By Jarra Mulhearn

Recently, at the Hay festival in Wales, Benedict Cumberbatch was reported to have popped a certain question to the great actress, Dame Judi Dench. Cumberbatch asked the actress whether she would join him in a production of Shakespeare’s play, Richard III, and in front of the audience. Out of delight or shock, she said yes. As The Independent had commented on the matter, if she had agreed to in front of a crowd, then she can’t very well back out of it now.

Cumberbatch is obviously a very successful actor in his own right, but Judi Dench is one of the British greats, one of the silver sirens of the British film industry, taking roles in films such as James Bond, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (a personal favourite of mine), as well as A Handful of Dust and A Room With a View. She has won 10 BAFTA awards, and is one of the best recognised of British actresses. Like Cumberbatch, Dench is often cast in similar roles: strong women, who are powerful and assertive, such as her role in Pride and Prejudice, where she acted alongside another British actress, Keira Knightley.

She is from a generation of great actors, and Cumberbatch is from the next generation of great actors. Cumberbatch is clearly aware of Dench’s great reputation, and so his appeal for her to join him is probably out of admiration and respect. In this Richard III performance, what we will find is the union of two great actors from two different generations. It is a merging of the new and the old. Perhaps for many people, choosing to go back to stage acting would seem rather strange. The big screen seems to be the pinnacle of acting success, it’s where actors want to be. So why would Cumberbatch and Dench want to go back to basics with Shakespeare? Many of the ‘old-school’ British actors, such a Dench, had actually started and trained through theatre. Wales Online had called Dench a “veteran queen of British theatre” (http:// www.walesonline.co.uk/whats-on/whats-on-news/hay-festival-dame-judi-dench-7200594)Other big names, such as Helen Mirren, Maggie Smith and Julie Walters have been in theatre performances in their careers, and it is almost a rite of passage in order to be considered a true British actor. Cumberbatch joined Dench on stage to act out a scene from Twelth Night, before finally asking her to join him in a new BBC adaptation of Richard III.

Why is Shakespeare so important?  Shakespeare is simply part of the British tradition to use both film and stage to mark one’s name as an actor. To perform Shakespeare is not just to be an actor, but a true thespian, a person who takes their performing craft very seriously by going to the more ‘old-school’ mediums of entertainment. Shakespeare is like going back to basics, to the performances and techniques that raised and cultivated the best of British. For Cumberbatch and Dench, this play not only unites two greats from two generations, but also establishes their common grounds in their acting pasts. The tradition of theatre is able to breach any gap that may remain between older generations and younger generations of British actors. After being around Hollywood for a while, to go back to Britain and perform an adaptation of Shakespeare is another assertion that he is, indeed, a very British actor, doing the thing that many British actors do.

(Below, Cumberbatch in 2002 performance of Romeo and Juliet)

By Jarra Mulhearn

From what we have seen of Benedict Cumberbatch these past weeks, there can be no mistaking thatthe actor is continually on the rise. He has gone from acting the part of the UKs favourite fictionaldetective in the hit BBC series, Sherlock, to being in multiple successful films. Napkins and signs overhis face do not detract public attention from him, it only makes us more interested. In fact, it makesus more interested to know what he is interested in: issues of importance; issues which he thinksshould be covered in magazines and websites, instead of him. “Go to Egypt and show the worldsomething important.” He asks questions about democracy and civil liberty, topics that he feelsshould be discussed in the place of people’s insatiable appetite for celebrity gossip. Of course, manyof us can’t help but agree with him, but as much as he tries to cover himself by raising these issues,it only enhances public interest in him as that weird, British actor guy. In a way, that is the label that he has created for himself.

Cumberbatch is, in many ways, a breath of fresh air from the more vapid celebrities that are plastered across newsstands and magazine racks. These residual celebrities, the Kim Kardashians of the world, are famous for reasons that elude many of us. So you make a sex video? So what? Why should that lead to you having your own show? Why should people care about what you do, what you wear, where you are, or any other little details of your day-to-day activities? God knows. But God knows we do, or some people do, at least. Cumberbatch attempts to make the public look at itself and the issues that matter directly to them, rather than poking their noses in on celebs, they should be concerning themselves with matters of greater importance. On another of his quickly scrawled notices, the actor stated “I’m the real. I’m not twitter. Never have been. Never will be!” What did he mean by this? Maybe it is because people have created twitter accounts posing to be the actor himself, or is Cumberbatch also drawing attention to the difference between human presence and a twitter presence? Is he making a comment about modern society, as much as his previous notices made a comment on our obsession with celebrity? Cumberbatch seems to hold a mirror to society with his little notices, and we like that. He doesn’t just bask in the fame, but tries to do something with it, using his celebrity to draw attention to more pressing issues. There are no big celebrity break-ups and make-ups in this narrative. That is not what he is about.

Apart from being a more intellectual celebrity, Cumberbatch also marks himself as something very proper and very British. This certainly works in his favour. He is part of a resurging interest in British actors, including fellow celebrities such as Tom Hiddleston, Eddie Redmayne, whom he has worked alongside before. Recently, Prince Andrew had pushed Warner Bros. to check contracts of ownership over the film Journey’s End, to try and make some headway in the films’ production. This film is set in the trenches of WWI, and Cumberbatch and Hiddleston may be side by side in this project of historical importance. If Journey’s End is finally produced, Cumberbatch will be part of something truly significant, something intrinsically tied to British history. Apparently, Benedict and Tom are right for the film because “as one of the most significant anti-war plays ever written—Sherriff didn’t see it that way of course—it’s really important that we get the very best actors of their generation to take part. We want it to be as attractive to as many people as possible.” If they want a film such as this to be a success, then big names will attract an audience. There is no mistaking that Benedict Cumberbatch is officially a big name in the film industry, and, more importantly, a very British name in the film industry. For a celebrity on the climb, Cumberbatch attracts a greater audience with every move he makes, and people have spotted this. He has managed to become a hugely watched celebrity for the right reasons, and this gives him solid star power. What can we finally say about him? As an actor, he has a great ability; as a celebrity, he has our attention. Of course the nature of celebrity is that our interests in certain people changes, it grows and fades through time. However, the ability to act will always be able mark Cumberbatch as an addition to the list of ‘greats’ on the big screens, and as long as he stays in this game, we can’t see him tumbling into obscurity any time soon.

By Jarra Mulhearn

“A thing of beauty is a joy forever: its loveliness increases; it will never pass into nothingness.”

–John Keats, British poet

Well, in the modern, non-mythological world, beauty still seems to be very important to us, and quite possibly more important than it has ever been before. Why? Because a person’s face can be disseminated more widely and far more quickly than ever before. ‘So what has any of this to do with Benedict Cumberbatch?’ you might ask. Lately it has been reported that Steven Moffat (the showrunner of the BBC hit series, Sherlock) said that Cumberbatch was not considered “sexy enough” by the BBC for the show. His “good looks” (as stated by Jess Denham in the UK newspaper, The Independent) are considered unconventional. The question is, is Cumberbatch really a “thing of beauty”, or even good-looking? When we look at Cumberbatch, we can certainly say that he has striking features: he has high cheekbones (commented on by one of the characters in Sherlock – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b5wkGMmKVE); his eyes have a strange, pale brightness to them; his face is very long and narrow. Some of these may be considered desirable features, but do they create something “sexy”?

The way that we perceive people’s beauty seems to change all the time. The ideals of women’s appearances illustrate this through art and fashion throughout history. The rounder, shapelier frame in renaissance paintings and the wasp-waists of corseted women. Both men and women were perceived as beautiful if they possessed fair complexions, though it later became fashionable to be tanned and have a ‘healthy glow’. The ideals of a plumper frame and pale skin were inspired by the aristocracy, to show that they had the money to eat rich foods and were able to stay indoors, unlike the more tanned peasants who mostly worked outdoors. In more recent times, the tan became the ideal, in order to show that the person was able to afford exotic holidays in the sun. Concepts of beauty change all the time. What was once bizarre becomes an ideal, and what was once ideal may become undesirable. Around the globe, ideals of beauty differ according to different cultures, or so it may seem. In a documentary series by the BBC, called The Human Face (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQGdnx0G2Qc), research had shown that there was a common theme of what people around the world considered to be beautiful. Photographs of different faces were set out and organised by the test subjects in an order of what they considered to be most beautiful to least beautiful. Despite different nationalities, the test yielded the same results, and this is thought to be due to global principles of beauty, principles that withstand the test of time and cultural ideals. The works of Pythagoras and, later, Leonardo da Vinci had uncovered the golden ratio of 1:1.618 that applied to nearly all things of ‘beautiful proportions’ in nature, including the human face. Dr Stephen Marquardt, a plastic surgeon, had used these ideas of perfect proportions to create the ‘golden mask’ – a template of the ideal human face according to the ratio. When this is applied to the pictures of people whom we consider to be beautiful, it was found that they were always either perfectly matched or incredibly close to the mask’s proportions.

There is now an app for the golden ratio, so that we may apply it to a photograph and then find how far we deviate from this golden mask. When applied to our debatably sexy star, this was found in one set of results:

So, basically, Cumberbatch’s face is not as ideally symmetrical as it could be; his face is too long; and his eyes are too far apart. Does all of this make him ugly? No. However, when compared to more conventionally attractive stars, such as Brad Pitt, Cumberbatch does fall behind, results wise. The ratio was discovered through looking at nature, after all, and nature has a purpose. Symmetry and ideal proportions are not just markers of beauty, but a kind of beauty that affects us on a biological level. Good proportions and symmetry show good health and, potentially, good genetics. These are all properties of sexual desirability, as they are markers of an ideal mate.

I don’t want to reduce Cumberbatch to this basic, animal level, but it may show why he is not really what most of us would call sexy. Though we may all have our own particular tastes of what personally gets us going, people who are generically attractive follow these sets of proportions. His face does not fit the golden ratio as well as it might, and his figure hardly screams ‘come at me’ – he is a bit of a lanky guy. He clearly does the trick for his ‘Cumberbitch’ followers, even though he is unsure why that is (http://www.digitalspy.com/celebrity/news/a551527/benedict-cumberbatch-my-weird-face-is-a-blessing.html#~oG67UrBLuUR16k).

I have to agree with the BBC’s original reactions to Cumberbatch; he is not exactly sexy. With his scores of admirers at the moment, we can’t exactly call Cumberbatch completely unattractive. Perhaps his attractiveness is just a matter of taste on a cultural level. Many male models are unconventionally attractive, but we might see them as possessing a ‘particular something’ that could be called beautiful. The faces are striking and recognisable, so perhaps Cumberbatch is part of this niche for sharp cheekbones and strange eyes. It is not conventional beauty, but it is ‘the look’ for now, alluring in some way. If the BBC wanted a sexy Sherlock, they might have wanted something a little closer to Robert Downey Jr, who plays the part of Sherlock Holmes in the most recent films. RDJ probably possesses more sex appeal for a wider audience than Cumberbatch does. The more masculine face, stronger jawline and grizzled look definitely complies with conventional male sex appeal. The difference between the two actors could actually be a positive thing, as they are two completely different looks for the same character, so there’s no treading on each other’s toes, as Cumberbatch states in one of his interviews, seen on the Digital Spy link given above. Perhaps the reason for the films’ success and the BBC series success is due to the actors in relation to their respective positions. In a film, we have very little time to like the character in relation to the time given when we watch a series. Sex appeal, and the face on the posters, is what helps to draw an audience through the doors into a cinema.

On the one hand, we like RDJ because of his humour and rugged looks, which is a good thing considering that we only have so long to see him on screen. With Cumberbatch, on the other hand, his character and appearance can grow on us over time as we follow the series. RDJ is conventionally attractive and needs to be because of the fact that the film gives him less ‘growing time’ for him to make a good impression and for us to like him.

Cumberbatch is unconventional, and could be called an acquired taste; an acquired taste acquired over a few episodes of the BBC series.

In one way, Cumberbatch suits the part. He says in an interview that he imagines Sherlock to be a bit robotic; he is an outsider, a mastermind that was probably brilliant at school.

That description hardly brings to mind a complete stud of a man, more like the pale, weedy chap that Cumberbatch provides for us. As the BBC series continues, Sherlock slowly goes through a process of humanisation, revealing a person beneath the robotic persona. Just as the detective is slowly humanised, Cumberbatch grows on us, his appearance being less shocking and more accepted. It is possible for the audience to find a beauty in the odd face – “its loveliness increases”.

“The blessings of having a weird face”, as Cumberbatch puts it, makes him preferable for period parts. It is very distinct and has (what could be called) a sort of noble air about it (think of 10 Years a Slave, where Cumberbatch plays a wealthy landowner).

The other blessing with having a weird face is that it is very recognisable. We remember faces like caricatures (as explained in The Human Face series), certain features stand out and help us distinguish people. Mali Finn, a casting director in Hollywood, said “I don’t think that you need the face of a Leonardo DiCaprio or of a Mark Damon. To be famous, I think you simply have to have a face that is distinctive.”(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpNEOeuepoc)

Cumberbatch’s face is definitely distinctive, and whether people think of him as either sexy, not sexy, strangely beautiful or unattractive, he has a look that is very noticeable. Charles Fleming, a film writer, comments on how, in Hollywood, “the look is the only thing anyone remembers.” If we don’t find Cumberbatch attractive, or remember his name, or remember what he has been in, we may at least remember his face, and so he “will never pass into nothingness.”

By Jarra Mulhearn

^ Something British this way comes.

There have been a fair few words on this blog about Benedict Cumberbatch’s “seal of approval” from Vogue’s editor-in-chief, Anna Wintour, concerning the white tie gathering at the Met Gala for the opening of the Anna Wintour fashion wing of the museum.

Benedict Cumberbatch has been a style favourite of GQ magazine, appearing in both the magazine’s print editions as well as the more regular and up-to-date GQ news online. When Anna Wintour and Sarah Jessica Parker appeared on the Late Night with Seth Meyers show to discuss the event at the Metropolitan Museum, they discussed the apparent difficulty that many of the guests had with the dress-code expectations of ‘white tie’.

Tom Ford, who had helped dress many of the male guests at the event, commented that a fair few gentlemen were at a complete loss about what they should be worn for white tie (although the name seems to give one of the main aspects away, for men’s ensembles anyway).

For those who don’t know, look at what is usually worn for the formal dinner settings in Downton Abbey: a black or blue jacket, (complete with tails), a white dress shirt with a wing collar (and, according to Wintour, mother of pearl studs), and yes, you guessed it, a white bow tie.

Evidently some of the guests had just not bothered to type this into Google, or had just decided to creatively deviate from this expected form of dress. Notably, Wintour had commented that actor Hugh Jackman got this wrong with his white dinner jacket and black bow tie, calling his choice ‘tropical’ (certainly not the look wanted at the New York Met Gala that evening).

Unlike Jackman, some of the other guests discussed have been regular GQ style favourites, including Kanye West and Bradley Cooper. Cooper is known for his sharp suits and snappy style in GQ, often adding small hints and changes to his suits to bring them up-to-date; sometimes a woven or slim tie to add more edge. Bradley Cooper had only deviated slightly from what was expected, his choice of onyx studs instead of mother-of-pearl being the most notable fault with his outfit. Apart from this little mistake, however, Cooper was very close to the white tie standard.

With Kanye West, it is also understandable to see his little fashion faux pas in relation to his usual style choices. Not many male stars would go out with spike-studded Louboutin slippers or the garish Givenchy and Versace designs that he usually dons for red carpet events.

He managed to tone down his taste for more outlandish stuff, but still added a sense of modern sharpness with his jacket (complete with tails – impressive). HOWEVER, a flyaway collar is not a wing tip, and an event labelled white tie surely suggests that a white tie should be worn. Seth Meyer said that the look was “a very Kanye take on this”. Being modern and innovative has its appropriate moments, but going tie-less to a white tie event is not the answer.

The selection of stars discussed fell short of the white tie standard which was perfectly maintained by Benedict Cumberbatch. All aspects of the dress code were followed to a T. Meyer says that “if there was anyone you were willing to bet on to nail white tie, it would be Benedict Cumberbatch.” Could we disagree?

Not really. Cumberbatch has his moments to look stylish and fashionable, being edgy with suits, just as Bradley Cooper commonly is, but he knows when tradition is tradition. Cumberbatch may wear black ties to black tie events, and this is a modern and perfectly acceptable choice when the event is black tie. There is a difference between the two tie colour events, however, and Cumberbatch knows when not to tamper with the more rigid and old fashioned expectations of the white tie. When we look at the second place position of Bradley Cooper, we notice that it is not just the onyx studs which seem to separate him from Cumberbatch. The hair and facial hair jar with the slick, clean look that Cumberbatch is known for. The British actor could step in and out of a Downton Abbey scene with ease.

Once again, it comes down to the expectations we now have of Cumberbatch: he is a representative of Britain, of an older world and older traditions. He knows just as much as Anna Wintour, also British, that in a strict dress code, creativity and ‘personal takes’ aren’t really part of the parcel.

The two know the traditions and what is considered appropriate. With Cumberbatch being one of the biggest British actors out there now, and Britain having an international reputation for tailoring (London’s Saville Row being the place to go) the actor demonstrates his distinct ‘Britishness’ through his ability to nail a suit at any appropriate event. If he didn’t do so, then he would be letting the side down, and if there’s one thing that Brits have to do in public, it’s keeping up appearances.

Along with other British actors, such as Tom Hiddleston, Michael Fassbender and Colin Firth, Cumberbatch plays the role of the dashing English gent at both formal and red carpet events because, well, that’s what people want from them. In the American imagination, Britain is the country of tradition, manners and (apparently) swoon-worthy accents. The actors from there are essentially poster boys for a nation, a nation that is more than happy to have them as representatives.