Viserys: Villain or Victim?

“Viserys had been stupid and vicious, she had come to realize, yet sometimes she missed him all the same. Not the cruel, weak man he had become by the end, but the brother who had sometimes let her creep into his bed, the boy who told her tales of the Seven Kingdoms and talked of how much better their lives would be once he reclaimed his crown.”

(Daenerys’ thoughts on her brother)

♦          ♦          ♦

 

“He doesn’t see himself as a villain. He’s the hero of this story! That’s how you have to play it: ‘I’m the fucking lead! Why isn’t anyone treating me like the lead?”

(Harry Lloyd, on Inside HBO’s Game of Thrones, on playing Viserys Targaryen)

 

♦          ♦          ♦

Who is Viserys Targaryen?  Those who have read George R. R. Martin’s series A Song of Ice and Fire may call him “The Beggar King,” and know that he had been the only surviving son of the Mad King Aerys. Those who have watched HBO's Game of Thrones (2011-Present) have been known to call him “The Blond Baddie.”  To all, however, and whether they have read the books (first published in 1996), watched the television adaptation, or both, Viserys is most definitely known as the jerk who got his comeuppance and received his “golden crown.”

As someone who has read the first couple books in the series, as well as kept up with the show, I do understand how easily a person could take either side.  Is Viserys a villain?  Certainly, he has all the makings of the treacherous foe without having to dig very deeply below that overbearingly demanding and manipulative personality.  Or, is he a victim to the circumstances that befell him during his short life?  Is it possible that fate was against him from the very beginning?

The fair and honest answer would be both.

Digging into the history of Viserys, we find that he was a young boy during Robert's Rebellion. His father having been assassinated and elder brother killed upon the Trident, Viserys escaped with his pregnant mother, Rhaella. When she died shortly after Daenerys' birth, Viserys and his younger sister found safety with Ser William Derry and stayed with him until his death.

Tender or terrible?  Sibling love or the kiss of death?  Viserys often keeps us guessing.

This is where I begin to feel for Viserys, and I daresay that I am likely not the only one with at least a slight pang of sympathy for our villainous victim. Having lost his entire family save his younger sister, Viserys was responsible for keeping them both alive, as King Robert was still hunting them. After the death of Ser Derry, the two young Targaryens wandered city to city—relative vagabonds—staying as guests of powerful citizens.  To be sure, it is not much of an existence, and a humbling one at that: how the could’ve-been-mighty have fallen.  Eventually, and after overstaying their welcome, Viserys and Daenerys are forced to sell off many priceless heirlooms in order to survive. When they have to pawn Rhaella'a crown, it is then that people began to call Viserys “The Beggar King.”  

 

If such a turn in the young man’s life could be likened to anything contemporary, it was a case of bullying by others that made a bully.  His heart hardened by the treatment received from others, Viserys blamed his sister for killing their mother during childbirth and began to treat her terribly, prefacing these moments with threats about “waking the dragon.”

As readers and/or viewers, we get our first real look at the Targaryen siblings when we find them living with Magister Illyrio Mopatis.  He has allowed them to stay with him in exchange for rewards once Viserys ascends to the Iron Throne.  As part of the game plan, the two men arrange the marriage of Daenerys (played by the lovely Emilia Clarke on the show) to the Dothraki Khal Drogo (the towering Jason Momoa).  Of course, in this great chess-like game, a woman has little say and is merely a pawn between the male players. 

Perhaps Viserys’ character could have been more forgivable if this was all—a young man, finding himself in a difficult position and having been part of a promising family pedigree that has since crumbled, has scraped together a living and merely done what he has out of survival mechanisms.  We could forgive the selfishness and misogynistic tendencies if that were all: a man who is victim of circumstance.  But then, events take another turn, and we begin to question just what the ratio of victim: villain is when it comes to Viserys Targaryen.

He’s got his eye on you!  Viserys’ pensive face is often a combination of pain and plotting. 
We’re not sure how much we’d actually like to know what goes on in his head,
 but we bet there are lots of dragons swooping around.

At some point, we learn that Viserys had every intention of raping his sister the evening before her wedding.  His attempt to keep control of the situation by deciding that if he wasn't to marry her like originally planned (incest is common in Martin’s world), he would at least be the one to take her virginity. Fortunately, Illyrio has the foresight to place guards at her door, and so Viserys, does not succeed.  It’s quite a moment of foreshadowing, too—yet another moment where this tenacious young man will make an attempt to control a situation, only to be thwarted.

I don't condone the way Viserys treated his sister, nor can I pretend to understand why he abused her. My only guess is the stress he must've felt. On his own, he has no hope of gathering an army, and thus, a very slim chance of reclaiming the Seven Kingdoms.  What is more, once his sister has grown comfortable in her role as Khalessi, and is very much beloved, he feels alone in his efforts.  In truth, I even came to feel more resentful towards her.

Certainly, though, there is something worth digging into if the treacherous figure lurking in the shadows of a story, plotting rape, theft, and rebellion, has enough of a redeeming spark to make an audience (or at least me) feel a twinge of sympathy.

Perhaps much of this feeling is due to the nuanced, very human portrayal of Viserys, as acted by Harry Lloyd. 

In short, I am continuously impressed with Harry’s portrayal of The Beggar King, dragon-crazed blonde every time I re-watch Season One of HBO’s series. Book Viserys was horrible. I could find nothing likeable about him.  I felt he had no redeeming qualities and was barely human at times. He was a character-type, obviously the villain, and obviously there to spur hatred and create tension in the plot.  I do wonder, though, if part of my feelings is because we, as readers, only see Viserys from Daenerys' point of view.  Certainly, Viserys would have a wholly different portrait of himself to paint.  And, of course, had Viserys told his own story, it would be biased, but that is the problem with the alignment with Daenerys.  Without the third-person omniscient narrator, we’ll truly ever know the “real” Viserys Targaryen in the realm of the novels.

Yet, Harry Lloyd and the three-dimensions of television viewing allowed us a glimpse of something more, something into which we can dig our teeth and sink our nails, if we so desire.

Harry gives TV Viserys a shred of humanity. We are able to see him as his own character rather than just through his sister's eyes.  Isn’t this the goal of good characterization: to craft a figure who feels realistic?  And aren’t all people in real life more than just caricatures of a cardinal vice (or virtue), having aspects of both dwelling within them?

Sure, in the HBO Game of Thrones series, Viserys is still a jerk (and that may be putting things politely).  He definitely doesn't win the “Brother of the Year” award (then again, he’s not really good at “winning” things.  See the whole “Golden Crown” moment…) but at least he makes you feel, whether it be hate, pity, annoyance, or amusement.

In truth, I do not think that just anyone could have embodied this role. There are many actors who could have taken the role, sure; but I don’t think they could have done nearly as well.  Personally, I’m thrilled that Harry is always up for a challenge. Of course, I’m writing this for a blog called Lloydalists, which is already inherently biased, but this page and group was created out of an admiration for an underrated and dedicated actor.  He doesn't shy away from a possibly difficult role. In fact, it appears he likes to sink himself into such gigs as deliciously as Viserys would like to get his hands on dragon eggs.

 

More crinkled brow and concerned look:
Careful, Viserys, or your face will get stuck like that! 
Then again, you’d probably prefer that than what happens
 when you finally got your “crown”…

 

Harry puts so much effort into learning his characters, learning how to do the things they're supposed to do, learning the kind of information they should know, so that when it is time to call “Action,” he's as prepared as he can possibly be.  In the end, he’s a dedicated actor who puts everything on the line, pools all his energies and pours them into his diverse characters, and, let’s face it—he can pull off the baddie-blonde wig.

So what would have happened if Viserys had stayed alive long enough to claim the crown?  What kind of king would he have made?

I've seen some viewers compare him to Joffrey Baratheon (played gruesomely by another blonde baddie Jack Gleeson on the television series), while others say he probably would have been mad and erratic like his father.  Could Viserys have redeemed himself? I find it rather sad that he (as well as the reader/viewer) are never able to find out.  He never has a chance to become much of anything.  Again, while I don't condone anything that he does, I do feel he had a rough life and had much responsibility forced upon him too early, which, in part, led to his downfall. 

He could have made for a lovely tragic hero if he wasn’t too busy getting caught up in the kinds of things that transform one into a greedy villain.

“C” and I are interested in hearing your thoughts, comments, and reactions on/to this topic. Feel free to leave us feedback here, or join us on the Lloydalists' Facebook page or tweet @Lloydalists on Twitter.

 

Works Referenced

 

Game of Thrones. Dir. Alan Taylor, Daniel Minahan, David Nutter, et al. Perf. Peter Dinklage, Lena Headey, Maisie Williams, et al. HBO. 2011-Present. Television Series.

Martin, George R.R. A Game of Thrones. Book One of A Song of Fire and Ice (1996). New York: Bantam Books, 2005. Print.

~ Written and Posted by K; Edited/Revision Suggestions by C ~

Lloydalists: Another Roundup!

It often seems that when it comes to news about Harry Lloyd we’re either in a drought of sorts or were getting drenched.  This time however it’s been trickling in over the past couple weeks. So for some Lloydalists, this isn’t going to be anything new, but for those who don’t search daily, this is for you.

Recently Harry has been spending his time sitting behind the microphone rather than in front of the camera. Two of his recent projects are "A World Intact" and "The Cazalets Confusion".



Harry lending his voice to a couple
dramas on BBC Radio 4.

Airing April 18, 2013 on BBC Radio 4, “A World Intact” by Adam Foulds is set in the last years of the Second World War, a young man, Will, returns from training to his rural home to find everything unchanged - but no longer where he actually belongs (Approx 15 minutes).

In “The Cazalets Confusion” Harry stars as Hugo in episodes 7 and 8. ‘Confusion’ is the third of four compelling Cazalet novels by Elizabeth Jane Howard, which together give a vivid insight into the lives, hopes and loves of three generations during the Second World War and beyond.  It originally aired on BBC Radio 4 April 30^th and May 1st 2013 (Both approx. 14 minutes each).  If you’d like to listen to any of these, we will provide links at the end of this entry.



Kevin aka @MorningVent and Harry
pause a moment on set to take a photo.

This next bit of news was first brought to our attention when tweets from those who had auditioned began to surface on twitter. Morgan Casting Inc. held two days of casting in Canton, Mississippi for what they’re currently calling the “Untitled Uncorked Production” film starting April 21^st, 2013. Harry, having already been cast, sat in on the auditions.

“Just did an improv scene with Harry Lloyd from Game of Thrones. I was auditioning for an upcoming movie he’s starring in! Evidently, he is helping out with casting.” says @Murrr_Kate on twitter (4/24/13).




 Touchups!

On April 27^th Kevin aka @MorningVent tweeted the news that he was cast in the film as a “southern guy chewing tobacco, spitting in a cup and filling up his truck”.

Filming began May 6 and will continue through May 28 in primarily Mississippi but also North Carolina and Virginia.The only description we have for the plot of this film thus far is “It's a super cool project about a road trip!!” We’ll definitely keep everyone posted as more news rolls in.

And finally..."In 2022, all classes of drugs have been legalized. Drecks are an elite unit created by an over-stretched police force to keep the black market dealers off the streets and the licensed drug companies rich.

When Dreck and former addict Frank Grieves is called to investigate an unidentifiable corpse, he makes a connection to the biggest and most powerful drug company of them all: Ambro. But Ambro have friends in high places and as his corrupt superiors turn on him, Grieves finds himself cut loose by the law and separated from the people he loves. The only way to clear his name is to find the identity of the dead body and its connection to Ambro. But not even Grieves can predict what the future has in store.”

Dreck’s philosophy is to make a commercially viable, inventive, independent and ambitious British feature film. It’s definitely a film people will want to see! To achieve this, they have taken a different approach to production. They raised their finance 100% independently, which freed them up to work with up and coming talent alongside established names both behind and in front of the camera.  Over 18 months they assembled the film. Many British films struggle commercially because they are too expensive to produce and fail to recoup. By prioritizing quality over speed, they have kept their budget low and their hopes high.

To ensure Dreck makes its way to us, they are putting resources into ensuring that they are completely primed to get the film in front of the right people at the right time. Using kickstarter.com they are accepting pledges for this next part of the journey. Having just over two weeks to go they are already halfway to their goal.  If this project is something you’re interested in please check out the link below to pledge or find out more!  For those who pledge, there are different rewards varying from posters, copy of the DVD, a screening of the film and much more.

Finally, we want to express how happy we are to hear about Harry’s BAFTA nomination for best supporting actor in “The Fear”. His portrayal of Matty Beckett was fantastic and we can’t wait to see what this year’s awards ceremony brings. We haven’t heard if Harry will be going since he is currently filming in Mississippi, but hopefully he’ll be able to take a small time out this weekend and we’ll be able to see him at the BAFTAs.

Links:
https://soundcloud.com/#harrylloyd/a-world-intact
https://soundcloud.com/#harrylloyds/cazalets-confusion-episode-7
https://soundcloud.com/#harrylloyds/cazalets-confusion-episode-8
https://www.facebook.com/events/141113392732679/permalink/141113396066012/#!/events/161928667305447/
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/221697723/dreck-breakout-british-sc-fi-thriller/?ref=kicktraq
http://awards.bafta.org/award/2013/television


Thank you, Kevin. We appreciate you
sharing your photos!
 

Harry Lloyd's Process on Becoming the Real Man Nobody Knew: Reflecting on The Iron Lady, Part II of II Parts

As a continuation from the previous Lloydalists blog entry here, we’d like to turn a bit to Harry’s process (rather than the actual performance) when it comes to approaching a role.  This is the portion of his career that involves the kind of overlooked commitment or unrecognized work.  It involves research, study, focus, and thinking.  This entry (below) will focus on how Harry came to “become” the young Denis Thatcher, a man known of by many but really known by few.

* * *

Looking a little out of his element, and somehow disheveled despite being impeccably dressed, green-eyed Harry Lloyd was overwhelmed by what he called the “craziness” of New York City, but added that it is “ridiculous—it feels great” (Lloyd, in “The Iron Lady NY Premiere”).  He was in the U.S. then, in mid-December 2011, and at his first movie premiere in that infamous City that Never Sleeps.  The movie in question was The Iron Lady.   

It seems he was surprised by the attention both he and the film were getting: “The Americans really seem to be interested by it, and go along with it…it’s fantastic,” he told reporters on the Red Carpet at this same premiere on December 13, 2011, talking about the story of The Iron Lady and its ability to be more than something that is a strictly-British political or historical picture. Well, it does star America’s Star Meryl Streep.  But Lloyd himself is worthy of accolade, and has turned a what-could’ve-been-cartoonish figure with a sense of sometimes outlandish humor and made him an endearing yet strong character. His Denis Thatcher fits snuggly like a jig-saw piece into the puzzle of the rest of the film’s pieces—and, often, it is a breath of fresh air in the sometimes musty film of past-remembrances and haunting memories.

Harry Lloyd at the New York City Premiere of The Iron Lady after-party at the Royalton Hotel. December 13, 2012.  

Image Source: Larry Busacca/Getty Images North America

Sometimes, the process of creating a character—fictional or real—is surprising.  It can be a prop, a movement, or a costume that conveys more believability and compulsion to launch fully into a character than does years of training or days or rehearsal.  At a rather “candid” New York City press conference for the film that included director Phyllida Lloyd, writer Abi Morgan, and actors Meryl Streep and Harry Lloyd (Warburton), many wonderful tidbits and insights about The Iron Lady emerged.  Directing a question to Harry and Meryl, and noting that the two did not interact with one another on the screen, one interviewer asked if the actors interacted “behind the scenes discussing your characters” (Warburton).  Harry’s response included a description of a “lovely few days of rehearsing,” including photo shoots with the actors, including him, Streep, Jim Broadbent, and Alexandra Roach, in a series of different costumes so that pictures could be scattered through the Thatcher house. Although we don’t see a marriage or honeymoon for the Thatchers, “we had to pretend to get married and to be on honeymoon” (Lloyd, in Warburton).  Lloyd insists that seeing Broadbent in costume and character as Denis was a solidifying moment: “it was very different than just talking to someone about how they’re going to do it—which are always pretty fatuous conversations because actors don’t normally even know what they’re doing (laughs)—to able to observe it and see some common ground in what we had and what was different about it, that was the most useful day in terms of me and Jim” (qtd. in Warburton).

In his interview with Harry, Craig Hubert asked the actor about why he was interested in Denis Thatcher in the first place. Harry began by admitting a fascination with the man, “the only guy who has been male consort to a female Prime Minister” (Lloyd, in Hubert).  Harry went on to add that the connection between Margaret and Denis was “a fascinating relationship—how they stayed so strong, and in a way, so private, through everything” (Lloyd, in Hubert).

He continues intimating that his relationship with the real Denis Thatcher is, perhaps, unprecedented—and perhaps even reflects the relationship the real Thatcher had with his Prime Minister Wife.  He had a chance to research the private Denis, the one outside of public scrutiny and who, perhaps, cavorted and pranced rather than strolled professionally over the carpets behind the closed doors of his home. Confessing a familiarity to the stranger he never met, Harry says, “[t]here was something incredibly traditional about him that reminded me of my grandfather in terms of his sense of humor and politics. But I think what is most fascinating about both of them is this wonderful relationship and how they were both extremely successful in their own fields and how they supported each other. The open door between them—it was an extremely functional relationship” (qtd. in Hubert).

Indeed, the “functionality” of Lloyd’s performance in The Iron Lady is something that comes across quite well in his on-screen moments, as I suggested in my previous blog entry.

Toe-to-toe: Denis Thatcher (Harry Lloyd) and Margaret Roberts (Alexandra Roach) prepare to dance following their engagement.

Image Source: The Iron Lady (2011), ©Twentieth-Century Fox / Film 4 / UK Film Council

Researching the Role

There was one moment when, realizing that “there’s not a huge amount of footage” of Denis Thatcher as a young man, “part of me panicked,” Lloyd has confessed to Jim Slotek of The Toronto Sun (qtd. in Slotek).  He got around his fears by realizing that “I had room to breathe, because people's perceptions (of the young Denis) are less stringent” (Lloyd, in Slotek).  Books and documentaries from Thatcher’s daughter seemed the most helpful.

Perhaps Lloyd’s background as an English Literature student is paying off, for he is not shy about rushing to books for researching his roles.  A biography on Denis Thatcher by law-schooled daughter Carol, Below the Parapet (1997), was his “most useful” tool to figuring out the real Denis: “To find stuff about his early life was tricky, but this book was brilliant, to see who he was before he even met Margaret, about the years that may part specializes in—meeting her, their courtship, how and why they fell in love” (Lloyd, in Hubert).  It’s phenomenal to see the actor so engaged with the material that despite none of this background making it into The Iron Lady he’s still eager to convey the feeling that this past is part of the man we see before us now, at the point when he meets Margaret for the first time.  Lloyd says as much: “even though it’s not dealt with in the film, for me, understanding that first marriage [was important], and what that meant coming back from the war and his marriage falling apart. The different attitude you have going in to a second marriage, I thought that was very interesting, and it helped me understand—not his standoffishness—his eagerness for them to live their own lives” (Lloyd, in Hubert).  For Lloyd, it’s clear that a background check (so to speak) is as essential for actors as it is for employers: until you give someone the job, including yourself, know your facts!  Know what you’re to expect!  Know what is expected from you!

It’s an attitude worthy of respect and admiration, and one that helps Lloydalists continue to stand with great support behind Harry Lloyd.

Research was also a hit-or-miss, tricky way to prepare for the role, for hindsight can prove detrimental to one playing the role of a man from the past who didn’t know what his future would hold. “After looking around at the big events of her [Margaret Thatcher’s] time in power,” Harry recognizes, “I realized quite quickly they weren't helpful to me to play this part. I'm playing a man who doesn't know he's going to be married to a prime minister. I need to keep this much simpler and not get bogged down in a sticky subject, quite frankly” (Lloyd, in Hubert).  Instead, Lloyd wound up researching socialist politics of the 1950s, Denis’ business and love of rugby, and decided to stop “reading halfway through the biography—I didn't want to know the rest of it” (Lloyd, in Hubert). He adds, “[t]he great bit about our part of the film is that there aren't such weighted expectations because they weren't responsible for other people, yet, and they weren't important in the public eye. I think that allowed me and Alex [Alexandra Roach] to shrug off all these expectations that comes with this film. I would be terrified to play the well-known version” (qtd. in Hubert).  Of course, we have confidence that Harry could manage to play the “well-known version” rather convincingly, indeed.

Harry is also irresistible forthcoming and pragmatic.  When asked more fully if he had “any trepidation playing characters with long and fully formed reputations in the public?” (Hubert), he laughed at the question, and admitted “Massive terror” (qtd. in Hubert). It was also an ordeal trying “to channel” a “living memory” of someone real, to those who may have known him and are watching, “through another actor’s interpretation” (Lloyd, in Hubert). Lloyd “spent a lot of time working out, ‘Am I playing this character on the page or am I doing it the way Jim Broadbent is playing the character later in the film?’ You can go mad” (Lloyd, in Hubert). The transition between young and older Thatcher, between Lloyd’s and Broadbent’s performances, is divinely executed.  Craig Hubert rightly suggests that the “blend, or shift, between the two performances seems pretty natural,” and Lloyd is glad that this is the case, for this “was always a big worry” (qtd. in Hubert).

When it comes to channeling not only a real-life figure much in the public eye but, even more, another (famous) actor’s interpretation of that figure, Lloyd had to play Denis Thatcher twice removed.  He had, then, at least two layers of “acting” to penetrate in order to make his performance seem flawless, natural, and fluent—if not so fluid that it doesn’t even look like acting.  Though he rehearsed the characterization early on, he found watching the real Thatcher, such as in the documentary Married to Maggie, which daughter Carol produced, helpful (Lloyd, in Hubert). Yet, even such materials had their pitfalls:

the vast majority of footage is all of him as an older man—so again, playing him as a young man there isn't necessarily much publicly accessible footage. So I had to take all that, but also be aware that that is Jim [Broadbent]'s world, and stay away from that and not try to copy that. I had to at least be aware of that. And I started filming a few weeks after Jim did, so I got some rushes and saw at least what Jim looked like on camera and made sure I wasn't doing something completely different. But ultimately, we have different shaped faces and things. When you're on camera, you can't think of all the technical things. (Lloyd, in Hubert)

Lloyd’s response is wonderfully aware, thoughtful, and well-rounded.  And it also underscores the attention to physicality, touched upon in the previous Lloydalists blog entry, that may help explain his focus on morphing his mannerisms and body in order to convey the same aura of an individual who may not look exactly like him.  It’s all in capturing the little idiosyncrasies so that the audience believes you look like and are someone, even if you aren’t.

A photograph of the Thatcher Family, used to dress the set: Margaret (Roach), Denis (Lloyd), Mark (Alexander Beardsley), and Carol (Eloise Webb).

Image Source: The Iron Lady (2011), ©Twentieth-Century Fox / Film 4 / UK Film Council

The Iron Lady “very much like a play”? Drawing Upon Past Experience

Perhaps the attention to minutiae and nuances has something to do with Harry’s theatre background, an experience that stresses to actors the importance of making every gesture count so that every audience member can capture, from the front to the last row, the emotion and energy of the actor.

When asked, “[h]ow did your background in theatre enhance your experience in this particular film?” (Warburton), Harry Lloyd had this to say:

I think it really helped when we were putting it together, the way we rehearsed it was very much like a play. We had all the scenes and every scene we went through over at Pinewoods [studio], and Phyllida kept it very loose, as you do early on at rehearsals—you don’t try to pin it down, knowing you’ve got a long way to go. Often in films you’ve got to rehearse it within five minutes because you’ve got to shoot it. And we gave ourselves the time to play with it and so it was all very collaborative, and I think background theatre helps you work that way. (Lloyd, in Warburton)

Clearly, Harry relishes these “collaborative” moments, feeding off the energies of colleagues in the kind of immediate way that occurs on stage, sharing a mutual space.  There’s the suggestion that he is not an actor in competition with anyone but who is looking to stretch himself, to learn from others.  His observations of Broadbent’s Denis portrayal, and the research he did for the role in The Iron Lady, mentioned above, support these ideas.

The fluidity of stage—the “in-the-moment” requirements that are partially rooted in the actors’ abilities to stick to character and to engage with the audience simultaneously, breaking through the fourth wall on occasion, also seems to have left its traces on the picture itself. It is an engaging picture, The Iron Lady, and despite the firmness of the title—a reference to Margaret Thatcher’s notorious nickname in regards to her unyielding personality—there’s softness present, too.  A vulnerability in every one of the characters, in “real time” or the “past” vignettes, allows itself exposition every now and again.  It is this connective value of universal human traits that make The Iron Lady able to infiltrate various audience markets. The film’s official blog even noted in early 2011, before wide release, that “[t]he world appears keen to engage with The Iron Lady” (TIL Movie).  It really is an engaging picture, made so mostly be the actors’ attention to detail, realistic and empathetic characterizations, and the way in which this “political” picture becomes a personal narrative told through the perspective of an aging has-been powerhouse and her interactions with the ghosts of her past.

Final Reflections

Although Lloyd admits that he has no particular interest in the politics of the time (he was seven when Thatcher left office), the research he’s done has whet his appetite for musings on the human condition in general.  His thoughts are profound, mature, and highly-applicable to any individual living at any time in history: What is the cost of sticking to your own desires and ambitions, regardless of who disagrees or gets in your way?  “When you live that kind of life what do you do afterwards? The human story of it, which for an actor, I think, is always the most interesting part of it” (Lloyd, in Hubert).

The online reviewer site Hollywood Chicago.com believe that “Alexandra Roach as young Margaret nearly outdoes Meryl Streep, and with less screen time. She had to somehow convey the roots of her character’s iron countenance, and her performance in that evolution hits the right notes” (McD).  Somehow, Harry Lloyd got overlooked, but I dare to say that he, too, conveyed the roots of his own character, as entangled with Margaret’s, and hit the “right notes,” so to speak.  His double-task of playing second-fiddle to a second-fiddle character (the adult Margaret Thatcher’s younger selves’ other half, essentially) makes it harder for him to make a presence in the picture, but he does—and without bizarre ostentation, either.

Although The Iron Lady has not been met with total critical success (a quick search through the transitory and ungraspable ether of the Internet alone will yield as many reviews from disappointed viewers as there are those who are charmed by the film; many of the disappointments stem from historical inaccuracy and, unsurprising, the British reporters themselves seem the most unforgiving of the bunch), it is a film showcasing Harry Lloyd’s acting range, skill, versatility, and steadfastness.  It’s hard to give a “ghost of the past” a substantial presence, like attempting to take a fingerprint from half a century ago and recreate the entire hand: but Lloyd’s turn as Denis Thatcher, in his younger years, leaves, like that fingerprint, a notable trace on viewer’s memories, long after the film has ended. Indeed, The Iron Lady is ripe with examples of what The Telegraph’s Mick Brown calls the “effusive charm” of Harry Lloyd (Brown).

Harry Lloyd walking the Blue Carpet at the London Premiere of The Iron Lady.  The premiere was held on January 4, 2012 at the BFI Southbank Theater.

Image Source: EZinemark.com. <http://society.ezinemark.com/meryl-streep-tom-hardy-and-jim-broadbent-arrived-at-the-iron-lady-uk-premiere-773759e0463d.html >.

Works Cited & Referenced

Brown, Mick. “Bringing The Iron Lady to the Big Screen.” The Telegraph. TheTelegraph.co.uk. 24 Dec. 2011. Web. 8 July 2012. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/filmmakersonfilm/8968746/Bringing-the-Iron-Lady-to-the-big-screen.html>.

Hubert, Craig. “Thatcher’s Match: Harry Lloyd on The Irony Lady.” Interview Magazine. Interviewmagazine.com. 2011. Web 7 July 2012. <http://www.interviewmagazine.com/film/harry-lloyd-the-iron-lady/#page2>.

The Iron Lady. Dir. Phyllida Lloyd. Perf. Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent, et al. Twentieth-Century Fox / Film 4 / UK Film Council. 2011. Film.

 “The Iron Lady (2011).” The Internet Movie Database. IMDB.com. Web. 7 July 2012. <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1007029/combined>.

The Iron Lady Movie. Official Blog. Theironyladymovie.co.uk/blog. Web. 7 July 2012. <http://theironladymovie.co.uk/blog/>.

 “The Iron Lady New York Premiere—Harry Lloyd.” [video interview] TrailerAddict.com. 13 December 2012. Web 7 July 2012. <http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/the-iron-lady/new-york-premiere-harry-lloyd>.

McD, Patrick. “Meryl Streep Accentuates Margaret Thatcher in The Iron Lady.” Hollywood Chicago.com. 14 Jan. 2012. Web. 8 July 2012. <http://hollywoodchicago.com/reviews/17061/meryl-streep-accentuates-margaret-thatcher-in-the-iron-lady#ixzz203KsXRfh>.

Slotek, Jim. “Lloyd Explores Thatcher Hubby Role.” Torontosun.com. 13 Jan. 2012. Web. 7 July 2012. <http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/13/lloyd-explores-thatcher-hubby-role>.

Warburton, Heather. “Meryl Streep, Director Phyllida Lloyd, Screenwriter Abi Morgan, and Harry Lloyd Talk The Iron Lady.” Collider.com. 11 Jan. 2012. Web. 5 July 2012. <http://collider.com/meryl-streep-the-iron-lady-interview/134952/>.

~Written & Posted by C~

The Joy of Meeting Again: "Reencountering" Harry Lloyd, His Roots, and a Written Response

“The pain of parting is nothing to the joy of meeting again.”

(Charles Dickens)

“K” has told her side of the story as to how we all arrived at Lloydalists, and she’s told her story with great flourish and enthusiasms and a bit of light poking in my general direction (which is fine—I encourage gentle derision and, in fact, small acts of self-mockery ought to be part of a daily diet.  It keeps you “so very humble,” to quote the incessant refrain of that David Copperfield creep Uriah Heap, but without being quite as annoying and meaning it!).  You can read all about “K’s” side of things here, if you have not already.  (If you haven’t, what are you waiting for?!  If you have, good for you!  We’d reward you with chocolate if we had any left.  I, “C,” am a chocoholic.  In fact, perhaps that is what “C” stands for.)

In any case, this is not Chocoholics Anonymous, so we will put that to rest as I grab a napkin and wipe the Hershey’s smudges from my fingers and resume typing.  Focus, “C”!  Now, it is up to me to round-out the story of Lloydalists’ conception and bring us all up to date.

It starts with literature.

Books take me everywhere, make me interested in everything, and rattle me to through until the smallest neuron is ablaze.  So, while it may seem odd for others to learn that I stumbled upon an actor like Harry Lloyd rather roundabout, through books rather than film, it does not feel quite so unusual to me.

I am of that exotic (read: nerdy and proud) breed called the insatiable reader and my lifelong fondness for things like the BBC, history, art, and maybe even teatime may all be traced back to an early fascination with books.  Can we talk about Charles Dickens for a moment?  And not just because Harry Lloyd is among the youngest of his kin?

Victorian novels are a not-so-secret indulgence of mine, up there with eating too much chocolate, buying too many shoes, and writing too many non-work-related pieces when I should be writing work-related-pieces.  David Copperfield (1849-50, serialized) and Great Expectations (1860-61, serialized) are (at least currently) my two favorite Dickens works.  Coincidentally, Harry Lloyd is in a BBC film adaptation of each of these novels, but that’s just what I said it is: a coincidence.  I was a fan of these books long before I knew of Harry Lloyd, long before he had taken the role of young rapscallion Steerforth or loyal-‘n-loveable Herbert Pocket, and long before I was wise enough to even stop and think, “hmm, I wonder who Dickens’ relatives are now and what are they doing with their lives?  Are any of them writers, too?  Or maybe artists?”  Sure, I knew he had a family and I knew of his family drama, but the Literary Fiend in me liked to emerge frequently and linger a bit too long on nerdish fantasies.  I liked to think of Charles John Huffman Dickens smoothing his hair and twirling his mustache while in his own self-preserving bubble of literary greatness. It was a wide yet closed expanse populated by deliciously dilapidated curiosity shops, gurgling moors, brackish stone walls, and secret cemeteries; where he is untouchable unless he longs to be touched; where he is effervescently self-sustaining and potent Lord of the Manor; and where his only real “ancestry” is comprised of the saplings of writers who have sprouted from this great English Oak.  Or those who hope to somehow entangle their meager roots in his.

Or, in my case, trip over them and fall face-first into some shockingly great things!

Fast-forward to 1999 when David Copperfield was made into yet another film manifestation. Oh, another Dickens picture?  (Young “C’s” antennae were beginning to show.) What, it’s produced the BBC?  (Yes, the antennae were definitely out.)  Yes, I’ll watch it, please!  (Her antennae began to rotate.) And re-watch it.  (The antennae have malfunctioned from excessive use and retracted out of fear). And buy the DVD. (Now “C” has her wallet out.)  And fawn over it for the next 13 years. (Now she can continue this blog post.)

On the cusp of 16, Harry Lloyd took his first role on the screen, portraying, as mentioned above, young James Steerforth, the figure who would take wet-behind-the-ears David Copperfield under his wing while at boarding school, and teach him the ways of the world.  Harry does not last long in the film, as he—like all boys who are not part of the Peter Pan brigade—do have to grow up, and even the BBC has its moments of rushing stories along so that time passes, people age, and we are faced with the inevitable: trading in the child actor for the adult “version” (in this case, Oliver Milburn made his entrance).  Still, I am the same age as Harry and, so, it’s natural that a teenage girl would take notice of a charming, cheeky, and dare I say “cute” (pardon me while I cringe over such an irreverent term) teenage boy.  That’s all it was at the time, though—a “take notice” moment.  I watched, I saw, I moved on.  To say that I forgot the young actor’s face entirely would be a lie, but at the time, I didn’t know his name, nor did I know if I had seen him anywhere else.

Image: A young Harry Lloyd reading David Copperfield, circa 1999. Unknown Source

Allow me, please, a little side-tracking about Harry’s role in the film.  First, the budding actor did not get the role due to his Dickens connection but, rather, by hard work and a bit of fortune. It wasn’t until after he’d landed the part of Young Steerforth that the truth was out.  Back then, when asked about his preparation for the part, the young actor, quite composedly, admitted, “I was asked what I knew about Dickens,” and “I said I should know loads because of the family heritage, but I don't really know anything” (Lloyd, qtd. in “James”).  When the producers prodded for more about what he meant by “heritage,” Harry continued, “‘Well, Charles Dickens was my great-great-great-grandfather. My mum's maiden name is Dickens.’ They said it’s the best answer they'd ever had to that question! Then they said it wouldn’t affect their decision in any way, being related! I don't think it did any harm, but I don't think it was a distinguishing factor’” (qtd. in “James”).

So, the actor’s start began literally from the roots up. He happened to be spotted while attending the Eton School, during a casting visit.  We can imagine what happened next.  It wasn’t exactly the kind of “family business” Charles Dickens may have had in mind but, then again, the Victorian likely did not envision the future to include such pleasures as DVDs, high-definition television, and the BBC.

Image: Harry Lloyd as “Young Steerforth” in David Copperfield (1999) © BBC Productions. Image from PBS <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/archive/programs/davidcopperfield/whoswho/young_james.html>.

I went about my daily routine of reading, writing, working, watching films, and enduring the “daily grind” we all know so well.  A double-penchant for both the Robin Hood story and actor Richard Armitage led me to dive head first into Robin Hood (2006-2008), the Tiger Aspect production that was cheekily anachronistic, lushly landscaped, and charmingly cast.  While I went into the series expecting to scrutinize Mr. Armitage’s right-hand-man to the nasty Sheriff of Nottingham, Guy of Gisborne, it was not long before I found myself drawn to one of the “lads” in Robin Hood’s motley crew of outlaws or, as they call themselves “Dead Men.”  This younger lad, the son of a widowed carpenter and member of a starving village that was once beneath the protection of Robin of Locksley—and then tormented by the malignant reign of Gisborne and his stoolies—was typically silent in the series, a lurker, a thinker, a watcher.  I liked his stony stares, his penetrating glances, the way he used his eyes, his mouth, his props to convey bodily the emotive qualities that, at times, were lacking from the dialogue elsewhere in the series.

I was probably at least two-thirds of the way through Season 1 of Robin Hood when I couldn’t stand it anymore.  Who is he? Where had I seen this guy before?  Had I seen him before?  If I hadn’t seen him before, why not?  A quick perusal of The Internet Movie Database (imdb.com), the Holy Bible of any cinephile, revealed to me what I had not suspected.

Dear readers, I had no idea that this actor I was staring at—draped in course textiles, with large cross-stitched hems, ratty neckerchiefs, and earth-rubbed pants—was the same bold youth of David Copperfield from seven years earlier.  Of course, he was much taller, his voice much deeper.  His once-babyish, round face (that, to be honest, made even 15-year-old Harry look about 12) had grown angular, with notable cheekbones and a sculpted jaw.  Somehow, his eyes had grown fierce, if not penetrating—a necessity for the strong-and-silent Will, whose thoughts are mostly retained.

Learning that “Will Scarlett” was “Young Steerforth,” all grown up was less shocking than it was a joy at returning to an old friend.  And it was about this time, too, that I learned of Harry’s Dickens background.  Naturally, the literary-nerd in my did all but squeal.

But it was a sad day, dear friends, when (spoiler!) Will and his beloved did not return to the third and final season of Robin Hood.

Harry Lloyd as Will Scarlett in Robin Hood, a role he played from 2006-2007. This image was one of the photographs I sent to Harry to sign for me. Photo Credit: ©Tiger Aspect/BBC Productions

I’ll gloss over any more specific thoughts regarding Robin Hood and Harry’s portrayal of Will Scarlett therein because that is fine fodder for future blog posts, other Lloydalists’ reactions, and deeper insights as “K” and I, I’m quite sure, re-watch the series yet again.

Instead, I’d like to turn now to the “reencounter” with Harry Lloyd and how it led to writing to him.

As “K” has mentioned in her previous blog entry, she and I decided to write to Harry earlier this year.  Here is the appropriate excerpt from “K’s” entry, which echoes my sentiments about the matter:

[…W]e decided that we wanted to wish [Harry] good luck during the run of The Duchess of Malfi, and send our humblest but truest “best wishes” for everything beyond.  Certainly, a talented actor like this deserved to know he had supporters “across the pond” sending thoughts and good-vibes his way. 

“C” and I selected our stationary, ordered our International Reply Coupons, waxed with anxiety for weeks over what we wanted to write, reorganized our stationary drawers, bought our padded envelopes, selected the stamps, agonized some more, and, a couple of weeks later, we’d each (independently) written a supportive letter to Mr. Lloyd.  Additionally, we both included two pictures of him that we (politely, we hope!) asked him to sign.  And then, after the stuffed-and-sealed packages sat on our dressers for a day or two, “settling” and gathering courage for the flight in the U.S. Mail plane across the Atlantic, we finally got up the courage to mail them.   

“C” mustered her courage sufficiently to send that packet of love and support the second week of April; I sent mine on Tax Day (that’s one way to take the edge off a not-so-wonderful day; distract yourself with pleasant letters, not unpleasant tax forms). My co-blogger will undoubtedly fill you in on her side of the story at some point, so I will leave that portion of our “tale” alone. As for myself, I received a response last week on June 1, 2012.  

Here, I begin to recount the return of my signed pictures and a letter (actually two postcards’ worth of writing) from Harry, which I received on April 24, 2012.  I was on my way to my office, checked the mail on my way out of the apartment for some odd reason (typically, I check it on the way in, not out), and was perplexed as to why I was getting a small padded envelope with my own “return address” label affixed to the front.  Because I’d only just sent the letter to Harry a few weeks before, I wasn’t expecting a response quite so soon.  I was assuming that he would not have time for fan mail until after The Duchess of Malfi had wrapped on June 9^th.  I was assuming that the mail from New York City to London and back would take some time.  I was assuming that he would be swimming in fan mail, particularly after his unforgettable turn in Game of Thrones (2011), and that I’d just have to be patient.  So, when it suddenly hit me that what I was holding in my hands was none other than a response from Harry Lloyd, I did what any sane Lloydalist would do.

I ran back up to my apartment, slit the padded envelope open, and called “K” immediately.  She knew why I was calling.  She knew.  We’re psychic like that—and since I’m a phone-a-phobe who hates talking on the phone, she knew that I’d only call her in cases of great excitement, such as this.

Please be patient with me: out of respect for Harry’s privacy and a desire for my own, I do not want to post scans of the letter he wrote back to me, nor of the signed photos (since he wrote my name on both of them).  I wrote to him to express my admiration, support, and encouragement—not to reveal all to the world.  And, plus, I like the feeling of having an “intimate” correspondence just between Harry and me.  I will describe a few points, however, and mention that the letter was written on “17^th April” (Harry crosses his “7s”) and continued through two glossy-cardboard postcards from the Royal Shakespeare Company.  The 17^th of April.  He’d written it two days following his appearance as a presenter at the Laurence Olivier Awards and the same day as he had a performance of The Duchess of Malfi.  I imagined him sitting backstage, in between rehearsal and the night’s performance, picking my blue-paisley-patterned stationary out of the pile of mail and reading it while rubbing his tired eyes.  And then, after I’d hopefully made him crack a smile at least once, he’d set about responding, still keeping an eye on the clock and likely careful not to get any ink on his wardrobe (see “K’s” Exploding Pen Theory post).  Then again, Charles Dickens worked as a labeler once upon a time; maybe being covered in globes and blobs and globs of ink is a hereditary trait?

Anyhow, here is his response, in a nutshell: Harry thanked me for my “lovely letter” and added, “I really enjoyed reading it.”  That made me crease with delight—because I enjoyed writing my letter to him, too, even if it did take me longer than normal.  He also thanked me for having enjoyed all of the characters he’s played (I’d mentioned in my letter a few of my favorite performances, such as Will Scarlett and Viserys Targaryen, how much I got a kick out of Oscar & Jim (2009)—his first big-screen picture and short—and how I was so looking forward to watching him play Herbert Pocket in Great Expectations (2011), which had not yet aired in the U.S.A.).

I also promised him that I would not gush about his relation to Charles Dickens because I am a self-confessed book-nerd and I’m sure he’s sick of being asked about it.  True to my word, I did not say anything more about my Idol.

In order to help him think of a response (since I didn’t know if he’d feel obligated to write something pedestrian and impersonal, just to fill some space), I’d asked him “is there any particular role that you are positively dying to play?  And if you weren’t an actor, where do you think you’d find yourself?”  His response was wonderfully insightful: “Not sure what I’d do if I wasn’t an actor.  I feel like I change jobs every time I change jobs you know?  So I never have to think about that.”

From this wonderful response, I got the impression that this is an actor after the thrill of each role, not someone necessarily looking for stability or a safety-net of a job that will allow him to stay put for years on end.  He is a young man chasing after a dream and quite contentedly doing it, finding something new, reenergizing, and amazingly engaging in ever role that comes his way.  He’s doing this for self-fulfillment, not just as a career, and it’s likely the reason why his rise to public attention has been gradual and somewhat inconsistent.  Harry Lloyd is an actor more concerned with his own happiness and self-fulfillment than anyone else’s goals for him. 

I knew there was a reason I respected and admired this artist.

Harry ended the letter, “Thanks for taking the time to write.  Very much appreciated.”  I’d like to say, thank you, Mr. Lloyd, for taking the time to write.  Your letter, the signed pictures (personalized, doodled-on, marked up with “xs” that I will cash in some day for three hugs, if I am so lucky and you will allow it!), and most of all time taken to respond to an enthusiastic viewer of your work “across the pond” is so very, very much appreciated. 

He signed his letter with the precise phrase found in the Lloydalists masthead, which is scanned from the letter: “All good things, Harry x.”  This phrase, dear loyal Harry Lloyd admirers, shall become something of the central crux of this blog, so don’t be surprised if you see it popping up here and there.

He also returned the two 5"x7" pictures I had sent him—one of himself from a few years ago (the same one “K” has posted in her blog post) and another picture of Will Scarlett, aiming his bow and arrow and looking quite intense.  On the Will photo, he drew two arrows, one labeled with my name and pointing at him; the other, labeled “Harry x” and pointing away from him.  How this little bit of doodling is meant to be interpreted is up for debate.  I take it as a reference to me sending him a letter and him sending one back, with each arrow representing an arrow.  Certainly, I don’t want to shoot him or be shot!  In any case, I am flummoxed with how sincerely nice it was for him to personal the photo in such a way.  On the second photo, he wrote “Dear C____, Love Harry x.”  He certainly loves those “x”s!  And I am properly chuffed!

For those Lloydalists also hoping to share with Harry messages of support and encouragement, you can try (as “K” and I did, with success):

Harry Lloyd

c/o Curtis Brown Group Ltd

Haymarket House

28-29 Haymarket,

London, SW1 4SP

United Kingdom

Please send no more than two photos to sign, as well as International Return Coupons if you are outside of the UK.  A little warning: “K” and I had a horrible time of tracking down IRCs at the local Post Office, so we wound up ordering them from usps.com. For those of you in the U.S.A.—two should be sufficient (unless you’re sending anything more than photos and pictures to be signed).  Make sure you include a self-addressed envelope that is sufficiently large and padded enough to contain and protect the photos and/or any letter Harry may send back.  And be aware that he may not send a letter at all—he may write his “letter” on a photograph, personalize things differently, etc..  “K” and I sent our letters fairly close together in time and yet, the responses each of us got were slightly different.  I’m sure that he manages to do what he can in what little free time he has, but it seems that he does read through his fan mail and replies by hand.  I highly recommend writing your letter by hand, too, as “K” and I did.  I’m a huge advocate for hand-written letters in general, but there’s nothing that says “I took the time to think of and write to you” than a hand-written letter.  Especially if you’re writing to someone whom you’ve never met, this form of correspondence is as intimate as you can get.  Then, be patient!  Harry is reportedly going to be spending his summer (or at least part of it) in the United States, particularly the West Coast, so it’s unlikely he will have his mail at hand as readily as when he’s based at home in London.

And please, Lloydalists, keep your letters respectable, thoughtful, and polite. The more sincere and like yourself you are, the better.  Don’t be afraid to be funny, too (although, steer away from creepy!  You don’t want to be “that fan”), and ask questions, especially unusual and interesting ones that are a little thought-provoking.  From the response I received, I was left believing that Harry likes somewhat mentally-stimulating letters that are written with a bit of sauciness and even some diversions to irreverent things, but always well-penned and proofread. 

A copy of the reverse-side of the postcards Harry used to respond to my April 2012 letter.  Note the amusing Shakespearean reappropriation of the London transit system.

Have you had a response from Harry that you’d like to share?  Let us know by emailing us at Lloydalists@gmail.com, tweeting us @Lloydalists, or commenting right here on our blog.  Please specify if you’d prefer your information remain unshared, anonymous, or edited in any way. 

Now that I’ve gotten much of my energies, as well as some poor attempts at mild-humor out of the way, I think I speak for “K” as well when I say that, for the most part, we are serious about Harry Lloyd here and, so, our blog entries, updates, and tidbits of information will attempt to retain a level of formality.  We will insert our fun on occasion, if a particular topic allows for it, but in our celebration of “all good things,” it’s crucial to remember that there is room for sobriety and shenanigans, and we will offer dashes and dollops of both whenever we can, when we can.  Harry’s roles have ranged from loveable to ludicrous to lustful: we’ll take a cue from his spectrum of parts and let our blog entries fit the setting, the stage, and the atmosphere.

Until the joy of meeting you all again, Lloydalists, keep reflecting on all of those “good things.”

~C~

Works Cited and Referenced

David Copperfield. Dir. Simon Curtis. Perf. Daniel Radcliffe, Maggie Smith, Ian McKellen, Emilia Fox, Pauline Quirke, Harry Lloyd, et al. BBC Productions. 1999. Film.

“Harry Lloyd (I).” The Internet Movie Database. IMDB.com. Web. 9 June 2012. <http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0516003/bio>.

 “James Steerforth as a Young Man.” David Copperfield: A Who’s Who. Pbs.org. 1999. Web. 12 June 2012. <http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/archive/programs/davidcopperfield/whoswho/young_james.html>.

Robin Hood. Dir. Matthew Evans et al. Perf. Jonas Armstrong, Gordon Kennedy, Sam Troughton, Keith Allen, Richard Armitage, Harry Lloyd, et al. BBC/Tiger Aspect, 2006-2008. TV Series.

~Written and Posted by C~