Alright. There is something that HAS to get straightened out regarding Craig Horner.
And I would like you to think a minute on these things, first:
- [The show's] Editing/Editor(s)
- Viewer population demographics (possibly what the majority is, or is likely to swing toward)
- the Role. What is being played/portrayed, in any given instance.
Finally having gotten through the last episode of Season 1, and having had a chance to watch Craig develop the role of Richard (or portray Richard's development, as possibly planned by the writers), I was struck--somewhere between a re-viewing of Listener [ep.5] and for every episode from Sacrifice [ep.10] thereafter--by the realization that all of the not-really-complimentary online babble about Craig's acting was, in fact, mistaking not liking his [or 'the'] portrayal of young/immature/beginner-Seeker Richard, and those qualities that young, "puppy" Richard had--for Craig's acting quality or skill in general.
Everyone who talked about it seemed to think that somewhere "after Denna" [ep.8] Craig 'grew up,' or matured, as an actor.
After doing careful watching and discerning, and especially after seeing something in Listener [far before Denna] that I hadn't caught or paid enough attention to, before, I re-evaluated the similar opinion I'd had.
Watching later episodes solidified it; it really helped.
Craig's got acting chops. Fine ones. Watch Listener, and watch it carefully. Then move on ahead from just about Sacrifice onward, and compare that. Watch him. One of the things that I mentioned above is not going to be working in his favor. Actually, two of them, sort of; conjointly.
One of the reasons that it's harder to catch Craig's skill and his finer moments is -in my opinion- unfortunately, editing.
Though there be many, many women like me watching LoTS, I still think the young(ish) male population is larger, by a bit. And Bridget is undeniably lovely; not to mention riveting and skilled at keeping you emotionally invested and kind of captivated. And savvy TV producers who know their majority audience and what that audience wants to look at are not such fools as to not take to good advantage such
I think I was watching Conversion, and admiring Craig's beautiful expression when Kahlan finally shakes out of the Con Dar [it's several seconds' worth, but it gets broken up]--and I couldn't help but notice: Gosh, the cameramen favor Bridget! I mean, we know that this episode is kind of Kahlan's thing--well, a little more so, anyway--it's Con Dar-pivotal, so that makes its theme quite a bit Kahlan-centric [even though major things are happening for both Richard & Kahlan, in this episode; it matters (I think) both more to us, and to Richard, even, what's happening in that dungeon torture-room with Kahlan than what becomes of this particular chance at killing Darken Rahl]
I was amazed, once I started paying attention to it [primarily because I noticed some fine acting by Craig and was trying to focus on it and take Richard's reactions in], at how the camera totally lingered over Kahlan's face. And kept going back to it.
I know her reactions are important, and we want to see what's going on in her, but I really had a desire to see it more balanced, after more watchings. They did pretty good- that is, they lingered on Richard's face and reactions a little more than they usually do -but I don't think it was balanced. Craig really shined, here, and I wanted to linger over his face longer, and absorb that [what he was doing, there. (-It was heartbreaking...!)]. You can really see his [Richard's] fear, and how much he loves her. I'm getting all verklempt thinking about it. <:}
[If you haven't ever noticed how good he is at getting the ol' tears in the eyes, you need to pay more attention. Again, each time I keep going back for repeated viewings of specific parts, I just keep noticing it here and there, more and more. Again--I don't wish to insult or harp on anybody, or cause argument or malcontent/division--but, pay attention to perhaps the editing choices. If it cuts away or loses Richard, right when Craig is doing something kind of special--but it's not getting focused on.]
The thing is, as I first wrote, above, there is probably a slight to moderate (or greater?) male-viewership majority, still--and I don't think very many [in the heterosexual population thereof, anyway] men want to linger long moments over the male lead's face, & absorb his emotions. Supposedly that's girly stuff. [NOT. But... ahem.] They would appear [and I get this from reading male viewers' blog & online commentary, okay?] to want to mainly see the male lead whacking on legions of baddies. And 'progress the plot.' [ Yatta, yatta. Men and their always wanting to progress the plot. "It did/didn't progress the plot; whah whah whah...!" Bleh. ;) Do you know how boring you are?]
So I think the production team is just being attuned to this. And as far as that [still probable] male-majority-viewership goes, any Bridget is good Bridget...so it doesn't matter if Kahlan's being all emote-ey, or kicking ass, or doing whatever...just keep the camera plenty on her, and you'll have rendered that population more than reasonably happy.
Anyway, I wanted to make this point solidly, because I feel quite certain that Craig's had the shorter end of the stick, through most of Season 1.
And seeing his portrayal of Richard as Richard "grows" through the first year has convinced me that the first handful of episodes were being played as a young, immature Richard- deliberately. And you can say that you didn't like how 'puppy Richard' was portrayed [or perhaps written], but what you are viewing [I think] was a characterization choice; not a reflection of Craig's acting skills.
I think Craig has proven that.
Edit: See what he has to say here, in this interview. I think this confirms it:
"What’s great is in 22 episodes, I can take him from boy to man."
Regardless, 'young Richard' is no more. :) We get to see Craig be cool.
Craig, you've earned my respect and I will very much enjoy watching what you have to do with Richard as time goes on.
Props! and hugs,
KtL
No comments:
Post a Comment