'm a bit fuzzy on The Office because I haven't seen it in quite some time, and I tend to forget that he's even in Love Actually, but as far as Hitchhiker's Guide and Sherlock, Arthur and John are very normal, relatable characters for the audience compared to the utter nonsense of Hitchhiker's or Sherlock's eccentricities.  I had to look up nebbish, because it's not a term I'm familiar with, but I don't think of those as "everyman" characters because they're timid or meek. 

 

I've referred to Molly before as "everywoman," and it's not because of any timid or meek tendencies.  She's downright normal and relatable compared to Irene.  And assisted fake-suicide aside, her actions and reactions to the events of the show are very representative of a "normal" person, whatever that means.  She's me if I was there.  She could be my friend, my sister, my neighbor.  She's believable as a real person.

 

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding the term "everyman?"

 

If you're misunderstanding it, then I am too.  But I get the feeling that some people put a negative spin on the term.  It does seem clear that most people see "everyman" as ordinary -- and many people define "ordinary" as meaning dull and uninteresting.  I guess nebbish isn't quite what I meant, but it's the closest I could think of.  How about "a nobody"?

[sittything]

 

 

If you're misunderstanding it, then I am too.  But I get the feeling that some people put a negative spin on the term.  It does seem clear that most people see "everyman" as ordinary -- and many people define "ordinary" as meaning dull and uninteresting.  I guess nebbish isn't quite what I meant, but it's the closest I could think of.  How about "a nobody"?

 

 

Normally I'm a pessimist, a glass half-empty sort, but I guess not here.   :P  I like everyman (or the made up "everywoman") characters!  I like characters that feel real. I don't think it makes them nobody, or dull, or uninteresting.  If anything, I think ordinary characters can be very complex and fascinating.  But I guess if people want to look at it as a negative, then so be it.   Not that I don't love a glamorous character like Sherlock, because they're certainly appealing enough, but as an example... I'm a HUGE Jane Austen fan.  Like I fell down a hole in college and read everything and anything I could on her, her books fan.  I HATE... yes HATE... Sense and Sensibility, and yet it's such a popular book.  It's her first novel, and I feel like her characters (Elinor, Marianne) are one-dimensional.  THEY are boring.  John Watson is not boring.  They're completely unrealistic in not a fantastical way, but because they're extremes, caricatures.   In comparison, in Pride and Prejudice (as well as her later novels) I feel like more of her characters are multi-faceted.  Some are still gross exaggerations, like Mrs. Bennet, but many are not.  But I've always assumed that was Austen's evolution and growth as a writer.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I like everyman (or the made up "everywoman") characters!  I like characters that feel real. I don't think it makes them nobody, or dull, or uninteresting.  If anything, I think ordinary characters can be very complex and fascinating.  But I guess if people want to look at it as a negative, then so be it.

I think one problem is that the word "ordinary" is used to mean two somewhat different things. The online Merriam-Webster gives these definitions:

 

: normal or usual : not unusual, different, or special

 

: neither very good nor very bad : not very impressive

I believe you're using the first meaning, but a lot of people would assume the second. However, I don't think either definition applies to John Watson -- he's "ordinary" (in any sense) only in comparison to Sherlock. Or Mary. Or Mycroft.

 

[Boton]

I think that people assume that the "everyman" character is easier to act, too.  I know I used to think that.  But I've been thinking a lot about that in terms of how a Sherlock Holmes story is put together and how this Sherlock in particular is constructed, and I think that MF has the harder job as the everyman.

 

BC has to act Sherlock Holmes, who is an interesting, quirky guy that he has to infuse with a lot of personality.  And he does.  But MF has to simultaneously act as John and tell the audience what sort of response they might reasonably have within this universe.  That's a tough job to do, and he has to do it all within a coherent single character.

 

Look at Sherlock's two romances:  With the Woman, John had to be able to tell us, the audience, that it was alright to be angry at the Woman for hurting Sherlock, even as we also enjoyed the idea that Sherlock was smitten with someone.  The scene with John at Battersea Power Station was brilliant (IMHO) not so much because John was jealous of the Woman, but because MF really did a good job conveying the idea that a "normal" person would feel protective enough of their best friend to be angry, and it was OK for us to also be angry at this character that had been fascinating up to that point.

 

Or look at how MF handled the relationship with Janine.  MF was able to handle the revelation of Janine in 221B in such a way that it was organic to the character, but that also told us that it was OK for us as the audience to be confused as to what was going on.   That scene, to me, is an expanded edition of the little exchange in ACD canon where I think Holmes is clearly enjoying exposing his "engagement" to Watson, asking if Watson would agree that he's not the marrying type before springing the false engagement on him and pretty quickly telling the truth.  This was a longer version of that played to great comedic effect, and I think it was almost entirely due to John's responses rather than Sherlock's reveal.  So that one is clearly down to MF's acting.

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think that people assume that the "everyman" character is easier to act, too.  I know I used to think that.  But I've been thinking a lot about that in terms of how a Sherlock Holmes story is put together and how this Sherlock in particular is constructed, and I think that MF has the harder job as the everyman.

 

Definitely. BC's performances as Sherlock are wonderful, but I think it must be significantly easier to play a memorable character if you have lots of flamboyant quirks to work with, whereas MF somehow manages to make John memorable while keeping him below the radar.  I had never thought much about any of the Watsons in various Holmes adaptations, till his performance -- having simmered along slightly below my consciousness for five episodes -- suddenly gobsmacked me in "Reichenbach" (while still being true to that quiet, "ordinary" man).

 

I get really peeved with customer reviews that claim "he always plays the same character."  That myth can be exploded merely by watching (for example) Sherlock side by side with The Office.  (I will admit -- as I've heard Mr. Freeman himself do -- that for a brief period in his post-Tim career, there was some carry-over, but that's ancient history now.)

 

Even worse, some people seem to think that he's not even really acting, that he just sort of wanders in off the street and plays himself.  He does sometimes do improv (such as the charming movie Nativity), and he's very good at it -- but I strongly suspect that even then he spends a good deal of time and effort in preparing himself for the role.  Acting is sort of like figure skating -- it takes a lot of hard work to make it look easy!

 

[Boton]

 

 

 

I get really peeved with customer reviews that claim "he always plays the same character."  That myth can be exploded merely by watching (for example) Sherlock side by side with The Office.  (I will admit -- as I've heard Mr. Freeman himself do -- that for a brief period in his post-Tim career, there was some carry-over, but that's ancient history now.)

 

Even worse, some people seem to think that he's not even really acting, that he just sort of wanders in off the street and plays himself.  

 

 

I think that's another easy mistake to make.  All of us, regardless of our jobs, have a certain niche we find it easy to fill.  I do a certain kind of writing very, very well (IMHO).  But that doesn't mean every article or project I do in that space is the same one I did before, or that I don't have to prepare and think.  It's just that that particular thing happens to work with my skill set.

 

I can't imagine BC as John, and I can't imagine MF as Sherlock.  MF does a great job of portraying a character that you feel very comfortable identifying with, no matter who you are.  I'm cherry-picking my way through the British version of The Office right now, and yes, there are things that MF is doing well there that he also does well in Sherlock.  But that doesn't mean that he created Tim and John as the exact same character.

 

I don't know.  Right now I'm very much in love with MF's acting.  AA's too, but that's a discussion for a different thread.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I get really peeved with customer reviews that claim "he always plays the same character." <snip> Even worse, some people seem to think that he's not even really acting, that he just sort of wanders in off the street and plays himself.

 

I think that's another easy mistake to make.  All of us, regardless of our jobs, have a certain niche we find it easy to fill. <snip>

 

I can't imagine BC as John, and I can't imagine MF as Sherlock. <snip>

 

I don't know.  Right now I'm very much in love with MF's acting.

I'm not sure it's so much that we find a certain niche easy to fill, but rather that we bring our own individual mindset to our task, meaning that we consider it important to include certain types of things in each job.  So we end up creating our own niche, so to speak. One part of Mr. Freeman's mindset is that people do things for a reason, so of course virtually all of his characters come across as real people -- you can kinda understand where they're coming from even when you don't agree with them. In other words, they're relatable.  But some people fixate on that single characteristic, overlooking the fact that his characters may otherwise have very little in common.

 

I would love to see MF and BC swap roles. I can't imagine what that would be like either -- but merely in the sense that I am literally unable to imagine it, not in the sense that it couldn't be done, and done very well. It would sure as heck be interesting!

 

[sittything]

Oh, I forgot I saw MF in The Hobbit movies too.  So there's that... he was so good at Bilbo that I forgot he was Bilbo.   ;)

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

 

I get really peeved with customer reviews that claim "he always plays the same character." <snip> Even worse, some people seem to think that he's not even really acting, that he just sort of wanders in off the street and plays himself.

I think that's another easy mistake to make. All of us, regardless of our jobs, have a certain niche we find it easy to fill. <snip>

 

I can't imagine BC as John, and I can't imagine MF as Sherlock. <snip>

 

I don't know. Right now I'm very much in love with MF's acting.

I'm not sure it's so much that we find a certain niche easy to fill, but rather that we bring our own individual mindset to our task, meaning that we consider it important to include certain types of things in each job, so that we create our own niche, so to speak. One part of Mr. Freeman's mindset is that people do things for a reason, so of course virtually all of his characters come across as real people -- you can kinda understand where they're coming from even when you don't agree with them. In other words, they're relatable. But some people fixate on that single characteristic, overlooking the fact that his characters may otherwise have very little in common.

 

I would love to see MF and BC swap roles. I can't imagine what that would be like either -- but merely in the sense that I am literally unable to imagine it, not in the sense that it couldn't be done, and done very well. It would sure as heck be interesting!

Now that would be one for a Sherlock dream sequence of some sort. Either John or Sherlock has a dream where the roles are somewhat reversed. So Martin is portraying (& called) Sherlock with the coat, scarf, etcetera & Benedict is portraying (& called) John.

[Carol the Dabbler]

A dream is about all I can think of too.  Doubt that they'd care to do a "real" body swap (too far into science-fiction territory for Sherlock), but they could dream that they've swapped bodies -- so Freeman would be playing John's body inhabited by Sherlock's mind, and vice versa.  (Freeman has already done a wonderful performance as a woman in a man's body -- so he should be able to manage Sherlock in John's body.)

 

Or, as you say, they dream that their roles are reversed, in which case I guess we'd get "what if Freeman had been cast as Sherlock and Cumberbatch had been cast as John."  Sounds to me like either would have good potential for comedy and/or substance, depending on how they approached it.

 

[Caya]

Sounds like a great idea! Or maybe they should make a short spoof with reversed roles for Red Nose Day. Would fit the theme and probably be a hit.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Probably would!  I've heard Freeman say he's opposed to doing a Doctor Who crossover for that sort of thing, but maybe if they came up with some semi-plausible premise and kept it pure Sherlock....

 

I can't decide which version I'd rather see -- Freeman doing Cumberbatch's Sherlock (and vice-versa) or Freeman doing his own take on Sherlock and Cumberbatch doing his own John.  Both?  :D

 

[T.o.b.y]

I'm not sure if I think Martin Freeman has a tendency to play relatable characters or whether he just has a knack to make every character he takes on relatable. I am inclined to believe the latter.

 

I did use to think he was one of those actors who are always themselves as the character, and I still believe he has a very specific "energy". I can't ever really forget it is him when I see him play a role. But his characters are still very different and distinct people. Tim and John, for example, are totally unlike.

[Caya]

Probably would!  I've heard Freeman say he's opposed to doing a Doctor Who crossover for that sort of thing, but maybe if they came up with some semi-plausible premise and kept it pure Sherlock....

 

I can't decide which version I'd rather see -- Freeman doing Cumberbatch's Sherlock (and vice-versa) or Freeman doing his own take on Sherlock and Cumberbatch doing his John.  Both?  :D

 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I wouldn't mind the mind swap version or the how Martin would approach playing Sherlock & vice-versa. My idea was more of the latter but still keep some of the Sherlock quirks we see Benedict give his Sherlock. Almost like Martin impersonating Benedict's Sherlock & vice-versa for the dream sequence.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm not sure if I think Martin Freeman has a tendency to play relatable characters or whether he just has a knack to make every character he takes on relatable. I am inclined to believe the latter.

 

Me too.  The only character of his I can think of offhand that I would NOT consider relatable is the one in Wild Target, and I'm not sure I'd want to relate to that character!  So MF may have chosen to play that role non-relatable, and likewise Lester Nygaard in the last few episodes of Fargo.

 

It occurred to me while I was cleaning the litter boxes (we have six cats, so I get a lot of thinking done) that one way Mr. Freeman makes his characters relatable is that he somehow lets us in on their thoughts (by letting them show on his face, I think).

 

[Arcadia]

I don't have anything new to add, just dropping by to agree with everyone! (And to wonder how come this is the first time I've seen this thread?)

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I don't have anything new to add, just dropping by to agree with everyone! (And to wonder how come this is the first time I've seen this thread?)

 

The thread is new as of last night/this morning so it's a matter of seeing it and observing in those few hours.