Comment by sho_hn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sho_hn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Picard's actions were choices made in the writing, but Stewart's strengths as a performer gave it gravitas, made it believable and made it resist cynicism. He gave the writing legs.

I'm sure those writers were quite content writing for an actor of that calibre. Imagine putting words to the page, knowing Patrick Stewart will take them out into the world and surely stick the landing.

What a great combination.

We know Stewart was not a great writer, of course. When he had opportunities to take the reigns of the Picard character creativitely he usually asked for more action, and the results were a bit more conventional and boring. The combination was certainly also needed for the magic.

I always liked this video from an acting workshop where Suchet and Stewart deliver contrasting performances of Shylock and discuss their choices at length:

https://youtu.be/-35G7DOFrOo

https://youtu.be/FU_zqBIITDM

The Picard series on Amazon, which he had a big say in, was not great.

It's an actor's job to dramatise our projections, so from that POV he did a legendary job with TNG.

But there's a certain amount of learned skill involved. I know someone who used to work backstage at the Royal Shakespeare Company. She said that she'd all these famous names playing cards backstage, they'd get their call, turn on the juice, stride on stage, say their lines with the appropriate presence and gravitas, then turn the juice off again after the scene and pick up the card game where they left off.

Stewart's choice of roles and support for causes suggests there was more than that involved for him.

He wasn't Picard in real life, but he wasn't just acting either.

He was also quite old by the time of the Picard series, and perhaps even already suffering from the early symptoms of dementia.

This is absolute gold, but Suchet is so much better here. That performance was transcendent.

I don't disagree. Absolute delight.

That said, Suchet's performance is magnetic but almost a bit too dignified to me. Stewart's take is not as handsome and agreeable, but makes perhaps more sense for Shylock - that raised-index-finger teach me moment is just sublime smartassery.

Suchet's Shylock is angry for being wronged, and rightly so. Stewart's Shylock is justifying his actions, and a little proud of himself for thinking of the justification. With modern eyes it's very compelling to side with Suchet's Shylock, of course, but it's perhaps not really the character. But then this duality is of course a great reason the play remains forever relevant and popular.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com