So apparently people are upset about what DT said about his character. I’m assuming that most of the people who are up in arms about his comment that Kilgrave is not entirely evil and maybe even sympathetic have not studied acting because if they had, they would understand why DT said what he did.
When I was studying drama, we did a LOT of studying of Stanislavsky and the Method. The Method requires a person to really and truly get into the mind of their character, to be able to understand their motivations and desires and fears, and only once you have done this can you transform and become this character for your performances.
That is where I believe he is coming from with this whole ‘not entirely evil’ thing. Because he has essentially become this character, this man who has never been denied anything because of his abilities, he understands Kilgrave in a way that I don’t think we as viewers can understand. Yes, he’s a homicidal rapist, and it’s horrible and despicable and all sorts of other bad things, but I think David has really done a lot of thinking about how he came to be this way and has found Kilgrave to be someone who maybe deserves some sympathy. It in no way excuses his behavior, but perhaps delving into how this inability to accept responsibility for his actions (and the superpower that allows him to get what he wants always) creates a multi-faceted character who is so much more than just an evil guy. Without the ability to see that Kilgrave, for all his badness, is indeed deserving of some sort of sympathy, the character would become a caricature and not the powerful performance we are anticipating.
So no, I don’t find his remarks problematic in the least. Maybe it’s because I get where DT is coming from, but I don’t see anything wrong with what he said. He never once said Kilgrave wasn’t a bad baddie, just that he shouldn’t be discounted as 100% pure unadulterated evil.
titsay
jacobvanloon
dededos
tangentwithtanner
janainaart
jbbartram-illu
discoholicmusic
pixelskylines
ellievsbear
