The ultimate badass?

What does everyone think of Tom's acting in Taboo? I'm finding it difficult to separate my dislike of Delaney with how Tom is portraying him. I sometimes think Tom may have been too preoccupied with being responsible for every aspect of the show and therefore didn't put his all into the acting performance like he usually does.

Here is what one user just wrote on the Taboo board reviews - and as much as I hate to admit this, part of me agrees with part of this viewer's assessment. Aside from a few entertaining moments, I can't think of any scene in four hours of viewing so far where Tom has blown me away like he usually does. It's like he's phoning in Delaney and the line is faulty.

Interesting how tastes can differ. I found Taboo to be a series trying desperately hard - and failing - to be a brilliant dark portrayal of early 19th century skulduggery. Why did it fail? Well, Tom Hardy obviously thinks that loping around like a truculent bear, and quietly growling every single line that he has, is superb character acting: it's not. He comes across as completely two-dimensional with no depth of character and ends up being a caricature of the ultra-macho alpha male with zero emotional range. For something like 90% of the time he is on-screen he portrays exactly the same growling, brooding expression and voice and yet somehow fails to convince us that he is a real person.

I do not agree. On the surface, Delaney is a very similar character to what he usually plays. Plus, he may not have given it all to the character given that he was very involved in the production. And yet, I find the quietness and presence with which he imbues Delaney much more compelling than his shenanigans in the Revenant. He is definitely not phoning in.

I found Taboo to be a series trying desperately hard - and failing - to be a brilliant dark portrayal of early 19th century skulduggery

I do not think that it was the series intent. Taboo is intentionally low brow, occasionally daft and voluntarily silly and over the top. But it refuses to take itself seriously (James threat about cutting men testicles and prostitutes eating them 20 minutes on during Episode 1 is a testament to that). It is full of historical and literary easter eggs which makes the series both very conscious and very related to its 19th century roots.

And among the insanity, there is the uncharacteristically quiet and self-contained performance of Hardy which anchors the series into a sense of continuity. There will be no ''Taboo'' without his presence not only in terms of plot but also because he the thread which connects all the characters. And Hardy is able to do that through his presence and acting. And frankly, I do not see any actor of his generation which would be able to retain and enact such sense of active and simmering mystery.

, Tom Hardy obviously thinks that loping around like a truculent bear,

Do not see the ''bear'' and the ''truculent'' part at all. Plus if he is ''truculent'' why does the reviewer complain about his ''quiet'' growl?

ends up being a caricature of the ultra-macho alpha male with zero emotional range.

So the ''ultra macho'' alpha male is supposed to be completely out of sorts and have regular hallucinations regarding his relatives? I do not think that Hardy's acting during these visions has anything to do with being an ''alpha male'' or having ''zero emotional range''. I do not think that James first interaction with Godfrey displays ''zero emotional range'' either (and this is just an example among many).

I appreciate the fact that Hardy shows emotional range in a restrained and natural way (which was not always the case, even in his most compelling roles e.g ''The Take'', ''Cape Wrath''). Sometimes, displaying emotions is more than crying one's heart out.

something like 90% of the time he is on-screen he portrays exactly the same growling, brooding expression and voice

No.

and yet somehow fails to convince us that he is a real person.

This is because he is dead already, as you suggested previously. 

More seriously, what the is the deal with the royal ''us''? If he is not convinced that he is a ''real'' person this does not mean that others are supposed to do the same.

There's no person on Earth who could have put it better.. Excellent observation and explanation!

Thank you.

I have caught Taboo here and there and never seeing Tom Hardy in anything else I really can't compare.

But I do like how he portrays his dark character. You never know how he will react to situations and that walk of his adds much IMHO.

something like 90% of the time he is on-screen he portrays exactly the same growling, brooding expression and voice
This is actually true. For a good 90-95% of each episode he's either permanently scowling or has a weirdly blank, empty stare. It's so unlike him to play a character with so little dimension as he normally imbues his characters with an abundance of emotion and feeling. But here you see that emotion in only a handful of scenes. (e.g. Ep 5 by the fireside with Lorna burning the contents of Horace's trunk, but even then it's a variation of his empty, soulless glare).

Then it hit me, maybe this is Tom's way of playing James throughout the series because he really is dead. Just like he said he was in the opening episode, and hints at in all the rest. If it turns out James is human after all, I think I will be disappointed. I find it a stretch to believe that PTSD would cause James to have just two expressions for the majority of the series running time. That said, even with those two expressions, he still manages to overpower the screen with his presence, even when some of his co-stars are practically stealing scenes from him. When do you ever see anyone else in the same frame as Hardy stealing scenes from him? Never! It's ALWAYS the other way around, right?

I enjoy him as Delaney for the most part, but I do admit it's a little one-note and kind of doing his "dark and brooding" thing.



my movie review website: http://www.jestersreviews.com