(no subject)
Aug. 11th, 2005 10:52 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
merelynInspired by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
brindel's post on David Hewlett, and the comments therein, specifically clarkangel's here.
Likebrindel, it must be stated that Rodney McKay is the main reason why I watch SGA. (Okay, Zelenka too.) I do love me some DH, and I think he's a brilliant actor, probably the best on the show. For me, when it comes to actors, brilliant acting is about 50 times hotter than anything else. You could be the prettiest thing ever, but if you can't deliver a line, ugh.
Also, it's very easy to become confused when trying to differentiate between the actor and the character he/she plays. I certainly have a difficult time of it. So if the following rambling on DH and Rodney and JF and John is completely incoherent, apologies in advance.
To begin with, Rodney McKay is not a hero in any conventional sense. On another show, he would be another Kavanagh, the irritating scientist side character that you want to hit. And yet, here, on SGA, he's one of the leads. It's one of the most original things about the show. Take a look at "The Rising". After the MALP goes through, and they get the all clear to go, Rodney's comment is: "Looks like we're not getting out of this." Sure it's a joke, but not really. Action! Adventure! Another Galaxy! These are the very staples of the Sci-Fi genre.
You can tell that if Rodney had his way, he'd stay at home exploring Ancient technology from his ratty couch and leave the action and adventure to someone else. He is not the person you expect to see on a show like this, which is why watching his character develop, make connections, be brilliant and brave and still undeniably flawed that is one of the great pleasures of Season 1.
DH's job as an actor, therefore, is to make us not like Rodney, necessarily, but understand him. To take Rodney McKay and show us everything human he can about him. And DH is brilliant in this regard. With Rodney McKay, David Hewlett has managed to make a character who is, on the surface, a completely obnoxious asshole, almost entirely sympathetic. His performance is, asbrindel says, nuanced, complex, and most importantly, very accessible. We know what is going on in Rodney's head practically all the time. We can see what he's thinking. We understand him, which is why we feel for him. And even if he behaves like an ass sometimes, and even though I know that in real life Rodney McKay would probably drive me batshit, the feeling doesn't change.
I think it's hard, though, to compare DH and JF's performances. John Sheppard is an entirely different kettle of fish from Rodney. He is as close to a big damn hero as the scrappy Atlantis team is going to get. He's charming and good-looking and we are automatically disposed to like him. But there is also, on the surface, not a lot there. Joe Flanigan's job as an actor is different: to flesh out the character, give Sheppard something more than the cardboard cutout quipping flyboy type we've seen before in other shows.
And no, you can't see everything Sheppard is thinking by JF's facial expressions. And while you could argue that it's because JF's performance isn't as skilled as it could be, you could also argue that Sheppard is not the type of character who would wear his heart on his sleeve (whereas Rodney, well, he kind of is). John is not going to be telegraphing every emotion he has to the outside word. Either could be valid. But the thing is, even with all we've seen of his character, it's hard to say which is true.
Even though Sheppard is the "hero" of the show, we don't actually know much concrete about him. His character is difficult to pin down. He's unpredictable. He's surprising. It's easier for me to explain what John Sheppard isn't than what he is; what he wouldn't do in a situation, as opposed to what he would. I think I know his character, but how much of that is based on speculation?
And now that I think about it, fanon has done a lot more (for me personally) at opening up the character- giving him backstory, angstiness, darkness, etc, things that we only see tantalizing flashes of on the show:
Flipping a coin. Liking ferris wheels. Flying. Sending his letter from Pegasus. Closet math geekiness.
All of these are tiny little pieces that the show has dropped, pieces that fandom has grabbed onto and interpreted and extrapolated for itself. And it's really through fandom more than canon that my emotional attachment to Sheppard has come from. Fic-wise, I think that's also why I can read fics that have very different takes on John, and buy into them. Rodney, on the other hand, is the kind of character you either nail or you don't. Because David Hewlett puts it all out there to see. Joe Flanigan doesn't. Sheppard, consequently, remains more of a mystery to figure out.
I'd like to think it's a deliberate choice on JF's part, a reflection of the fact that Sheppard is a hard person to know well. Whatever else you want to say about him, JF is very good at making you feel that there is something going on under that much remarked upon hair, even if it's hard to always get an intellectual grasp on what that is. Personally, I am (for now) chalking this failure up to the writers and not so much JF's acting. I think the show could be a lot better at giving us some more revealing moments for John.
Hopefully, in the future, it will. Because while I will continue watching SGA for Rodney McKay, I will also keep tuning in for other reasons. To see if we ever get to the bottom of a certain Lieutenant Colonel. To find out all the backstory that's lurking around. To see what JF will do with some quality material for his character. Because I get the feeling if it happens, it's going to be very interesting indeed.
brindel's post on David Hewlett, and the comments therein, specifically clarkangel's here.Like
brindel, it must be stated that Rodney McKay is the main reason why I watch SGA. (Okay, Zelenka too.) I do love me some DH, and I think he's a brilliant actor, probably the best on the show. For me, when it comes to actors, brilliant acting is about 50 times hotter than anything else. You could be the prettiest thing ever, but if you can't deliver a line, ugh. Also, it's very easy to become confused when trying to differentiate between the actor and the character he/she plays. I certainly have a difficult time of it. So if the following rambling on DH and Rodney and JF and John is completely incoherent, apologies in advance.
To begin with, Rodney McKay is not a hero in any conventional sense. On another show, he would be another Kavanagh, the irritating scientist side character that you want to hit. And yet, here, on SGA, he's one of the leads. It's one of the most original things about the show. Take a look at "The Rising". After the MALP goes through, and they get the all clear to go, Rodney's comment is: "Looks like we're not getting out of this." Sure it's a joke, but not really. Action! Adventure! Another Galaxy! These are the very staples of the Sci-Fi genre.
You can tell that if Rodney had his way, he'd stay at home exploring Ancient technology from his ratty couch and leave the action and adventure to someone else. He is not the person you expect to see on a show like this, which is why watching his character develop, make connections, be brilliant and brave and still undeniably flawed that is one of the great pleasures of Season 1.
DH's job as an actor, therefore, is to make us not like Rodney, necessarily, but understand him. To take Rodney McKay and show us everything human he can about him. And DH is brilliant in this regard. With Rodney McKay, David Hewlett has managed to make a character who is, on the surface, a completely obnoxious asshole, almost entirely sympathetic. His performance is, as
brindel says, nuanced, complex, and most importantly, very accessible. We know what is going on in Rodney's head practically all the time. We can see what he's thinking. We understand him, which is why we feel for him. And even if he behaves like an ass sometimes, and even though I know that in real life Rodney McKay would probably drive me batshit, the feeling doesn't change. I think it's hard, though, to compare DH and JF's performances. John Sheppard is an entirely different kettle of fish from Rodney. He is as close to a big damn hero as the scrappy Atlantis team is going to get. He's charming and good-looking and we are automatically disposed to like him. But there is also, on the surface, not a lot there. Joe Flanigan's job as an actor is different: to flesh out the character, give Sheppard something more than the cardboard cutout quipping flyboy type we've seen before in other shows.
And no, you can't see everything Sheppard is thinking by JF's facial expressions. And while you could argue that it's because JF's performance isn't as skilled as it could be, you could also argue that Sheppard is not the type of character who would wear his heart on his sleeve (whereas Rodney, well, he kind of is). John is not going to be telegraphing every emotion he has to the outside word. Either could be valid. But the thing is, even with all we've seen of his character, it's hard to say which is true.
Even though Sheppard is the "hero" of the show, we don't actually know much concrete about him. His character is difficult to pin down. He's unpredictable. He's surprising. It's easier for me to explain what John Sheppard isn't than what he is; what he wouldn't do in a situation, as opposed to what he would. I think I know his character, but how much of that is based on speculation?
And now that I think about it, fanon has done a lot more (for me personally) at opening up the character- giving him backstory, angstiness, darkness, etc, things that we only see tantalizing flashes of on the show:
Flipping a coin. Liking ferris wheels. Flying. Sending his letter from Pegasus. Closet math geekiness.
All of these are tiny little pieces that the show has dropped, pieces that fandom has grabbed onto and interpreted and extrapolated for itself. And it's really through fandom more than canon that my emotional attachment to Sheppard has come from. Fic-wise, I think that's also why I can read fics that have very different takes on John, and buy into them. Rodney, on the other hand, is the kind of character you either nail or you don't. Because David Hewlett puts it all out there to see. Joe Flanigan doesn't. Sheppard, consequently, remains more of a mystery to figure out.
I'd like to think it's a deliberate choice on JF's part, a reflection of the fact that Sheppard is a hard person to know well. Whatever else you want to say about him, JF is very good at making you feel that there is something going on under that much remarked upon hair, even if it's hard to always get an intellectual grasp on what that is. Personally, I am (for now) chalking this failure up to the writers and not so much JF's acting. I think the show could be a lot better at giving us some more revealing moments for John.
Hopefully, in the future, it will. Because while I will continue watching SGA for Rodney McKay, I will also keep tuning in for other reasons. To see if we ever get to the bottom of a certain Lieutenant Colonel. To find out all the backstory that's lurking around. To see what JF will do with some quality material for his character. Because I get the feeling if it happens, it's going to be very interesting indeed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-08-12 09:20 pm (UTC)And to me, I think that's very true. Despite his intelligence, McKay is the closest thing we've got to an "Everyman," someone whose default position is "scared and neurotic," like ninety-five percent of the rest of us, but somehow manages to get through the challenges life hands him, in a way the rest of us would like to imagine that we would ourselves. He is the metaphorical "Us" out there on the grand adventure. His adversities are our adversities; his successes are our successes. Thus, it is obvious why he would attract and earn so much of our affection.
Sheppard, on the other hand, is the "Hero," which is always a much tougher role to handle, since it requires displaying qualities most of us are not prepared to recognize in ourselves. The only way to make the "Hero" relatable is to tap into that lack of recognition, the doubt most of us feel even when outsiders tell us that we are performing excellently in an adverse situation. And to put it out there so that those of us who have triumphed over tough odds can see it, and begin to find the points where the "Hero" can become much more accessible, even as we deny that accessibility.
The above is why so many writers load their "Hero" types down with angst, be it guilt caused by failure or past sins (Joss Whedon's "Angel" and "Malcolm Reynolds"), doubt and insecurities in being able to shoulder a task (JW's "Buffy," David Kemper's "John Crichton"), or a constant lack of regard, from many of the people they've worked their butt off for (Ron Moore's "Starbuck"). These skilled writers know the best way to doom a "Hero" is to write him or her as one-note. To only show them effortlessly saving the day is not interesting and can quickly cause the audience to dismiss them as a cartoon/caricature.
To me, this is where "Stargate" writers failed with O'Neill, and probably why RDA felt so compelled to try to be funny all the time. (Which in my opinion only served to weaken an already paper-thin character.) To be honest, I don't have a great deal of respect for the abilities of the "Stargate" writing staff, a large reason why I've never been able to become a fan of "SG1." These writers seem to be perfectly happy to write caricatures instead of people, and to cater to the mainstream tendencies of scifi audiences. To me, this means they always choose to go with action over character development, and regularly cheat the more emotionally involved segment of their audience of the small moments that they need so much.
That's why I'm surprised that I actually like "Atlantis," and I think that a great deal of that has to do with the fact that JF has managed to impress me with what he can do with the material he's been handed. To my mind, the "Stargate" writers are writing that show the same way they always have: writing for action more than character and when they do write for character, they tend to only be comfortable writing it as broad comedy or ineffectual romance. Since JF's Sheppard is always going to be the go-to guy for action, and not the go-to guy for comedy, that means he will always end up either shooting things or having to find some way to sell the lines the writers mistakenly believe are the way two grown adults would interact with each other romantically. In other words, he will almost always end up with the short end of the character development stick, and be left trying not to let his actions fall into the realm of caricature.
(To be continued...d*** it!) :)