To Think That Benedict Cumberbatch........

[LavenderRain]

Is a bit of a nob?
I get that actors don't want to be filmed and think its bad when people use mobiles in live theatre.
But its hardly 'mortifying' as he told his 'fans'
He wants to live in the real world, he may then understand the true meaning of mortifying.

Refreshing to see on the Same news item that a Beatles tribute band actively encourage people to film their show.

The original definition of 'nob'? He's definitely one of those.

Harrovians tend to be nobs (and are often knobs as well - but not Cumberbatch IMO).

I have no opinion to give. I just think he looks like a foot. A really ugly foot.

I think this thread hangs a bit on the misunderstanding of what 'mortified' means.

Yes, exactly!

It doesn't matter what you personally think "mortifying" means, it still has its own definition and he did use the word correctly.

Scary.
'Your baby is seriously ill. You must be mortified.'

I guess no-one has really been in the place to correct that particular vocab. glitch.

Still, how could you really not know?

I've never been to the theatre so I have no opinion on this really. I just came to say that I think he's a complete knobhead in general and I have absolutely no idea how or why people think he's in any way attractive

I also thought his name was Crumberpatch until very very recently

Joan

For some reason, I'm really upset about some of this. The way you casually defined 'mortified' has upset me. I'm leaving to ensure I don't say anything harsh.

"Scary.
'Your baby is seriously ill. You must be mortified.'

I guess no-one has really been in the place to correct that particular vocab. glitch.

Still, how could you really not know?"

Exactly thecatfromjapan.

it is of course completely understandable, yet slightly regrettable, that no one has said 'oh my god, my child is ill but seriously, what the fuck are you on about? Why should I be mortified?'

You need to stop using mortified around grief op. It makes no sense. It is completely the wrong word.

Recently went to the theatre in London with my daughter and was shocked that someone 3 along from me actually was checking his phone during the performance. Then did it again in the second act and was even texting a response. If it's that boring, just don't bother coming back after the interval, go and chill out and check your phone to your heart's content, if you really really cannot manage without it for 40 minutes. The other thing was that, as soon as the interval started, virtually everybody around me in the audience got their phones out. The first act was only 40 minutes long! Now, I may be from Bristol, a place that a lot of Londoners are always making jokes about, but I go to the theatre a lot and I have never ever seen such bad behaviour. It disrespects the actors and the other members of the audience.

I should have added that the cost of London theatre tickets makes common courtesy and respect even more essential.

He could do what other performers have done and stopped the show till the dick with the phone/camera puts it away or leaves.

He wouldn't be the first.

If I was him and saw the first light of a mobile phone I would stop the performance.

LavenderRain, (lovely username btw) wonder if you can clarify what you think/thought "mortified" meant please?

I'm unsure if you misunderstood the word or misunderstood what he meant by it.

I do think it's fair enough for him to be embarrassed - it will be fans of his doing this, not fans of anyone else. (no offence to rest of lovely cast!)

I don't think you need to "live in the real world" to "understand the meaning of mortifying". People living in all kinds of different worlds can be embarrassed by the behaviour of a connected person.

I think it's to his credit that he didn't lose his rag on stage and very sensible to appeal to the CumberCollective as the only way to get it stopped. I don't blame any actor who goes off on one about this sort of thing but from his perspective, with the performance stopped twice already, he may have considered it and thought better of it.

I agree with him about people not filming or taking photo's during the play because people should just put their phones away and watch the sodding play and stop ruining the view for the people behind them by holding up a bloody screen for two hours.

But didn't he also tell people to stay away from him outside the theatre because he won't be taking pictures or signing autographs? Because that's a bit knobby. Although then again, he's not going to want to hang about all night either.

The last concert we went to was just a sea of people holding phone's over their heads, and I watched most of it through someone else's iPad screen. It was really annoying. I went to watch something live and instead saw it through a screen that wasn't even mine because of the blocked view from all the people filming it.

It's like people have heard the phrase "pictures or it doesn't count" and embraced it as their life mantra. If you haven't filmed it for Facebook, you weren't really there.

I think he did rather well coming out to explain to fans why it was important not to have people filming him.

I think he used the word mortifying to indicate that he had felt that he had not given a great performance, due to a sequence of mishaps, and that he was very embarrassed by that.

OP, I had a baby in NICU/SCBU for a couple of months. How did I feel? At various times, distraught, distressed, terrified, stressed, anxious, sad, frightened, horrified. One way I never felt, however: mortified.

JUST TO REPEAT THIS, OP: 'mortified' means 'extremely embarrassed'.

Don't care about Cumberbatch, but do care about parents of ill infants being described as 'mortified'. Sorry, OP, I'm sure you do an ace job.

Hygge "But didn't he also tell people to stay away from him outside the theatre because he won't be taking pictures or signing autographs? Because that's a bit knobby. Although then again, he's not going to want to hang about all night either. "

The Barbican issued a statement saying he would be unable to do this. It is perfectly fair - not knobby! - given that after his last appearance in a play, (Frankenstein) he averaged 4 hours a night signing etc. Hamlet's also a hell of a demanding part, I think it might be running on Sundays as well though not sure?

He could try the thing of emerging and just signing for the first 3 or 4 people who are there but he knows full well that will just create a rugby scrum of fans trying to be at the front. And what a nightmare that would be for Barbican security. Much easier to just say "no signing". I wouldn't be surprised if it was a joint decision for him and the Barbican.

I only got a ticket because a friend of mine is a member and even then she spent 4 hours in the online queue, just waiting for the number to come up. Whatever you think about him yourself, extreme popularity has to be managed. They could hire extra security but what a hassle! And he is entitled to a rest. I know some actors sign a contract saying they will sign after a show but I don't think anyone should have to. I'm happy to see the play and let them go home afterwards.

I work as a midwife. Ive never seen any parents or staff be mortified about a poorly baby or a baby who has died. Theyve been upset, devastated, angry.....never mortified though.

If a colleague told me they were mortified over a poorly baby Id be thinking wtf do they mean.

just a factual notice, nothing nasty about it
i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/08/09/17/2B222FB600000578-0-image-a-1_1439138789394.jpg

If a medical professional told me they were mortified over poorly patient I'd be thinking wtf did they DO?

Speaking from experience egosum?