The Order: A Source Card's Analysis of Nicholas Hoult's Choices To Portray Robert Matthews
I just watched a riveting, well-made movie called The Order starring Jude Law who gave, I think, an award-level performance as the lead FBI agent. The co-star in the film is Nicholas Hoult who, in an equally spell-binding performance, plays the neo-nazi cult-leader in this real-life drama based on true events.
So after watching the film, I do what I do, and I look up the real people portrayed in the drama.
The real-life neo-nazi cult leader was Robert Matthews, born on January 16th 1953, which means he was born to play the Jack of Diamonds and 6 of Clubs. And true to the meaning of his 6 of Clubs persona, he definitely was on a mission and was very mentally fixated on his goals.
What I find interesting, always, in these movie-making examples of actors portraying real-life people are the choices the actor makes in how to portray the real-life person.
In one pivotal scene later in the film, (mild spoiler alert) Matthews is talking to one of his followers who had just gotten arrested and released from jail. In the scene, he’s convincing him that everything is going to be Ok and that he (Matthews) still trusts him (even after he got arrested and possibly talked to the police) and that they are still brothers (in the same mission.)
In the scene which is based on true events — one of his followers did get arrested and did become a police informant — Hoult portrays an emotional, teary-eyed Matthews who utilizes empathy, vulnerability, and emotional connection to persuade his doubtful/troubled follower that they are still on track and that everything is still OK. It’s a touching scene in which we get to see and feel just how deeply emotionally-invested Matthews is in his cause. It also serves to make him a more sympathetic villain.
But contrary to how the actor Hoult portrayed him, I want to offer insight and analysis of how I think the real-life Matthews would have actually behaved in such a setting.
For in reality, I don’t think anyone born to play the Jack of Diamonds / 6 of Clubs would be so emotionally-inclined, nor would they give a teary-eyed emotional appeal. Rather, they would stoically stick to their “facts” and reiterate the verbal agreements and the mindset of the mission. And rather than an emotional appeal, he would have spoken with a quiet, but unrelenting and withering verbal insistence that would have railroaded his acolyte into agreement by wearing down any objections or concerns he may have voiced.
It would have been also a top-down approach, so to speak, not a bottom-up approach, meaning it would not have been, as it was portrayed in the scene a case of Matthews lowering himself down to the others’ level to appeal to his humanity. It would have been something more like, with a soft-spoken quiet assurance, I am your leader and I’m telling you that this is how it is and you made an oath to this brotherhood and I expect you to honor your oath and keep your mind focused on the task at hand. And again, it would have been stoically matter-of-fact, as in, this is just how it is. And you can’t object to it because this is just how it is spoken with a mindset of “are you going to try to argue with reality?”
He would also have not shown any of his own vulnerability, which is again how the actor chose to portray Matthews in that moment. No-one born to play those cards would use vulnerability as their go-to way to persuade and gain conversion of someone else. He would, again, have used his bull-dog verbal insistence and lawyer-like persuasion tactics. And he would have relied upon his insistence on the code they share and the oaths that were sworn, and he would have appealed to the other person to uphold his honor and uphold his promises and do the right thing. He would have done all that without revealing any of his own emotions about it, which is actually how it comes across even more powerfully. For he would present himself as so sure of the cause and so sure of the rightness of their purpose that it would melt away any of the other person’s hesitations or reservations. And he himself would become the surety upon which the other person would rest their own doubts.
Instead, what transpires in the well-acted scene is a touching, weepy emotional bro moment — that’s how the actor and the director chose to portray how Matthews would have handled that real-life situation.
But knowing the Cards, I disagree with that acting and directorial choice. Rather than the choices they made to portray Matthews in that moment as vulnerable, emotionally-revealing, and empathic, I believe someone born to play a Jack of Diamonds / 6 of Clubs would have solved that problem using mental fortitude, verbal insistence, calls to honor, and most importantly, reminders to follow orders. Is it any surprise that Matthews name his organization The Order?
Perhaps these are subtle distinctions, but these are the kinds of distinctions in an actors’ choices that can make the difference that elevates the performance to the kind of resonance with reality that an audience can feel — even if they can’t articulate it — a resonance that really lifts the human veil and allows the audience a true look at the reality of the character. It’s how we can make art truly imitate life.
0 comments
Leave a comment
Please log in or register to post a comment