Tom Hardy (11 page)

The fundraiser was a huge success and raised
£
110,000, as well as allowing the actors involved to experience a whole new way of performing – and have a lot of fun into the bargain. Once they had done their bit for charity, the thespians repaired to the Riverbank Plaza Hotel for a celebratory party.

The charity gala wasn’t Tom’s only performance in front of a live audience at this point in his career. In January 2007, Nicholas Hytner staged his modern interpretation of George Etherege’s Restoration comedy,
The Man of Mode
, at the National Theatre. The central character of the play is a rake called Dorimant who, it is believed, Etherege based on the second Earl of Rochester, John Wilmot, a libertine and writer
of bawdy poetry. Tom was to play Dorimant, who spends the play juggling the women in his life, and alongside him in the cast were Rory Kinnear as Sir Fopling Flutter and Hayley Atwell as Belinda.

In modernising the 17th century play, the action was transported to a present-day London. Language and references were brought up to date: instead of letters arriving by hand, they came via email; instead of characters taking carriage rides, they took taxis. Costumes too were contemporary; in an online promotional film for the production (perhaps designed to reach out to theatregoers who might have felt that Restoration Comedy would ordinarily not be for them), Tom can be seen looking sultry in a slick, dark suit while other members of the cast strut their stuff in either glamorous, sexy attire, or not much attire at all.

Modern reworkings of plays from bygone centuries are often well received. For example, Carlo Goldoni’s 1743 play
The Servant of Two Masters
was adapted by Richard Bean to become
One Man Two Guv’nors
. Bean replaced the period Italian setting with Brighton in 1963 and the play enjoyed a successful West End run in 2012, with James Corden in the starring role. Would the new staging of
The Man of Mode
be a hit?

Prior to opening,
The Man of Mode
was singled out as a highlight of forthcoming cultural attractions in the press, with the prospect of Tom playing a sexy cad generating quite a bit of excitement in theatreland. Paul Taylor stated in the
Arts and
Book Review
that he was ‘salivating’ at the thought of Tom, ‘an actor who oozes sex and cockiness’ taking the lead role in Hytner’s production. Patricia Nicol in the
Sunday Times
concurred, proclaiming: ‘At the National, a draw for
all right-thinking women will be the dangerously charismatic Tom Hardy as Etherege’s
Man of Mode
.’

However, when the play did open, it was greeted with varying degrees of enthusiasm. Many felt that the modern trappings were overdone, and that the abundant humour to be found in the script had been underplayed; it was ‘long on cool but short on comedy,’ The
Express
declared. Meanwhile, on the flipside, Quentin Letts of the
Daily Mail
deemed the modern slant ‘strikingly successful’.

For once, it was not Tom who was lavished with the praise of the critics but Rory Kinnear. Opinions on Tom’s performance were divided and it seemed that – unthinkable though this may seem – some who saw the play found the sight of Tom’s toned and decorated torso a distraction rather than an attraction. Most of the critics agreed that Kinnear stole the show, which was unfortunate as Dorimant was the central role and all eyes should have been on him. Christopher Hart in the
Sunday Times
lamented that, alongside Kinnear’s performance ‘…poor Tom Hardy, as Dorimant, seems to shrink into insignificance as the play progresses’, while Nicholas de Jongh felt that Tom’s performance fell short of a completely faithful portrayal of the character: ‘He catches Dorimant’s narcissism but none of his exploitative nastiness.’

In fairness, Tom had made no secret of how challenging he had found the role. It was obvious why he had been cast: in looks and demeanour he was a perfect fit for a charming seducer. He admitted, though, that he struggled with trying to find a way into the text. Having never had to get to grips with the language of a restoration drama before, he’d really had his work cut out. Ordinarily more at home with scripts that
required him to have a brooding, edgy presence he now had to tackle more complex and florid dialogue. At the time the play was written, ‘people knew how to speak a sentence as if they were writing, and they talked at high speed. I’m more of the grunting and nodding type so I’ve had a really big mountain to climb,’ he explained to the
Daily Telegraph
in February 2007. ‘At first, I found Etherege absolutely impenetrable. His wit is as difficult to understand as Latin.’

Mediocre reviews from theatre critics are one thing, but Tom’s performance in
The Man of Mode
was on the receiving end of some rather more personal criticism. It came in the form of a letter from one of his teachers from Drama Centre. The letter was critical of the production of
The Man of Mode
as a whole and maintained that the play had not been interpreted as he felt it should be. Furthermore, according to Tom, the letter went on to state ‘you are not a star’. Speaking to the
Telegraph
, Tom was understandably defensive. ‘I decided against contacting my teacher because it was enough to know that I had worked at the National and he never f*****g would.’

With the benefit of hindsight, the statement ‘you are not a star’ was an ill-judged one. Though he had thus far only achieved a fraction of what he was capable of, the momentum behind Tom was building steadily. He had been given opportunities to learn from a host of experienced actors alongside whom he had been lucky enough to work, and he now had a good solid body of television work behind him. He’d taken on interesting character roles and shown he could turn his hand to comedy. But he was just about to find the characters with whom he could really make his mark. Bring on the bad boys.

‘I
’ve cornered the market on the old psychos and weirdos,’ Tom observed in conversation with Alan Carr on his Channel 4 chat show at the start of 2011, and there’s certainly no arguing with that! Since 2007, Tom had played a host of villains, madmen and sociopaths, from Bill Sikes to Charles Bronson. Prior to that, he’d been working solidly and accumulating varied but unremarkable character roles for his CV. The point at which people started to remember his name, though, was when he showed just how well he could play bad. As he put it: ‘No one’s ever sat up when I’ve played someone nice or easy to watch.’ In years gone by he’d brought his brand of intense and brooding menace to a relatively small arena on the London stage; he now stood poised to expose his dark side to the wider world of film and television audiences. Tom had been biding his time and was about to show what he was really capable of.

His first excursion into the darkness came with a role in a grisly horror film,
Waz
. In fact, the real title of the film was actually
W Delta Z
, but the use of the Greek letter to symbolise delta
led to the film commonly being referred to as
Waz
. The significance of the title is made clear once the film gets underway: the equation is carved onto the skins of the victims of a recent spate of serial killings in New York, where the action takes place. The formula, it transpires, is in fact the Price Equation, a mathematical translation of the theory of natural selection. When used in the framework of the film’s narrative, it refers specifically to the choice of either killing a loved one or being killed yourself. So far, so horrific.

Though set in New York, the film was mostly shot in Belfast and boasted a bizarre mixture of acting talent in its cast. Weary cop Eddie Argo is played by Stellan Skarsgard (usually the actor of choice for director Lars von Trier), and his rookie sidekick, Helen, by former Australian soap actress Melissa George. The only concession to a big Hollywood name comes in the form of actress Selma Blair who is, as ever, utterly convincing as the victim of an attack by brutal gang and who exacts her revenge on them one by one. The gang of hoods is headed up by Pierre Jackson (Tom Hardy) and also includes former So Solid Crew member Ashley Walters, who plays Daniel. Rounding off the eclectic cast is quirky actor and comedian Paul Kaye, who plays the scientist proponent of a gene theory derived from W Delta Z.

One of the themes explored in the film is the blurring of the boundary between good and evil. Most of the characters are shown to be capable of both: Eddie is driven by the desire to catch the bad guys but we question his grasp of right and
wrong as the film explores some of his actions and the motives behind them. Gang member Daniel is morally ambiguous too: he is essentially a good person but is caught up on the fringes of the gang’s despicable deeds. Though we would like to think there is nothing redeeming about violent gang leader Pierre, even he is given a chance to show his human side via his relationship with his grandmother. In one scene, he is seen on the phone to her, saying he loves her, just seconds before carrying out what he believes to be a revenge shooting.

Tom’s looks, his swagger and his dominant presence on screen all made him credible as this nasty piece of work. The teeth that had once been his downfall were now just part of the appeal. Always wanting to do his job to the best of his ability, Tom was able to draw on the well of darkness he seemed to be able to divine when he needed to. He did, however, recognise that digging so deep for a part had its pitfalls. ‘Once I start work, I’m a bit of a dick in this character. It’s very hard to pull him back… he’s a nutter.’

Directed by first-time feature director Tom Shankland, the film fell somewhere between the psychological thriller
Se7en
and the more gratuitous torture fest of the
Saw
franchise movies. It didn’t make much of an impact on its release; it had a lukewarm reception in the UK, with most reviewers regarding the film as unconvincing and a touch tedious.

Landing the role in
Waz
did, however, turn out to be a pivotal point in Tom’s life and career. It was on the set of this film that he met former US Marine turned personal trainer Patrick Monroe – otherwise known as Pnut. Having cemented their friendship, the pair began to work together regularly and it is Pnut whom Tom credits for helping him achieve the
remarkable physical transformations in evidence in many of his films. Tom’s respect for his friend shines through whenever he talks about him. ‘He’s everything I ever wanted to be. He’s done so much and he’s potentially a truly dangerous, fierce man. But he’s the softest guy I’ve ever met. Full of humanity. And humour. And tolerance. Everything that I really want to be,’ he told
Men’s Health
magazine.

It’s not just his physical form that Tom entrusts to Pnut, it’s also his mental wellbeing. ‘Counsel… I can’t keep counsel with myself because I always tell myself the wrong thing. I have to keep people nearby from whom I can learn.’

It would be fair to say that Pnut’s presence has been a driving force in Tom’s upward trajectory. The pair met just as Tom was starting to sink his teeth into meatier roles, ones that demanded physical change as well as the ability to shift mentally. It was Pnut who made sure Tom went about changing from emaciated Stuart Shorter in
Stuart: A Life Backwards
to bulked-up Charles Bronson in the correct way. More recently, Pnut has had his work cut out as Tom has had to pack on even more muscle for the roles of Tommy Conlon in
Warrior
and Bane in
The Dark Knight Rises
.

Jack Donnelly from Channel Four’s series
Cape Wrath
has become something of a legendary character in TV history, thanks to Tom’s deeply sinister portrayal of him. With Jack, Tom showed just how far he could take it when inhabiting menacing and unstable characters. The role was a great opportunity for him to venture even further into the recesses of his psyche and, because the character of Jack had committed a violent crime in his teens, Tom sought to get
under his skin by researching the boys who had killed James Bulger. Duane Clark, the director of
Cape Wrath
was unequivocal about why he chose Tom to play Jack. ‘The minute he walked into the audition, I knew he was what we needed,’ he explained to the
Telegraph
. ‘When his name came up, the producers said he was too posh. But anyone who meets Tom knows he is a nice middle-class boy from East Sheen with a very dark underbelly.’

It was in 2007 that Channel Four cast a dark shadow over the summer months with its new, much-hyped series. The show kicks off with the Brogan family (Danny and Evelyn and their teenage twins Mark and Zoe) arriving, blindfolded, at an isolated settlement called Meadowlands. The reason for the secrecy is because they are part of a witness protection programme, but viewers aren’t let in on this secret immediately. With its uniform houses in brightly coloured cladding, Meadowlands looks idyllic – but on closer inspection is a spooky and disconcerting place. The Brogans feel even more ill at ease when it transpires the residents of the town have already been informed of their arrival and even their (assumed) names.

At first, only Danny knows the truth about Meadowlands: that, in fact, all of its residents have been relocated there by the authorities, so have either transgressed or been the victim of a crime. Whatever their story, they are all there for a reason and they all have murky secrets to hide. The very fact that they live in Meadowlands at all means they have a past they must forget and a present they are forced to embrace. As the creepy local cop Bernard Wintersgill mutters to Danny: ‘The past is not just another country – it’s another planet.’ The
town is closely monitored and only those with permission arrive – though no one ever seems to leave.

The most unsettling – and memorable – character we meet in Episode One is handyman Jack Donnelly – or as his scrappy business card would have it, Jack ‘of all trades’. Jack is a baseball-hat-wearing psychopathic sex offender whose presence is described by another Meadowlands resident as ‘looming’. He is by turns intimidating and angry, and the violence within him is roused if those he is threatening show fear.

From his first scene it is clear that Jack is both a disturbed and disturbing man. He creeps up behind Zoe, sniffing her hair and standing invasively close. Zoe’s reaction, however, is not quite what he expects – she shows no fear of him and instead acts suggestively, encouraging him to come and see her at home on the flimsy proviso of fixing a light. At no point is Zoe scared of Jack – rather, she is convinced that she alone can cure him of his deviance and goes so far as to say that she is his ‘last hope’. His relationship with her, while deeply dysfunctional, is different from those he has with other women. For example, Jack is also getting his kicks from an abusive relationship with doctor’s wife Abigail. With her husband all but ignoring her at home, Abigail indulges in the unbalanced relationship with Jack because attention from him, she feels, is preferable to no attention at all.

Given his behaviour and how much of a threat Danny sees him as being to his daughter, it’s no surprise that Jack comes to a violent end as the first episode draws to a close – though he does return as a ghost to offer advice to Sergeant Wintersgill, who is determined to find out the truth about what happened to him. Ironic, considering it is Wintersgill
who beats Donnelly to within an inch of his life on the football pitch after Danny expresses his concern for Zoe’s safety around the handyman. Such is the twisted justice meted out in Meadowlands.

While the series looked promising when it was first broadcast, it didn’t become the cult hit it was supposed to be. The intention was for it to fall somewhere between the mystery of
Lost
and the veiled suburban menace of
Desperate Housewives
, but it somehow failed to hit the mark. As Jaci Stephen commented: ‘In trying to take its lead from such shows, it ends up being a weak carbon copy.’ The mystery was at times overplayed to the point of becoming confusing, and the goings-on were perhaps just a little too odd for viewers to be able to realistically buy in to them. Ratings for
Cape Wrath
fell below expectations and the planned second series was never commissioned.

The show wasn’t without its redeeming features, though. The central performance from David Morrissey was strong and convincing, as was the insidious Sergeant Wintersgill played by Ralph Brown. For all its weirdness, many viewers felt that Tom’s performance as Jack was one of the best – if not the best – things about
Cape Wrath
and that the series lost one of its biggest draws when he was killed off. The
Observer
columnist Kathryn Flett, for one, raved about his presence in the show: ‘Tom Hardy, as the terrifying Jack Donnelly, was very dangerously, positively murderously, dark and twisted… and as sexy as hell with it.’

Evil, it seemed, was the order of the day and for those who love to see Tom at his villainous best, it was exciting to hear that he was to play Bill Sikes in a forthcoming BBC
adaptation of
Oliver Twist
. For Tom, it would have been hard to pass up this gig. As well as being excited about working with
EastEnders
writer Sarah Phelps, the show would see him reunited with
The Virgin Queen
director Coky Giedroyc. To complete a triumvirate that he’s referred to as ‘magic’ was casting director Maggie Lunn. If that wasn’t enough, the Nancy to his Bill Sikes would be played by Sophie Okonedo, with whom he’d loved working on
Scenes of a Sexual Nature
.

Over the years, there have been numerous retellings of the Charles Dickens classic, so the challenge for any reworking is always how to breathe new life into the material. Amongst the most memorable adaptations are David Lean’s 1948 film starring Alec Guinness as Fagin, Carol Reed’s film version of Lionel Bart’s musical,
Oliver!
and Roman Polanski’s 2005 film which saw Ben Kingsley take on the role of Fagin, with Jamie Foreman as Bill Sikes. How would this series go about offering a fresh perspective on the story we think we all know inside out?

For one thing, the structure of this
Oliver
Twist
would be different from other classic adaptations that had gone before it: the first instalment was an hour-long episode and was followed by half-hour segments, which were to be aired on consecutive nights. This approach had been tried out for the BBC adaptation of
Bleak House
in 2005 and could be construed as going back to basics with Dickens’ material. His novels were originally written with the intention of feeding them to the public in serial form, so his skill was in constructing a story to which readers would want to return for more (no pun intended) week after week. This kind of rolling drama with a cliffhanger at the end of each episode is
of course exactly how
EastEnders
is formatted for television, so was familiar territory for Phelps. ‘Dickens wrote for an immediate response from an audience that just wants to be told a story.
EastEnders
, at its best, has that,’ she commented to
Time Out
. What she really wanted to do was to create ‘an
Oliver Twist
for our times’.