Sunday Times Interview with Viggo Mortensen: Broadsheet or Loose Women?

Viggo Mortensen on Times magazine cover

I read an interview with Viggo Mortensen in the Sunday Times supplement and immediately realised the reason for his somewhat queasy smile on the cover. He looks like he’s trying to smile while someone pulls his fingernails out. Charlotte Edwardes sets about this actor who takes his work seriously as if she were on Loose Women ribaldly joking with Peter Andre.

First, she feels the need to bone up on (cue giggles from Ms Edwardes – this is her level) his films so is evidently unacquainted with them – though how you could miss some of them I don't know. All she’s gleaned from her research though is the fact that he ‘gets his kit off’ a lot. She hasn’t recognised his integrity or commitment. It’s obvious that he’s completely bemused by her gambit, perhaps believing that a paper like this might send someone who had some interest in or understanding of his oeuvre rather than a frivolous girl who’s preoccupied with things that are irrelevant to him and I venture, the rest of us.

She could have talked a little more about his choice of roles – from A Walk on the Moon (with Diane Lane), a personal favourite of mine, through The Lord of the Rings (perfectly cast as Aragorn) to the Cormac McCarthy tale, The Road, his rapport with animals, his co-stars, his other talents but no, she went through and counted how many films he took his clothes off in and asked why so many, as if this were his decision and had nothing to do with the nature of the film, the character, the director, the story. As if he were this rampant exhibitionist who just couldn’t resist stripping off.

The article is even billed on the Contents page as: ‘Viggo Mortensen, 57, tells Charlotte Edwardes why nudity is no big deal’ as if this is what he chose to discuss. The tagline has 'his roles require nudity with unusual regularity' and the cover calls him 'Hollywood's hottest silver fox', a description that I'm sure must leave him cold.

When she finally does broach the subject of his ‘Method’ approach, how, if his character didn’t get a chance to wash, he wouldn’t either, the asinine question that results is ‘Is he really quite smelly?’ I’m sure he must find her shallow, ignorant, maybe even insulting.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of pretentious luvvies bleating on about their craft but this whole approach seems disrespectful and if this is representative of respectable journalism these days, it’s very depressing. I appreciate that everyone is dumbing down as education standards plummet but for some reason I didn’t expect it of the Sunday Times quite yet. Congratulations, guys, you’re ahead of the game. It reminds me of an episode of The One Show, the one and only time I watched it, when the idiot presenters thought it would be hilarious to interview Elvis Costello while wearing huge versions of his original glasses. What’s he going to be remembered for – his songwriting and singing talent or his glasses? No contest as far as these twerps were concerned. They thought it was hilarious.

Mortensen as Aragorn in The Lord of the Rings

Book: Stardust by Neil Gaiman

Neil Gaiman

I found The Ocean at the End of the Lane lyrical and moving so got this from the library when I saw Neil Gaiman’s name on the cover and didn’t look at the title till I got it home. Oh no, I thought, because I had tried to watch the movie and thought it clichéd and dull, with terribly uninteresting characterisation and a storyline that achieved the extraordinary feat of being bland, formulaic and unbelievable at the same time. Not to mention totally wasting the talents of Claire Danes.

Stardust

In Stardust, Gaiman, like the magpies he writes about, randomly purloins bits and bobs from all over the place, in his case, from other better fantasy writers (C. S. Lewis and J. R. R.Tolkien), in a ‘this might be good in my book’ way, cobbles them together like an inexpert seamstress (ending up with a badly darned sock of a book – well, I never met a magpie who was good at sewing), while failing to reinvent or develop them in any worthwhile manner. You don’t get a sense that there’s any thought behind his (or rather his take on other people’s) ideas whereas with Lewis and Tolkien’s worlds, you know and believe that there’s a whole mythology (or religion) underpinning them. Here, there’s a thin veneer, gold leaf (or rather gold-coloured leaf) over plastic. Scratch the surface and you get more surface. Gaiman’s novel is like an old-style Hollywood backlot – with only facades and no actual buildings, let alone any foundations. No depth. I assumed at first that this was because it was written for children although I think children actually deserve better.

Elijah Wood as Frodo

It takes so much and gives nothing back – a quest (ok that’s in everything); ‘Think of it as a fellowship’ - hmm, sounds familiar; talking trees - ditto; a witch queen; dwarves who mine and are silversmiths of great skill; a reluctant wanderer (‘Adventures are all very well in their place, he thought, but there’s a lot to be said for regular meals and freedom from pain’ – remind you of any hobbit in particular?) None of this is expressed with any originality or flair.

The plot is derivative and unexciting and the characters at worst extremely irritating (think a book full of Tom Bombadils), at best uninvolving. The whole thing is fantasy-lite. I was prepared to think that the film-makers had done a poor job in adapting the book but that simply isn’t so. What’s incredible is that anyone thought it was worth turning this slight, shallow tale into a movie. My advice is to go read The Ocean at the End of the Lane instead.