the DVD of Danny Boyle's film, "Sunshine." Okay, so here we have a group of astronauts from Earth on a mission to the Sun, because the Sun is dying, and they've gotta drop some sort of nuclear device into it in order to bring it back to life so that it can continue to serve as life-giver to the Earth. It's already far too much science-fantasy for my taste, but I'm with it, because here's the thing: They're flying behind this huge umbrella-like shield to protect them from the killer force of infinitely intense solar heat and power. Any course deviation from the nose of the vessel first, and their back end is exposed unless properly compensated for, and from the very beginning they've shown how the Sun's rays will vaporize anything that is exposed to it in a nano-second. Well, of course, they are compelled to deviate from their course to answer a distress signal, and the navigator does not feed the data to the ship's computer in a way that changes the vessel's trajectory with sufficient compensation for the rear, exposing it to the Sun as it begins to peak from behind the protection of the shielding umbrella. The first thing to go is a rotating radio antenna, that terminates their communication link with Earth. And on and on... Fantasy notwithstanding, I was hooked. I'm thinking, "You've got the perfect built-in villain. You've got to get very close to the Sun, and the Sun don't play! What sort of things do you have to do to deal with this deadly enemy in order to get to it, get back home, and make it your friend again? You don't need any more jeopardy than that to build a truly compelling adventure story." But, of course, in a textbook case of formulaic, Hollywood, plot-driven bullshit, some studio exec must not have felt that the science within the fantasy was going to be interesting enough to the target audience. The next thing I know, there's some creature on-board ship messing with them. As if they don't have plenty of nearly plausible problems already, right? And he's like some guy who's been out there exposed to radiation too long and he's ugly and pissed off, but his prosthetics are bad, so they can only really show him in quick jump-cuts. So it becomes this story of this thing chasing these poor slobs around the ship which, ya know, you could have done in some house on Earth and saved yourself the FX budget. They had me at "Hello," and then... Plot-driven vehicles, and creativity by committee. Forgetaboutit!! Okay, another tangent. Sorry. Thanks for letting me rant.
Oh, rant on, my friend. They never even bother to explain how the psycho killer got on board, since he was lost in space years earlier. Not a thing in the second half of that movie makes the least bit of sense, and no one connected to it seemed to even notice they were talking nonsense.
No, I have never played Hamlet. I've always wanted to attempt it, and I fear I'm rather old for it now by traditional standards. An insightful and courageous director could still make it work, but I don't know many of those, and I'm afraid that very few know me. One holds out hope. Hamlet says. "...the readiness is all..." With regard to that particular role, my time might now be better spent figuring out how I might direct someone else in the part, and thus play it vicariously through some younger talent.
What would you bring to the character - directing or acting - that you feel would be a uniquely a part of yourself?
I'll keep you posted.
You’re a big, handsome guy, and physically very imposing. Your characters always seem quite a bit smarter and self aware than anyone else in the room, which is probably at odds with how a lot of people would immediately think to cast you. “Oh, he’s a big guy, let’s have him be a legbreaker for the mob, or the dumb guy who beats up his neighbor,” that kind of thing. I can’t think of a single “Dumb Guy” part that you’ve played. Is it difficult to get the parts you want, given your obvious preference for intelligent characters, or do you simply take the role and then bring