I don’t think luck comes into it much. I was recently speaking to an old acquaintance who used to work at the RSC and remembers his first season with them (and, as a total unknown just out of drama school, he was recruited because of his talent alone – unlike some other actors cast in big parts around then largely because they were the son or daughter of a big star or had other connections) – she said that Stratford was buzzing about his talent. She also said he was one of the nicest, politest actors she has ever worked with, which has probably helped a bit, as well – not being an arsehole can be a real career advantage for an actor.

I’ve heard the “very little range” accusation lobbed at Freeman a lot and I disagree. He’s a quiet, unshowy actor who follows the internal, Stanislavskian method of living the character’s emotions from within, rather than impersonating other people. If he looks like he’s just being himself in every part, IMO it’s because he makes the character’s thought processes and feelings so natural and believable. I don’t need him to look radically different in every part he’s in – I just need to feel 100% convinced by the character. Which I always am.

Don’t often quote from comments in articles, but this was blackbroom talking about Martin Freeman in the Guardian’s review of Richard III, in response to an accusation that Martin had ‘limited talent’ and had gotten ‘lucky’ to be where he is now. (via missmollysolverson)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *