How M/M via DS Non-Ironically Ruined My Life Meme: It's Personal
"We were always optioned for three years."
[Downton Abbey S3 Spoilers Ahead]
Day 24 - What is the chief reason you believe Dan Stevens left Downton?
It has been exactly two months since Dan Stevens' "exit" interview with The Telegraph and still, "we were always optioned for three years" is the only concrete "explanation" we are left with once we clear away the dross of the "reasons" he gave for leaving Downton. In other words, as kavan30013 noted in a comment to yesterday's post, "only one thing regarding ... [Stevens'] exit is clear -- he just did not want to do ... [more] Downton."
Based on statements either he supplied directly or which he ratified (through implication and silence), two dueling and incompatible theories emerged on why he left Downton. The first is that he left because Downton was "monopolizing" his time and preventing him from being le artiste he is meant to be. Yet as eolivet and I (and others) have pointed out, Downton was just about the least monopolizing job (of any substance) he could have had in this business -- the proof of which is how many outside projects he and his costars managed to complete both while filming and during the months between series. The second (opposing) theory is essentially carpe diem: it was the right time for him to strike out and go on to bigger and better opportunities. But then ... where are all these opportunities exactly? The Heiress wrapped earlier this month, just a few days after S4 shooting started (and could have easily been accommodated on either side). He has a minor role in The Fifth Estate (the biopic about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks), which is filming in Belgium over the course of a few weeks. Given Julian Fellowes' (et al.) flexibility in working with him last year while he filmed Summer in February as well as their willingness to let him go recurring with his portrayal of Matthew, we know that a few weeks of filming in Belgium would not have interfered with his returning for S4. Otherwise, he will be promoting Summer in February and the rest of his calendar for 2013 looks clear as far as entertainment-related projects go (well, except audiobooks). He apparently has tentatively been cast in a future picture with Liam Neeson (part yet unknown), but it sounds remote (the project is reportedly in pre-production and may not film until 2014). (ETA: And more to the point -- which eolivet so effectively pointed out -- nothing other than The Heiress, a six-month commitment, was in the works a year ago. So to use hindsight to explain his decision at the time is untenable.)
So neither theory stands up to scrutiny. Moreover they are, as indicated, incompatible; they cannot both be true. Either he is not ambitious and does not care what kind of career he has so long as he is "fulfilled" artistically and intellectually or he is a rising star with bigger things on the horizon. ... Do we really believe someone is "looking for a certain kind of role now " and took on the Man Booker challenge because it "appealed to his ego" and wants to do "more film," but does not care if he ever equals the success he has had with Downton so long as he can write and dabble here and there as an actor? Yet he wants people to think both "reasons" coexist. They cannot. In short, neither theory is supported by the facts and both are contradicted by the actions and words of Stevens himself. In other words, neither makes sense.
This begs the question then: what does make sense? We might say that he just hated Downton so much he had to leave ... but then Downton is enormously successful in critical and popular terms (he won a Screen Actors Guild [SAG] award after all) and there seems to be camaraderie among the producers, cast and crew. It does not exactly seem like a toxic environment from which he has to run away. So the only answer many people (including myself) can come up with is that ... his true reason(s) must be personal -- something he cannot discuss openly (publicly). Like what? Stay tuned. ...
[Downton Abbey S3 Spoilers Ahead]
Day 24 - What is the chief reason you believe Dan Stevens left Downton?
It has been exactly two months since Dan Stevens' "exit" interview with The Telegraph and still, "we were always optioned for three years" is the only concrete "explanation" we are left with once we clear away the dross of the "reasons" he gave for leaving Downton. In other words, as kavan30013 noted in a comment to yesterday's post, "only one thing regarding ... [Stevens'] exit is clear -- he just did not want to do ... [more] Downton."
Based on statements either he supplied directly or which he ratified (through implication and silence), two dueling and incompatible theories emerged on why he left Downton. The first is that he left because Downton was "monopolizing" his time and preventing him from being le artiste he is meant to be. Yet as eolivet and I (and others) have pointed out, Downton was just about the least monopolizing job (of any substance) he could have had in this business -- the proof of which is how many outside projects he and his costars managed to complete both while filming and during the months between series. The second (opposing) theory is essentially carpe diem: it was the right time for him to strike out and go on to bigger and better opportunities. But then ... where are all these opportunities exactly? The Heiress wrapped earlier this month, just a few days after S4 shooting started (and could have easily been accommodated on either side). He has a minor role in The Fifth Estate (the biopic about Julian Assange and WikiLeaks), which is filming in Belgium over the course of a few weeks. Given Julian Fellowes' (et al.) flexibility in working with him last year while he filmed Summer in February as well as their willingness to let him go recurring with his portrayal of Matthew, we know that a few weeks of filming in Belgium would not have interfered with his returning for S4. Otherwise, he will be promoting Summer in February and the rest of his calendar for 2013 looks clear as far as entertainment-related projects go (well, except audiobooks). He apparently has tentatively been cast in a future picture with Liam Neeson (part yet unknown), but it sounds remote (the project is reportedly in pre-production and may not film until 2014). (ETA: And more to the point -- which eolivet so effectively pointed out -- nothing other than The Heiress, a six-month commitment, was in the works a year ago. So to use hindsight to explain his decision at the time is untenable.)
So neither theory stands up to scrutiny. Moreover they are, as indicated, incompatible; they cannot both be true. Either he is not ambitious and does not care what kind of career he has so long as he is "fulfilled" artistically and intellectually or he is a rising star with bigger things on the horizon. ... Do we really believe someone is "looking for a certain kind of role now " and took on the Man Booker challenge because it "appealed to his ego" and wants to do "more film," but does not care if he ever equals the success he has had with Downton so long as he can write and dabble here and there as an actor? Yet he wants people to think both "reasons" coexist. They cannot. In short, neither theory is supported by the facts and both are contradicted by the actions and words of Stevens himself. In other words, neither makes sense.
This begs the question then: what does make sense? We might say that he just hated Downton so much he had to leave ... but then Downton is enormously successful in critical and popular terms (he won a Screen Actors Guild [SAG] award after all) and there seems to be camaraderie among the producers, cast and crew. It does not exactly seem like a toxic environment from which he has to run away. So the only answer many people (including myself) can come up with is that ... his true reason(s) must be personal -- something he cannot discuss openly (publicly). Like what? Stay tuned. ...