Benedict Cumberbatch - Blog Posts

Sherlock's Wisdom on Getting Married

I quite recently watched a Sherlock episode, titled: The Sign of Three. It was, in my sincere opinion, a relief after the surprisingly disappointing season premier--and I haven't watched the season finale, so please don't spoil that for me.

In this episode, besides of a number of complicated and smartly intertwined cases being solved by Sherlock, Dr. Watson gets married. Well, marriage is and has now been for a pretty good while a sensitive and controversial subject and no one blog entry could contain the expression of the complete set of my views on this topic, so I'll just reflect on one thing.

As Sherlock prepares for his awkward and unromantic best man speech, he points out a flaw in the institution of marriage. He says, that a wedding is not a big day, since two adults, who already live in the same household, will merely continue their relationship, without any addition or alternation in regards of form or content, just implementing a brief intermission consisting of a grand celebration and a short vacation.

Sherlock's argument against marriage is, however, not, that it should be done differently but that it shouldn't be done at all, having understood the little relevance it has. Of course we discard this argument as a trivial mistake. We feel this way because the essence of marriage and what it constitutes are unuttured but very valuable things.

The essence of marriage is problem #1. Out of all the definitions I've heard in my short life, the most easily acceptable and most up-to-date is this: a union between two willing adults, sanctified by the state, promoting romantic values. This is fairly true to popular contemporary views I believe.

On to problem #2: what does marriage constitute? To answer this question, we will now draw consequences about our answer to problem #1. Marriage essentially constitutes a state, in which the participants have their relationship recognized by the state and their pursue of romantic goals is hence justified.

I will now try to contradict my previous statements and conclusions by explaining faults I believe to have identified.

Fault #1: the state's sanctification is inadequate. I will demonstrate this by one argument but I believe even more exist. My example is this: take a christian couple. They get married and according to their beliefs their marriage was sanctified not solely by the state but also by God. If we define marriage as a thing getting its sanctification by the state we have disrespected and at least the way the given couple sees it, degraded their marriage. On the contrary, it would be problematic to change the definition in their favor because that would be misfit for the people not sharing christian faith.

Fault #2: in case marriage essentially promotes romantic values, such as romantic love, fidelity, companionship and such ones, it must mark the distinction between the state of promotion and the state, where these values were not promoted or not in the same manner. This means, that, for instance, before the marriage you have the liberty to break up the relationship you have, however, after you're married, you willingly give this up and thus will never have the freedom to get a divorce. Of course this seems extremely orthodox and hard to accept but given the definition above, the state of marriage does not allow you to violate the institution of it.

The list of problems and faults may be too short or inaccurate in contrast with others' views but I believe it's quite enough food for thought for now.

Both faults, listed above, originate from how we define the essence of marriage and what we want it to constitute. Now, that I have questioned and denied the modern day thinking about this topic, it may seem, that I agree with Sherlock and see marriage as an irrelevant contingency in life but that's not the case either. What I personally think about it is, that as long as we don't have a unanimous definition of marriage, we can't make court rulings or legislations defining its aims, since no matter how liberal we are, it will always take away the freedom of at least a few. And to give my view on what to make of the current problem, I will say, that marriage is valuable and it should continue to exist, however, to fill it with importance, contemporary thinking about it should indeed be changed.

The Hobbit - Smaug's Philosophy

Peter Jackson's Desolation of Smaug (2013) had a great impact on me for numerous reasons. When I was introduced to Tolkien's tale, I was in high school and I found a number of morals of the story, that I could revisit now. This time, however, I have come across a thing in Smaug's reasoning, that was brand new to me.

When Bilbo and Smaug have their conversation, the dragon speaks scornfully of Thorin's attempt to reconquer the mountain. He says, that the dwarf if misled, if he believes, that his ancestors' kingdom can be restored. The dragon also argues, that no one has right to Erebor but him.

We, the sons and daughters of modern democracies, which mostly promote both liberal and communitarian values, automatically think, that of course the Lonely Mountain rightfully belongs to Thorin. He is heir to the throne and the land was taken by force by a--so to speak--tyrant. The dwarf's reasoning seems legitimate and just. Smaug's evil and Thorin is virtuous, this is very clear.

But we must bring this conflict to further consideration to understand it in depth. What we actually see is how two philosophies confront each other. Smaug explains this almost explicitly to Bilbo. The dragon argues, that the dwarves have a narrative identity, which gives them ground to make their claims, on the contrary, Smaug says, he has just as much justification. His main argument is probably, that he is stronger, and justice exists only between equal parties but since they are inequal in strength, the more powerful does as he/she sees fit and the weaker obviously can't resist, ergo must undergo whatever the other decides. Smaug's second, maybe less conspicuous argument is, that his narrative identity also gives him ground to be ruler of Erebor: he conquered this land--probably by different means but with the same outcome--just as the race of the dwarves once did and now it belongs to him.

This predicament reminds me of the famous Melian Dialogue, which is in Thucydides' History. In that, the Athenian empire asked the island of Melos to surrender to them and pay tribute but they refused and appealed to Athen's sense of morals: mercy and the respect of neutrality. It is, of course, not an identical case, but what is very similar: the Athenians argued, that there's no true moral argument, that could be made in this case. They said: "For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretenses—either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us—and make a long speech which would not be believed; and in return we hope that you, instead of thinking to influence us by saying that you did not join the Spartans, although their colonists, or that you have done us no wrong, will aim at what is feasible, holding in view the real sentiments of us both; since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". Smaug reasoned very much like the Athenians did. He thought it foolish to bring up questions about a code of honor or virtue because none of them can be more morally approved, than the other, since every land comes to be ruled by being conquered. The dragon kept arguing, that he has the right to do as he does by possessing the power that he does.

Naturally, Thorin's claim still seems more justified. Our approval can be traced back to two possible roots, both sufficiently sublime to give us peace about our point of view.

The first possible explanation is, that Thorin aimed to cultivate the land and the neighbor peoples. He wanted to restore a state of prosperity to the benefit of all.

The second possibility is, that Thorin's allegiance was to the side of good or the side of light, as opposed to Smaug's, which was to Sauron and the side of darkness. In this case the dwarf king was trying to reach a divine goal: to overcome evil with good.

Of course both explanations have their shortcomings, mostly because of Thorin's weaknesses, that are often in the nature of morals, but all in all, he is something like a "good guy".

Smaug's reasoning in IR and political philosophy in general is called a realist approach. It's like Machiavelli's "power is power" way of thinking. I believe our disapproval of the dragon's line of argument shows our natural tendency to believe in more than just causality. We have a moral code implanted in our souls. We can, of course, fight it in favor of profit or the "greater good" or whatnot but it's undeniably there. This tendency is a beacon of hope for me. It gives me faith and not just in humanity or a set of ideals, no. It gives me hope, that overall there is good, which transcends our desperate, miserable and depressing world. It gives me hope, that there is God, in whom I can lay my trust.

MY TYPE

MY MEN✋🏻😮‍💨

(wanted to go with a dark theme but couldn't stick to it so bear with me)

Why does Benedict looks so good in light blue? I’m just-

Khan by ~tafafa

not midjourney ! home made !

Confinement fake : My tow favorite actors on a sunny day !

Les aventures de robin des bois - 1938 (Robin des bois et son fidèle compagnon, Willy !) The adventures of robin hood - 1938 (Robin Hood and his companion, Willy !)

We are in your dream, Mr. Cobb, right? Absolutely ! In the 50s ! Racism and police violence against gays ... Welcome!

Nous sommes dans votre rêve Mr Cobb n’est ce pas ?

Tout à fait ! Dans les années 50 ! Racisme et violences policières contre les gays... Welcome !

Cobb : Not your bizness Mr Holmes ! Stay away !

The next “budy movie” on the screen (...in my dreams *!*) - Bad romance, beer and headache !

J’ai imaginé avec ce fake les trois acteurs dont je suis fan dans un “film de potes” ! ...cette prise de vue pourrait s’appeler “lendemain de cuite !”

Leonardo and Benedict in a zombie movie !

(inspired by “walking dead”)

“Holly Shit ! my fake is real !!! “ (my tumblr edit in 2013)

I hope that one day it will be real !

J’espère qu’un jour ça arrivera :)

Otter batch !

Marvel a de la chance d’avoir un comédien de ce niveau pour incarner doctor Strange en 2016 !

J’ai eu la chance d’assister à la représentation d’Hamlet au Barbican centre le 4 septembre et je n’arrive pas à trouver de mots suffisamment forts pour décrire l’experience théâtrale que nous ont donné à voir ces artistes. Les decors, la mise en scène, l’interpretation des comédiens… C’etait…. (Voilà ! Pas de mots). Mention spéciale au costumier de Hamlet et ses notes d’humour. Le decor est gigantesque et dégage une atmosphère anxiogène, présage des événements à venir dans l’histoire. La parfaite chorégraphie des scènes d’action rend le tout très crédible. Quant à Mr Hamlet/Cumberbatch… Que dire de plus qui n´ai deja été évoqué sur Tumblr et autres réseaux sociaux ? Débauche d’energie, justesse dans l’expression des émotions, puissance vocale et physique impressionnante et pouvoir comique indéniable (la scène dans laquelle il simule la folie est mémorable, toute la salle riait aux eclats 😂). 

Au stage door

Petit conseil pour les personnes qui ont prévu de s’y rendre : oubliez le pipi d’apres représentation ! Je sais, dur dur après 3h enferme dans une salle mais l’entracte est très court (15 minutes chrono) et les wc sont peu nombreux dans le hall du théâtre. Moi et mon amie nous avons manqué “le king” à cause de nos vessies. Il est sorti aussitôt après la représentation (le chameau). Nous sommes donc revenues le lendemain soir dîner dans un petit Resto du quartier pour pouvoir avoir la chance de voir les comédiens sortir. Benedict était très fatigué car le samedi il y a deux représentations dans la journée. Malgré cela il a quand même pris du temps pour signer des autographes et poser pour des photos. Ciara Hinds (le comédien qui joue l’oncle d’hamlet et que je connaissais un peu grâce à la série Rome) a pris du temps pour parler avec nous car il parle très bien français 😄

Web article - 08/08/15: " if the psychedelic side of the movie will be faithful to comics, it would seem whether it is not the case for the costume of Dr Strange. Indeed, in comics, it is known to be very colored, with a blue tunic, a golden belt, and a red cape ruby. This one should thus be much darker, to stick with the occult universe which Scott Derrickson wishes to create." My fakes are Inspired by the character of the video game "DEUS EX ".

Article Web du 08/08/15 : “Si le côté psychédélique du film sera fidèle aux comics, il semblerait que ce ne soit pas le cas pour le costume du Dr Strange. En effet, dans les comics, il est connu pour être très coloré, avec une tunique bleue, une ceinture en or, et une cape rouge rubis. Celui-ci devrait donc être beaucoup plus sombre, pour coller avec l’univers occulte que Scott Derrickson souhaite créer.”

Mes montages sont Inspirés du personnage du jeu video “DEUS EX”.

You said “photobombing” ?

article associé à cette image

(article en français sur le projet “docteur Strange”)

What a “fucking” great movie it would be !

I was told to follow him if i want to know the truth. Suddenly I thought that he could kill me in this dark alley …and nobody would care about it.

On m'a dit de le suivre si je voulais connaître la vérité. Soudainement, je réalisais qu'il pouvait me tuer dans ce “coupe gorge”… et que personne ne s'en soucierait.

Un hommage au pilote héroïque de l'Hudson : Le nouveau film de Clint Eastwood rendra hommage au pilote de ligne américain Chesley Sullenberger annonce Warner Bros mardi 2 juin 2015. Le pilote est devenu un héros en 2009 pour avoir sauvé 155 personnes à bord de son Airbus A320. 

A tribute to the heroic pilot of the Hudson  : Clint Eastwood's new movie will pay tribute to the American airline pilot Chesley Sullenberger announce Warner Bros on Tuesday, June 2nd, 2015. The pilot  became a hero in 2009 to have saved 155 persons on board of his Airbus A320.

Leonardo DiCaprio au casting ? Clint Eastwood a l'habitude de choisir des acteurs de talent pour ses réalisations. Le monument du cinéma semblerait s'intéresser de près à Léonardo DiCaprio ! Le nom du film, et la date de sortie, n'ont pas encore été dévoilés.

Leonardo DiCaprio in the casting ? Clint Eastwood is used to choosing talented actors as his realizations. The monument of the cinema would seem to be closely interested in Léonardo DiCaprio! The name of the movie, and the date of release, were not revealed yet.

grenpics :

Puis-je faire une suggestion pour le co-pilote Mr Eastwood ? May I make a suggestion for the co-pilot Mr Eastwood ?

Patrick WATTS is Sooooooooooo Sexy ! 

Alan Turing : 102 ans... si l'homophobie n'avait jamais existé !