Movies - The actor's part - Why the hate on Stuart Townsend? (QOTD and generally.)

VampireOutlaw · 09-07-2009, 08:36 AM

I just wrote this today to Fanpop's articles and also posted this to my Lestat & Marius Fan Site. I would like to discuss this topic.

The points I'm going to argue / comment on:
X How his performance as Lestat / any character supposedly sucks.
X He didin't even read the books when he took the role of Lestat.
X How he in the first place took such a crappy role in a crappy script.
X Being drunk on the set / made up accent and bragging about them.
X He supposedly acted surprised twice for the same reason in the film.

Now, when you put all that in that way and even leave it at that - sure as hell it sounds downright ridiculous and awful. But why don't we take a deeper look at all that? I know I will, you're always free to ignore and if you do choose to give the following a thought - you're always of course free to have and keep your own opinion. AND please do take notice that I am not trying to make him look like the best actor ever or justify his obviously stupid attitudes with the whole drinking thing... I'm simply trying to open people's eye that there's more to everything than those arguments imply and that thus none of the above has to make Townsend into the worst actor in the world either.

Everyone need to remember - what the caharcters are in movies are not completely the actor's work - they can not decide everything. The script writes have written the characters and the directors have a heavy word in what's happening on the screen - that's the whole point of a director's job. Of course the actor has a lot to say o the performance too but the point is no one should focus on the actor in neither praising or trashing their performance. Nothing's black and white in acting and movie business and the more colourful the character the harder it is for the actor to perform well - especially with a crappy, illogic script writing and possibly a bad director. So I think people really should remember Tom Cruise did better job in everything mostly because he got a better script (written by Anne Rice herself) and a better director.

And even if Stuart Townsend had read the books and wanted to portray more true version of Lestat - he'd have found it impossible with the entire script in his hands as the script strayed so very far from the source material in every possible matter. So I really don't think it's away from Townsend as an actor if he didn't care to read the source material in this case. And a leading actor certainly doesn't have the authority to request that many and huge changes. The story and other characters affect the leading man, in this case, Lestat. So the whole script matters more than anything you, me, Anne, Stuart or anyone else might wish.

Now I've also heard people trash Townsend in the name that he even accepted a role in such a film and version of the character. And I feel that is plain petty attitude. As far as I've heard, Townsend didn't like the Lestat&Jesse "romance" but liked the idea of a rockstar vampire enough to take the part. As for the crappy version of Lestat... He couldn't have known it since he hadn't read the books. And as said, reading them would've been pointless for the reason I analysed above. If someone should be trashed for not caring to read the books or respect them before starting to work on them, it's the script writers. Without them this movie wouldn't even exsist for anyone to take the roles. And basically, if he liked the idea of a rockstar vampire and believed he'd be good as one, then he should be allowed to take the part without being trashed by fanatic fans of the source material. Because that reason has nothing to do with the books but just a person's likings for a role all in all.

I also wish to comment on the accusations for Townsend being drunk in the set / on camera and bragging about it and about the made-up accent. I agree that bragging about being drunk in any case is downright wrong and not respectable. But I am not going to hold that against him forever and ever and in everything he ever did before or after that point, unlike some. 'Cause holding one mistake against someone like that is just as stupid as the attitude that is held against him. His stupid attitude about the matter, doesn't change the fact that him being drunk didn't show in the scene in question on camera. It didn't show! So this means, either he wasn't that drunk at all in the end OR was able to hide it, which would actually be quite something in a positive way. But more likely he just wasn't that drunk. And a director surely wouldn't even let on camera an actor if he was too drunk to pull something off convincingly. Plus, it's not as if he was (as far as anyone knows) drunk in every scene. But just in one. It doesn't make him the devil of the actor kind. Gees.

And the accent... Yes it is kinda stupid to make up an accent that isn't French while the character is mentioned to be French in the film. But seriously, how petty is it to get all worked up and trash somone as an actor for that? At least to me, personally, in an actor's talent and choices, the how convincingly they say their lines matter a whole lot more than the accent, be it right or wrong accent. And I also rather listen to what the characters say than pay attention to the accents used. But in the end it isn't even so stupid to make up an accent. Lestat travelled a lot - he could've picked it up and used it. And Cruise's accent wasn't french either even though in that film too Lestat was implied to be french. Something about being from Paris as was his maker.

To argue the also often complained about "He acted surprised twice for teh same reason!" As in Lestat is told twice in the film that Akasha has killed Enkil and that he supposedly acts surprised for that matter, both times. Phuuh. Let me review the two scenes in question:

So, Marius and Lestat are having a talk. Marius tells Lestat "It is time to expect some company. You're music's awoken a very old friend." To which Lestat comments "What's that supposed to mean?" - even his face oozing him being clueless. Marius makes a stinging remark "Can't you feel it? Or is the applause all you hear now?" - So Lestat starts to focus on "feeling it" and has a flash about the statues - Akasha gone and Enkil apparently dead. Lestat's reaction is an excited and surprised toned "Akasha!" - he probably didn't even notice Enkil was still there, dead or not as Akasha was the only one he paid attention to in the first place when he first saw the statues 200 years earlier. Marius tells him Akasha has risen and killed Enkil and so gotten more powerful. Lestat's comments "Good. Let her come!" - he's clearly all about thinking of OMG Akashaakashaakasha! Enkil is utterly insignificant matter in his mind - not to mention that he probably isn't exactly listening to what Marius is trying to tell him. Much like 'Dude, Akasha has risen, the liquid fire godess you got so worked up about back then, has rise, who the hell cares about anything else!' Even Marius notices that as he puts weight on how Lestat is not match for her, that he (Lestat) is not a god.

Then the other scene, much, much later after Lestat had been though many events that had nothing to do with either Akasha or Enkil. And after Akasha had snatched him from a battle field he actually had enjoyed being in, and he clearly looked very stunned and lost the moment on the stage when Akasha drew him close to herself. So at this point when he is surprised about Akasha having no king, there was every chance he had already completely forgotten the "insignificant" little detail that Marius had been desperately trying to get through his head, not to mention the situation itself was obviously the kind that would not keep him thinking straight. He was actually now with the Queen of his kind, with the one he had so been fascinated about 200 years earlier.

So in the end I don't think he ever was surprised twice about the same thing anyway. First it was just the fact Akasha had risen and he kept ignoring Enkil, and then at the second time, it was about the Enkil matter which he now had room for in his head because it was the precious Akasha herself who said it. So go ahead, mock Townsend for "acting surprised for the same thing twice". It's rather ignorant claim because he didn't and even if he had, there was all the chances in the story for the character to have forgotten about the first time.

So... I think that whereas people do have valid reasons to trash Townsend to begin with - they fall apart when looked more into what Townsend had in his hands to work with, into what happened on camera (or didn't), and into everything that actually matters in acting business and a character performance. Stuart Townsend obviosuly isn't the best and most respectable actors there could be, but he certainly isn't the worst and doesn't deserve to be treated like scum in any way.

So people... I'm not asking you to like Townsend or forget completely what he has bragged about but won't you show a little appreciation for his efforts and obvious acting talent (that have been pointed out for one on my Lestat & Marius fan site's Lestat section, in the "Stuart Townsend's potential for trrue Lestat" part - see my signatur.) And a little respect for his right to like any role character he feels like liking. I just don't think extreme attitudes ever do any good to anyone or anything. Extreme attitude is blinding. And it surely isn't giving vibes of an intelligent thinking, nor of passion - but rather of obsession. Critisism is another thing. It's point is to look for flaws but a good critic isn't dismissing valid points that are making something less bad or is unwilling to look deeper into the thing because it might make the thing less bad.

**ROCKSTAR** · 09-07-2009, 08:43 PM

Hello.

We have an acting thread here.

Please re-post there.

Thank you!