Written by Joe Queenan, author, culture and film critic and contributor to The Guardian
Like many film critics, I worked in a work that ran counter to my childhood ideals. When I was a kid, I wanted to be a funeral parlor, but I didn't get my wish. However, my childhood career aspirations kept me interested in autopsies and the things associated with them, including "autopsies" of failed epic masterpieces.
I thought a lot about King Arthur: Battle of the Beasts, and there were a lot of things that the film didn't do well enough, like the storyline, the narrative structure, the writers forgot Merlin, and so on, but the biggest problem was the cast. A few months before the film's release, I began to notice that the protagonist on the promotional poster was not immediately recognizable to me. It was an actor named Charles Hunnam, and I asked my son, "Do you know who this is?" ”
"He's acted in Children of Chaos." The son replied.
Well, indeed. He's not Matt Damon, he's not Brad Pitt, he's not James Franco, and he's certainly not Denzel Washington or Jamie Fox. He's the lead character in Children of Chaos, a popular cable show that many people haven't heard of, let alone watched. He is best known for almost starring in the main role of "Fifty Shades of Grey".
In the interview, Hannum talked about how he persuaded director Guy Richie to let him play the main character, King Arthur. But as we can see now, he is not up to the task. When Guy Riche wrote about Gnivere in the script, he should also ask Gail Gadot if he would like to play it. One of the most annoying aspects of The Arthurian movie is that as a cheeky working-class boy, Hannum's every transition is predictable. This was no problem at all in Guy Ritchie's early films, because actors in this style were popular at the time, and he also cultivated new stars like Jason Statham.
Statham brings to the audience a humorous gangster movie, a film that has not lost its standard at all. In the film, he connects everything into a whole. However, in King Arthur, Ritchie doesn't have the right actor to control the whole picture, he only has the protagonist of "Children of Chaos". Thus, this brazen medieval proletarian played a smash.
Not that Hannum is worthless, he did a pretty good job in the art film Lost in Z, and he may even have avoided the fate of Jason Momma, who starred in 2011's "Sword of Kings," which was considered a poor quality film while loud.
Still, there are striking similarities between them: they are well known for starring in TV series (Jason Momma appeared in Game of Thrones), thus becoming one of the top male stars and quickly gaining favor among film directors.
Overall, Hannum is a big boy who is not deeply involved in the world and has no characteristics. Especially when he faces King Arthur's rival, Voltagent, played by Jude Lowe, he is dwarfed by the complex and personalized character development of the other party.
Keep in mind that the basic structure of cinema hasn't changed over the century: a man has a problem, which could be a shark, an alien creature, a loan shark, a fascist, or anything else, but either way, he needs to solve it in less than two hours. If the audience isn't interested in the person or the issue, the movie is done. The same guideline applies to films starring women.
In King Arthur, Jude Lowe's question is "Is there anyone who can get me rid of this brazen proletarian?" "It's obviously a lot more interesting than Hannum's question, because Jude Lowe himself is more attractive than Hannum. When they appear on the screen at the same time, our eyes are wise and will naturally look at Jude Lowe.
Hannum is like a poor version of Tom Hardy, but there's an interesting problem here. Obviously, Tom Hardy is an actor, but he's not as well-known as Tom Cruise, Van Diesel, Stallone, and Dawn Johnson. Nor has he starred in top blockbusters like Top Gun, The End of the Road, Forrest Gump, The Matrix, Rocky, And the Hunger Games. So, is Tom Hardy still a movie star?
Well, if the definition of a movie star is that he can light up the whole scene as soon as he appears, then there is no doubt that he is not. However, unlike becoming an idol international superstar like Jennifer Lawrence, or a living legend and a male star who is very popular with female fans, Tom Hardy has made his own name after playing a variety of roles, with a wide range of drama paths. You can see him in many places, and he can do anything, play anyone: a demented New York bartender, a Russian cop, a brutal London gang member, or even two brutal London gang members.
Tom Hardy's resume is amazing. He excelled in The Revenant, and in Locke he spent the entire 85 minutes talking in his car, equally impressive; and in Bronson, a film based on Britain's most brutal prisoner, he remained remarkable. In addition, his performances in Child 44, Inception and Potmaker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy were equally critically acclaimed. Whether it's a good work or a bad movie, Tom Hardy's performance is very stable.
However, with all this, can he be called a movie star? I'm not sure. Movie stars aren't the ones who cheer fans, they're not even the ones who make the general public cheer. They are people who can be distinguished by people at a glance, even if they are mixed in the crowd. Do you think Guy Pierce, Seren Sid, hugo Viven can meet that standard? They are all very good actors, but whether they are movie stars or not is debatable. In a sense, it all comes down to the brotherhood that the industry brags about. Owen Wilson? movie star. Luke Wilson? No. Alec baldwin? movie star. Other people named Baldwin? No.
Here, for the time being, we do not consider the Quid and Affleck families.
Let's summarize the problem. Every time I talk to someone about how much I like Tom Hardy and how much I'm looking forward to his next movie, I need to explain to others who he is. Well, friend, come and think about it. The bad guy in The Revenant? Didn't watch that movie. Well, what about the villain Bane in Batman: The Dark Knight Rises? Oh, he, but didn't he wear a mask the whole time? Okay, what about the guy from the last Mad Max? Oh, come to think of it, the guy who wore the mask for half the movie, and generally I only remember Charlize Theron and the other girls.
Well, then I go on to say that I feel angry because in my perception, not worshipping Tom Hardy is the same as not admiring Dennis Day-Lewis. Have you seen Danger Hiding? No. Have you seen Lawlessness? No. What about Agent Scramble? No. So "The Sopranos" should have been seen, right? In that film, Tom Hardy played two roles, playing the two brothers, Reginald and Ronald Clay, with convincing performances. Sorry, didn't see it.
And when I mention Jude Lowe, Mark Wahlberg, and George Clooney, I don't need to explain who they are. Speaking of Vigo Mortson, Colin Farrell and even John F. Kennedy. When C. Reilly comes, I don't need to remind people what movies they've made. Of course, Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway and Angelina Jolie are not to mention. So, even though Tom Hardy's acting skills as an actor are more superb than most of the above, I don't need to pull out my phone and open the photo to remind others who they are.
Like Mark Strong, Tom Hardy is a well-known actor but not highly recognizable. Fans of such actors often fantasize that they will become bigger stars, just as rock critics want Alejandro Escovedo and Son Volt to be more popular than U2. But reality is reality, reality is like that. If you put Tom Hardy on the cover of People magazine, people would ask, "Wait, where did Johnny Depp go?" ”
There is a term for this category of people. They are all idols, but slightly less famous, they are famous representatives of the working class.
In this way, Charlie Hannum should feel lucky.
Translator: Chen Wanqi