Originally Posted by Karen 30th September 2006

Suppose you are Johnny's agent and your job is to present arguments that he could play any of the main male characters.

All of the main male characters have interesting storyarcs and are compelling and multi-layered.

Tell us why you think he would want to play Balashov, why he would want to play Mutz and why he would want to play Samarin.

Herestoyou


I think as you said, these would all be great characters. I guess I really have to argue for Samarin and I'm not quite sure why. This character is such a chameleon(sp?) himself that it just seems to fit Johnny. Samarin convincingly presents himself to others for maximum effect and benefit for himself. I can just see Johnny in the hearing(courtroom) scene telling the story about the Mohican and White Garden. This is eerie, but I can practically see his eyes and expression as he would be talking. Also, the other part that stood out was the locomotive scene with Alyosha. Going from the cold hearted revolutionary to the conflicted man when the boy is injured also stands out for me as a "Johnny" role. Then of course the last scene Samarin does with Balashov, I think Johnny would blow us away with that one. It just seems that Samarin is the ultimate "outsider" so to speak, which I think would appeal to Johnny.

Having said that, I think Mutz is the more honorable character, more of the detective trying to unravel the mystery of Samarin, but with conflicts of his own.

Unless they built up Matula's part for the movie, I don't think he's as interesting as the other two. Of course, knowing Johnny, he could make this role special, too.

Overall, I would encourage him to take Samarin, just my gut feeling.

Deppraved


Samarin is it for me, too. herestoyou argued for it very well, I agree 100%.

Too old for Matula, and not a big enough role, but I enjoy Johnny when he's playing a cad.

Samarin is IT.

Mutz is too much a stoic stolwart. I don't know what he could bring to that, but if that is what he'd go with, I'm sure he'd add a nice, quietly tormented edge to it.

Balashov could be good too, because he's never played a martyr before.

Has he?

Herestoyou


Balashov would be interesting, too,-- now there's a very conflicted character!! I don't think I've seen him play that martyr type of role, good point. I'm sure he would do a great job as Balashov, too. But, yes, Samarin just seems to scream "Johnny" for me.

Nurseanne8


1st choice: Balashov-with JD's reputation for extensive research for his roles-he would deliver a character with many layers as he has been quoted-beginning of the film the dashing hasser on the horse coming to the rescue of Anna-the courtship and passionate honeymoon on the train and the scared but dutiful solider departing for war. After the battle scene JD would provide the audience with a portrayal of a man who underwent a horrific physical change that affected his appearance and personality. JD would dig deep as he been quoted to provide the rage necessary for the final scene with Matula and his own death.

2nd choice: Samarin-JD would be awesome in this part-since this character impersonates so many personalities in the book-the scene in which begs Balashov for his assistance screams for JD's skills. I just hope that JD would not make us like this character by the end of the film-because he seems totally evil to me.

3rd choice: Mutz-this is not a showy role but JD would be awesome as the previous posts noted he would be able to deliver the torture that Mutz feels as an honorable man caught up in a war he has no real interest in-also I feel JD would be able to incorporate into his characterization the effect of prejudice that Mutz experiences in the book because of his Jewish origins. Boy if this book ever gets a decent screen play and gets made into a movie what a treat for the fans!!

Karen


I have to agree with you on this order Anne r, I think Balashov is someone whose soul Johnny can relate to...he's an out cast within his own world, the world he so wants to belong to...as a gallant Hussar soldier, husband a father.

And then he learns of his own short comings...and is a deserter... Yup...Johnny's good at showing pain and self torture....look at how he showed Rochester.

Samarin is the glossier role, and again, the anguish and confusion that he goes through with Alyosha..the manipulation to get what he wants....Johnny would shine in this role.

Mutz, the quiet watcher, the one stuck behind, not liking where he was or what he had to do. I can see Johnny bringing a quiet respect and controlled frustration to this role.






So many choices....

Herestoyou


Great ideas from everyone, I like hearing the arguments for Balashov, too. This character does provide a nice "character arc". With Samarin, even though I do feel him somewhat evil, I did feel for him. I believed he really loved Katya as that's the reason he went to the White Garden in the first place, to try to rescue her. Secondly, when Alyosha gets injured, he breaks down and I think realizes what he has become. His act of returning Alyosha to Anna at great risk to himself also shows that maybe he had regrets in using Anna, too. If he was the total extreme revolutionary, he would have continued on and left Alyosha to die. I think that whole scene was his epiphany in which he realized how much he had lost of himself as a human being to the revolution cause. Then of course when he goes to see Balashov to be castrated, you really see a different sort of person. I'm not excusing what he did in the rest of the book, but I must admit I felt somewhat sorry for him in the end.

Nurseanne8


good points and JD would be able to present this on the screen so maybe I should feel more compassion for Samarin but when I think of him I continue to see Hitler and other evil characters in history and this illustrates why Meek's book garnered such rave reviews and awards. Anne r

Deppraved


This one discussion point has gotten me really jazzed for the idea of making this a movie!

It certainly won't be a feel-good, and not for everyone, but the two most complex male characters (Samarin and Balashov) are such a challenge for any worthy actor! As is Anna Petrovna.

Karen


Meek has said that Anna is one person that the book turns around....

Nurseanne8


Why is she so important in the story-any thoughts? Sorry Karen I could not resist since you brought it up. I need to think about it.

Karen


LOL You know that question is coming! LOLOL

Herestoyou

Anna is so important to the story because she is what vexes all men----a woman.(sorry to steal that from DMC). But if you look at the book, she is central to Balashov, Mutz and Samarin. To Balashov, she was his lover and is the mother of his child, to Mutz, she is an attractive woman with whom he wants to spend his life with; his hope for his future and returning to his country, and to Samarin, she is the one (with the help of her son), that breaks Samarin down and has him questioning his extreme actions and beliefs. So, in a way, that line from DMC, actually fits in this story, too.

Sorry, if I'm jumping ahead here, but does anyone think Samarin ends up castrating himself, or does he just disappear into the woods? I don't believe this is made clear in the book, just that Balashov throws down the knife and leaves the shack. Any thoughts?



Admin edit, LOL OK...I have to ask that we wait to answer this question, it will be asked later on, thanks so much.