I want y'all to listen to these two performances of the opening scene of Richard III. Give the speech a read here if you haven't already, that may help you appreciate the performances better.
The most noticeable difference between the two is Cumberbatch's (I was almost going to write Sherlock's lol) performance is much more animated and expressive- more reminiscent of acting, simply put. He makes more of an effort to express emotions corresponding to whatever he's saying. Morrissey's performance, on the other hand, is much more guarded and monochromatic. For Morrissey, the idea is to let the speech "speak for itself", and to dress it only minimally with expressions or acting (not to say there's no acting involved whatsoever- see how he leans in when he starts the "But I that am not shaped for sportive tricks..." section).
To use one of my culinary analogies- Morrissey wants to let the beef patty's intrinsic flavors speak for itself, and hence he only uses salt. His focus is on pronouncing each word slowly and methodically, giving each letter its due, to let the words of the master hang in the air and reverberate through the listener's consciousness. Cumberbatch, on the other hand, seasons liberally with aromatics and herbs. His goal is to fuse the flavors of Shakespeare with his own acting prowess, which is meant to ultimately enhance the performance. As a result, the speech may be seen as losing some of its authenticity, but it also becomes more animated and alive.
It's so different to say which of the two performances is better. The reason is the two actors have approached the scene with completely different approaches in mind. This basically means not only are the performances difficult to compare, but also incommensurate- they may as well be impossible to compare.
Now listen to this iconic performance by Marlon Brando (read the speech here beforehand if you must)-
Although it may not seem like it from the get go, this speech has the same overall approach as Morrissey's. It's not as quiet as Morrissey's, but it's 'restrained' in the sense that Brando really doesn't want additional acting to interfere with the speech itself. The speech is delivered in pretty much the same mood throughout, and in that sense it's monochromatic. I can tell Brando is using the same logic as Morrissey, in that the camera always remains focused on his delivery. Clearly the goal is to produce the speech from Shakespeare as is, being as honest and authentic a reproduction as possible.
Ok, two more performances of the same speech and we'll be done. Here's Charlton Heston:
And here's Damian Lewis:
Heston's speech attempts to incorporate some acting, but retains the general focus on speech. However, there's something unique with Lewis' performance. The performance is very animated, and yet it still seems to be entirely focused on the literary aspects of the speech. When I first listened to it, I took Brando's performance was something of a standard, so I really didn't understand the approach Lewis was taking. That left me somewhat confused, but after listening to it a few times- I realized Lewis has managed to blend in the best of both worlds.
Of all the performances I've cited thus far, I think it's this last one that takes the cake for being so representative of both approaches and bringing out their best. It's the perfect beef patty- you totally get the beef flavor, but at the same time there are aromatics and such thrown in, for the purposes of celebrating the beef itself. It's confounds your senses at first, but tastes amazing once you chew a few times.
Finally, I leave you with this beautiful interpretation of another one of the master's speeches.
The most noticeable difference between the two is Cumberbatch's (I was almost going to write Sherlock's lol) performance is much more animated and expressive- more reminiscent of acting, simply put. He makes more of an effort to express emotions corresponding to whatever he's saying. Morrissey's performance, on the other hand, is much more guarded and monochromatic. For Morrissey, the idea is to let the speech "speak for itself", and to dress it only minimally with expressions or acting (not to say there's no acting involved whatsoever- see how he leans in when he starts the "But I that am not shaped for sportive tricks..." section).
To use one of my culinary analogies- Morrissey wants to let the beef patty's intrinsic flavors speak for itself, and hence he only uses salt. His focus is on pronouncing each word slowly and methodically, giving each letter its due, to let the words of the master hang in the air and reverberate through the listener's consciousness. Cumberbatch, on the other hand, seasons liberally with aromatics and herbs. His goal is to fuse the flavors of Shakespeare with his own acting prowess, which is meant to ultimately enhance the performance. As a result, the speech may be seen as losing some of its authenticity, but it also becomes more animated and alive.
It's so different to say which of the two performances is better. The reason is the two actors have approached the scene with completely different approaches in mind. This basically means not only are the performances difficult to compare, but also incommensurate- they may as well be impossible to compare.
Now listen to this iconic performance by Marlon Brando (read the speech here beforehand if you must)-
Although it may not seem like it from the get go, this speech has the same overall approach as Morrissey's. It's not as quiet as Morrissey's, but it's 'restrained' in the sense that Brando really doesn't want additional acting to interfere with the speech itself. The speech is delivered in pretty much the same mood throughout, and in that sense it's monochromatic. I can tell Brando is using the same logic as Morrissey, in that the camera always remains focused on his delivery. Clearly the goal is to produce the speech from Shakespeare as is, being as honest and authentic a reproduction as possible.
Ok, two more performances of the same speech and we'll be done. Here's Charlton Heston:
And here's Damian Lewis:
Heston's speech attempts to incorporate some acting, but retains the general focus on speech. However, there's something unique with Lewis' performance. The performance is very animated, and yet it still seems to be entirely focused on the literary aspects of the speech. When I first listened to it, I took Brando's performance was something of a standard, so I really didn't understand the approach Lewis was taking. That left me somewhat confused, but after listening to it a few times- I realized Lewis has managed to blend in the best of both worlds.
Of all the performances I've cited thus far, I think it's this last one that takes the cake for being so representative of both approaches and bringing out their best. It's the perfect beef patty- you totally get the beef flavor, but at the same time there are aromatics and such thrown in, for the purposes of celebrating the beef itself. It's confounds your senses at first, but tastes amazing once you chew a few times.
Finally, I leave you with this beautiful interpretation of another one of the master's speeches.