My favorite actor on the show. Simcoe is the best!

At least with him there are no grey areas. He is legitimately evil in "TURN". If you are going to portray heroes and villains, the deciding factor is if you have a great villain.

@abaddonhades said:

At least with him there are no grey areas. He is legitimately evil in "TURN". If you are going to portray heroes and villains, the deciding factor is if you have a great villain.

That is what I don't like! He's almost a cartoon villain. I prefer someone like Arnold, who actually does have grey areas.

Also, I find Simcoe's voice very annoying.

Also, I find Simcoe's voice very annoying.

The voice is the best part! The actor has admitted he hams it up and has made the voice more high-pitched and annoying on purpose.

@Mirabel said:

@abaddonhades said:

At least with him there are no grey areas. He is legitimately evil in "TURN". If you are going to portray heroes and villains, the deciding factor is if you have a great villain.

That is what I don't like! He's almost a cartoon villain. I prefer someone like Arnold, who actually does have grey areas.

Also, I find Simcoe's voice very annoying.

For a more nuanced approach, i would pick JJ Feilds portrayal of major André. He is charming, he is an operator who understands human motivations and decisionmaking. He lays traps, but is caught up in his own web, by using his greatest love as a recruitment tool.

I confess that I know very little about Benedict Arnold as a historical figure, but he is presented more like a petulant child than anything else. When the whole of the continental army are starving, and wages withheld, this tv-series shows him reacting with the equivalent of: boohoo, me,me,me. So personally I find him extraordinarily annoying.

@abaddonhades said:

For a more nuanced approach, i would pick JJ Feilds portrayal of major André. He is charming, he is an operator who understands human motivations and decisionmaking. He lays traps, but is caught up in his own web, by using his greatest love as a recruitment tool.

I confess that I know very little about Benedict Arnold as a historical figure, but he is presented more like a petulant child than anything else. When the whole of the continental army are starving, and wages withheld, this tv-series shows him reacting with the equivalent of: boohoo, me,me,me. So personally I find him extraordinarily annoying.

I don't think of Andre as a villain, though. He was serving his country in everything he did. Nor do I believe he ever loved Peggy Shippen, although the show presents it that way. His real interest was another Philadelphia beauty, Peggy Chew. (She kept a lock of Andre's hair for the rest of her life).

@Mirabel said:

I don't think of Andre as a villain, though. He was serving his country in everything he did. Nor do I believe he ever loved Peggy Shippen, although the show presents it that way. His real interest was another Philadelphia beauty, Peggy Chew. (She kept a lock of Andre's hair for the rest of her life).

André is perhaps not a villain in the traditional sense of the word. But this series clearly sets it up so that we are to route for washington's spies, and by simple default that makes André and the brits the villains of the piece. I think I can say that, despite the fact that André and Hewlett(for example) are serving their own country's interests.

Interesting fact about mis Chew, I had no idea about that. Dramatic licence i guess, as per usual when dealing with historical figures.

@abaddonhades said:

@Mirabel said:

I don't think of Andre as a villain, though. He was serving his country in everything he did. Nor do I believe he ever loved Peggy Shippen, although the show presents it that way. His real interest was another Philadelphia beauty, Peggy Chew. (She kept a lock of Andre's hair for the rest of her life).

André is perhaps not a villain in the traditional sense of the word. But this series clearly sets it up so that we are to route for washington's spies, and by simple default that makes André and the brits the villains of the piece. I think I can say that, despite the fact that André and Hewlett(for example) are serving their own country's interests.

Interesting fact about mis Chew, I had no idea about that. Dramatic licence i guess, as per usual when dealing with historical figures.

Right; period dramas are never historically accurate. It doesn't really matter, imo. The point is to arouse interest in the period.

@Mirabel said:

Right; period dramas are never historically accurate. It doesn't really matter, imo. The point is to arouse interest in the period.

It seems you've done some research on these particular historical figures. In your opinion, is it a relatively accurate portrait of Benedict Arnold? The only thing I knew about him beforehand was that his name alone has come to be synonymous with treachery.

In my country,Norway, we also have a historical figure of that type, Vidkun Quisling, from the second world war.

@abaddonhades said:

@Mirabel said:

Right; period dramas are never historically accurate. It doesn't really matter, imo. The point is to arouse interest in the period.

It seems you've done some research on these particular historical figures. In your opinion, is it a relatively accurate portrait of Benedict Arnold? The only thing I knew about him beforehand was that his name alone has come to be synonymous with treachery.

In my country,Norway, we also have a historical figure of that type, Vidkun Quisling, from the second world war.

Well, of course Arnold never became spymaster. The British simply didn't trust him. Edmund Burke argued in Parliament that Arnold should never be put in command of British soldiers, because he was a man without honor and would have a bad influence on other officers.

Arnold never anticipated that reaction. He actually expected to be welcomed with open arms. But he basically defected because he wanted money, and because he felt unappreciated by the colonials. (I guess it comes down to hubris; some who fought were selfless, others only interested in potential rewards).

Btw- Peggy Shippen Arnold was later given a pension by the British, which suggests she was a spy in her own right and not simply drawn into it because she was Arnold's wife.

I'm not really adding anything new, just making observations on these posts. I agree that Arnold defected mainly because he wanted money. One of the very minor charges laid against him by his rival in Congress had to do with a version of war profiteering, the guilt of which Washington decided to punish. Arnold's attitude was, that everyone else was doing it, why couldn't he? Founding Father John Hancock was a (quasi-well-known) smuggler and got away with it. I can image Washington holding his officers to a higher standard than politicians.

Mirabel answered abaddonhades' question about the accuracy of Arnold portrayal aptly. In America, Arnold's name is synonymous with treachery. I am vaguely aware of the Norwegian traitor Vidkun Quisling.

A question for abaddonhades, though: Is Quisling's name held in the same low "regard" in Norway as Arnold's is in America?

@lima-2 said:

A question for abaddonhades, though: Is Quisling's name held in the same low "regard" in Norway as Arnold's is in America?

Yes, I think even more so. Come to think of it, though there are similarities(they're both associated with treachery, and both got their names in the history books because of actions taken during war time), there are even greater differences between them. While Arnold was a soldier and a military figure, Quisling on the other hand was a politician of sorts.

Vidkun Quisling led a political party named "NS" (nasjonal samling) , which was founded in 1933, and soon after came to establish an ideology oriented towards National Sosialism and Fascism. NS had no political representation in the national assembly before the war ( received around 2% of the votes in the national elections of 1933 and 1936) and were really in some disarray in the years leading up to the second world war. NS followed the examples of their Italian and German counterparts, by having a chairman-leader (Quisling) and by establishing their own affiliated military organization "Hirden". After the german army invaded and occupied Norway on the 9th of april 1940, NS stepped forward to form a "government", and declared themselves firm supporters of the german occupational force.

NS paramilitary branch "Hirden" was used both as a recruitment tool for troops to go join the german military efforts in Europe, as well as to quell any local norwegian resistance. Another fitting parallell might be the Vichy-state in France, but instead of just collaborating, NS actively supported the forces which gave them the chance to rise to power. "Reign of terror" is an expression that probably sums up NS and Quisling best.

The elected norwegian government had fled to London when Germany invaded. From there they announced on the 22. of january 1942, that membership in NS was against the law. At the liberation of Norway in 1945 NS was disbanded, and shortly thereafter NS members were collectively charged with treason.

Quisling came to represent the horrors and the national trauma Norway experienced during the second world war.

Thank you, abaddonhades! That is good information to know. I knew some of the generalities, but not all the details you shared.

This thread totally got hijacked! Please see the title: "Samuel Roukin- a great actor"

@Urban Commando said:

This thread totally got hijacked! Please see the title: "Samuel Roukin- a great actor"

You are right of course, but I'm a bit tired of the limitations one usually sets for the discussion threads. If one considers these discussions a sort of prolonged conversation, it is natural to stray into other areas.

As for Samuel Roukin I believe he is a great actor, but although I've seen both "Solomon Kane" and "Harry Potter", I don't remember Roukin from either of them. To me Simcoe represents Roukin's breakout role, and I hope to see him in other bigger roles soon.