And here’s the last one of the series. For now anyway. This would be the heftiest of the three.
This entry (see: rant) was inspired by: this entry here
A quick note before we start: I never published this comment in the original blog post cos I didn’t see the point. Instead, I’ve decided to sequester it here =D
Dear Brian the blogger,
Since this entry is dated four years ago, I don’t know if your opinion of the guy has changed. But assuming that it hasn’t, and I’m basing this comment solely on this blog entry of yours, Cristine’s comment and your response, then I agree with Cristine in that your opinion is biased. In your reply to her you said you weren’t and went on to explain why but I think you misunderstood what she meant when she said that about you.
Based on what I’ve read in your review, everything you said basically tells me that you dislike McAvoy’s characters in LKoS and TLS and the style of acting in which he chose to portray them. That’s fair enough. However, you tried to make it sound as though he’s lacking in skill when it’s really the style he employed when playing those roles that you find lacking, which has a distinct difference with lacking in skill. That’s bias #1. All this is shadowed by the fact that you don’t like the characters to begin with. That’s bias #2. An actor may have a style that may not be everyone’s cup of tea, or has played characters that one found hard to like, but that doesn’t make them unskilled (which is basically the definition of bad actor).
I don’t know if you consider Day-Lewis a good actor but I’m going to bet that you do. And you would be right. Still, quite a number of people find Day-Lewis’ style very self-centered which becomes apparent in the way all his characters become the center of the universe within the story he is supposed to help tell. While phenomenal, too much of it can become overbearing which in turn becomes off-putting. Despite this, very few would delude themselves to a point where they simply write him off as a bad actor because the fact is, he isn’t one. Yes, his style is one that serves the character he’s portraying first and foremost and everything else is secondary. He’s committed to the character to a point where it more often than not overshadows not only the other characters who happen to be sharing a scene with him, it somewhat eclipses the story that’s trying to unfold within it as well. Be that as it may, there’s no denying the fact that the man does more than the appropriate amount of justice to all his characters. And suffice to say, while I’m not the biggest fan of this particular style of his myself, I’ll readily admit that the guy’s a hell of an actor and I’ll gladly take my hat off to him for every high caliber performance I’ve ever seen him deliver.
So you find McAvoy’s style overly quiet and blending into the background too much which isn’t something you appreciate because you find it boring. That’s perfectly fine and I accept it. You may even think of it as bad acting to you, because that’s what it means when you don’t like a certain style of acting. But saying that that makes him a bad actor, even if only to you, is about the same as telling people that hockey’s a lousy sport just because you don’t like it.
p/s: another example of your bias that’s more glaring is the fact that you chose to dismiss all the readily available positive reviews about his performance in LKoS even amidst the sea of praises lavished upon Whitaker (and rightfully so, I must admit) as non-existent. That’s bias #3. Which incidentally, is also a third strike. Cristine brought it up as an example but I noticed that you chose to ignore that in your response to her.
pp/s: Your description of Valentin’s role in the story is excellent by the way. Very spot-on. And while you may not have realized it, in your criticism of the guy, you actually praised him. The very fact that you found him unfitting as the lead, in your mistake of thinking that he’s one, proves that he did his job right because he isn’t supposed to be the lead. Plummer’s Tolstoy and Mirren’s Sofia are. Valentin’s supposed to be the narrator and his purpose in the story is what you have so excellently described. Anything more would be obtrusive and hindering to the unfolding of the delicate tale surrounding Tolstoy and Sofia.
ppp/s: sorry this got so long, and for something that’s so very dated. I had an opinion and needed to share it. If you read through it all, I thank ye.
All this high-road talk of accepting another’s opinion without necessarily agreeing is not a lie. But in the interest of full disclosure, there exists a not-all-that-deep-down-inside part of me that’s banging down the conscience doors to be let out, screaming:
You presented yourself as a dullard, Brian the blogger. Like someone who doesn’t know a good thing even when it presents itself right in front if you all but naked except for a red bow. Likely not even when it hits you with a dead fish. Unless quality and finesse, true finesse, are foreign languages to you, what you’re doing here is deluding yourself by way of denial. I’m thinking it’s the latter when you ignore certain things that blow holes through your argument instead of trying to support it. If it’s the former, though, then I feel sorry for you, you culturally impoverished little bugger.
Ahhh, I feel so much better now.
—
That off my chest, happy new year to all and to all, a good twenty-fifteen.
Spiels 
Blah-blah-blah #006.3/3
And here’s the last one of the series. For now anyway. This would be the heftiest of the three.
This entry (see: rant) was inspired by: this entry here
A quick note before we start: I never published this comment in the original blog post cos I didn’t see the point. Instead, I’ve decided to sequester it here =D
Dear Brian the blogger,
Since this entry is dated four years ago, I don’t know if your opinion of the guy has changed. But assuming that it hasn’t, and I’m basing this comment solely on this blog entry of yours, Cristine’s comment and your response, then I agree with Cristine in that your opinion is biased. In your reply to her you said you weren’t and went on to explain why but I think you misunderstood what she meant when she said that about you.
Based on what I’ve read in your review, everything you said basically tells me that you dislike McAvoy’s characters in LKoS and TLS and the style of acting in which he chose to portray them. That’s fair enough. However, you tried to make it sound as though he’s lacking in skill when it’s really the style he employed when playing those roles that you find lacking, which has a distinct difference with lacking in skill. That’s bias #1. All this is shadowed by the fact that you don’t like the characters to begin with. That’s bias #2. An actor may have a style that may not be everyone’s cup of tea, or has played characters that one found hard to like, but that doesn’t make them unskilled (which is basically the definition of bad actor).
I don’t know if you consider Day-Lewis a good actor but I’m going to bet that you do. And you would be right. Still, quite a number of people find Day-Lewis’ style very self-centered which becomes apparent in the way all his characters become the center of the universe within the story he is supposed to help tell. While phenomenal, too much of it can become overbearing which in turn becomes off-putting. Despite this, very few would delude themselves to a point where they simply write him off as a bad actor because the fact is, he isn’t one. Yes, his style is one that serves the character he’s portraying first and foremost and everything else is secondary. He’s committed to the character to a point where it more often than not overshadows not only the other characters who happen to be sharing a scene with him, it somewhat eclipses the story that’s trying to unfold within it as well. Be that as it may, there’s no denying the fact that the man does more than the appropriate amount of justice to all his characters. And suffice to say, while I’m not the biggest fan of this particular style of his myself, I’ll readily admit that the guy’s a hell of an actor and I’ll gladly take my hat off to him for every high caliber performance I’ve ever seen him deliver.
So you find McAvoy’s style overly quiet and blending into the background too much which isn’t something you appreciate because you find it boring. That’s perfectly fine and I accept it. You may even think of it as bad acting to you, because that’s what it means when you don’t like a certain style of acting. But saying that that makes him a bad actor, even if only to you, is about the same as telling people that hockey’s a lousy sport just because you don’t like it.
p/s: another example of your bias that’s more glaring is the fact that you chose to dismiss all the readily available positive reviews about his performance in LKoS even amidst the sea of praises lavished upon Whitaker (and rightfully so, I must admit) as non-existent. That’s bias #3. Which incidentally, is also a third strike. Cristine brought it up as an example but I noticed that you chose to ignore that in your response to her.
pp/s: Your description of Valentin’s role in the story is excellent by the way. Very spot-on. And while you may not have realized it, in your criticism of the guy, you actually praised him. The very fact that you found him unfitting as the lead, in your mistake of thinking that he’s one, proves that he did his job right because he isn’t supposed to be the lead. Plummer’s Tolstoy and Mirren’s Sofia are. Valentin’s supposed to be the narrator and his purpose in the story is what you have so excellently described. Anything more would be obtrusive and hindering to the unfolding of the delicate tale surrounding Tolstoy and Sofia.
ppp/s: sorry this got so long, and for something that’s so very dated. I had an opinion and needed to share it. If you read through it all, I thank ye.
All this high-road talk of accepting another’s opinion without necessarily agreeing is not a lie. But in the interest of full disclosure, there exists a not-all-that-deep-down-inside part of me that’s banging down the conscience doors to be let out, screaming:
You presented yourself as a dullard, Brian the blogger. Like someone who doesn’t know a good thing even when it presents itself right in front if you all but naked except for a red bow. Likely not even when it hits you with a dead fish. Unless quality and finesse, true finesse, are foreign languages to you, what you’re doing here is deluding yourself by way of denial. I’m thinking it’s the latter when you ignore certain things that blow holes through your argument instead of trying to support it. If it’s the former, though, then I feel sorry for you, you culturally impoverished little bugger.
Ahhh, I feel so much better now.
—
That off my chest, happy new year to all and to all, a good twenty-fifteen.