Tom is so eloquent, and so respectful. It's amazing how, at such a young age, he can sit with people who have way more experience and knowledge on the topic and share equally. I also love that he is so multi-dimensional as a human being, he can sit here and talk about leaders and Shakespeare and he can also rap Miami by Will Smith or play a simple guy in a TV show. Those are qualities we should all strive for!
Mark and Tom's reaction to that bullshit historian at 14:47 was spot on. I'm at the polar opposite of the kind of education that Tom had, yet I still can't believe that historian would dare make a comment like that in front of a guy who actually went through that system. Totally out of order and an obsolete argument at that.
What a wonderful discussion. All four gentleman shared fascinating points. (and re Tom: way to be the "kid" amongst older, wiser people and still hold one's own! Yay!)
The point Hiddleston makes there is really valid. Henry V was able to physically lead his men by riding on a horse in the war. That's not how political leaders of modern age are, whatever the reasons. I remember watching Dunkirk (Christopher Nolan) and the scene in which the Cillian Murphy's character tells Mark Rylanc's character (the Yacht man) to turn around because he's not a soldier but an old man and knows nothing, to which the he responds, "Men my age dictate this war. Why should we be allowed to send our children to fight it?" That's what essentially lacks in modern age leaders. Churchill though came close to being charismatic. Guess he was the last of the lot.
I don't know why the historian is so rude with them, is obvious that he wanted to dominate the room, he even dont let to Mark and Tom speaks -.- I love how Tom is kind and educated, if that was me, in Tom's place I'll be screaming to him to let me speak, Mark and Tom are so kind and brave, I love them.
No, Tom knows Schama is the superior asshole. Tom simply chose not to engage in the confrontational display and instead chose quiet politeness. Tom is well aware of his own level of knowledge (hello, several years of college along with independent research and study) and feels no inclination towards flouting it in other people's faces. Schama on the other hand is so insecure he feels the need to roar at everyone "I know more than you! I'm better than you! Listen to me!"
Great interview, very informative. Tom was great, as always. I think it's interesting how they kept bringing up American political figures: Martin Luther King Jr, President Obama, then George W.
I should learn not to read youtube comments before watching the video. The discussion was interesting. The historian is just passionate about the subject. I doubt he meant to offend anyone there. Tom was a class act here, eloquent as always and so damn gorgeous.
"That's why YOU'RE actors and I'M NOT". So rude. What was his problem? Just because they're actors, that doesn't mean that they don't know what they're talking about. Honestly, what a jerk.
My God...the way Tom Hiddleston speaks of intellectual things...this is the sort of conversation I crave from people, not the usual things like useless, fabricated dramas.
I think Tom actually makes a point that the historian gilds over (perhaps because it contradicts the point the historian wants to make), about the immediacy of leaders in the medieval period.
Frankly Schama has forgotten more about medieval history then Hiddleston has ever known. Schama knows the facts of the period whilst the actors know what Shakespeare has written.
The difference is, Schama learned everything he knows through academia, the actors learned by living it. There is something to be said for direct experience that you simply can not get merely by reading it, which is sadly the reason why every time Mark and Tom say something that goes against his views, Schama gets confrontational over it. Historians can not know everything and only barely know what they read because they have no practical experience or understanding to back it up whereas the rest of us know better and academic know-it-alls feel threatened by that. Case in point, I was 19 and had gotten a GED and this 30 year old woman who bragged about having 4 years of college tried to convince me she was more intelligent than I was by saying that the nearest star to Earth was Andromeda and that Scotland was completely separated from England by water. She was completely wrong on both counts and I knew it, but she refused to accept that I knew anything, let alone knew more than she did because my knowledge came from independent research and experience rather than the academic brainwashing she received.
@@Leathurkatt I am sorry that you had that experience. As someone who has earned many academic degrees, I still have the perception that I don't know everything. Also, having academic degrees doesn't make anyone intelligent. That experience you had shows that you were dealing with someone who was insecure; she was probably surrounded by people who had advanced degrees and was using her 4-degree to put down someone who doesn't have one.
@@bookloverwholovestocook3669 It's refreshing to meet someone who is intelligent enough to realize how little they actually know, despite study, research, and academic degrees. Literally no one person can know everything about a single subject, let alone know everything there is to know about multiple subjects. I am very keenly aware of this fact. Also, the only reason I have a GED instead of a diploma is because the school I was going to had serious gang violence issues, including guns being pulled on other students. Having PTSD and dealing with that level of risk to my safety made it impossible for me to continue attending and I could not transfer schools. So I left and got a GED. That experience has also made it impossible for me to physically attend college, I tried twice and my anxiety was so intense that I couldn't even set foot on campus grounds. However, there are over 2 dozen subjects that I have studied and researched starting with Paleontology at age 4. I had been studying Astronomy and Astrophysics since age 8 and as someone who is of Celtic heritage and has researched that heritage, I have more than a passing knowledge of the geography and history of the Celtic Isles and their people. While I may know a lot about the subjects I have studied and researched over the decades of my life and what I know is certainly not insignificant by any means, I am all too keenly aware of the fact of how little I actually know. You are very likely correct regarding miss 4-years-of-college-and-an-expert-in-everything. She certainly seemed insecure given the fact that by the age of 30 had been married 6 times and was known to have had multiple extramarital affairs during and between marriages, including sleeping with one of my exes in her marriage bed while her husband was in the living room watching television. In certain circles around here, she is well known as a slut (which she hotly denies and gets intensely offended if anyone says it where she can hear). All I can say is, "If the shoe fits..." 🤨😏😆
@@Leathurkatt It sounds like Miss BA(BS) is a hot mess. Have you thought of pursuing your college degree through an online degree program. There are online degree programs that are 100% online or have limited residency requirement, e.g. couple of weeks during the academic year. A number of credible brick and mortar universities are offering online degree programs. Also, you might be able to get academic credit for your self-taught education from some colleges and universities through an applied learning type of evaluation. You may need to do a project to demonstrate your knowledge.
I really wish the historian hadn't taken over the interview and steamrolled the others. I get that he's a historian and knows a lot about Shakespeare, but Mark and Tom I think know just as much--if not more--when it comes to Shakespeare. I would liked to have heard more of what they had to say since it was much more insightful than anything the historian offered.
I agree, I mean Mark and Tom obviously had less historic knowledge but as actors who had to throw themselves into the minds of their characters, they were definitely going more for the emotional empathetic views, where as the historian just jumped in there and took over with all his knowledge, and pretty much left no room for Tom or Mark to say anything
The problem is the excessively confrontational attitude Schama had towards the actors because of his self aggrandizing and over inflated ego believing he's better than the actors because he learned everything via academic brainwashing vs their practical experience and understanding.
What a tense atmosphere.It felt as if Tom was interrupted non-stop.Tom & Mark handled it like pros.They were so polite about those pretty unnecessary comments.And I laughed so hard when both actors exchanged a look & smiled.That was worth a Loki smirk & silence spell XD
Another breadcrumb along the trail of evidence in my quarantine/Tom project of following his maturing process. (Only became aware of him exactly as quarantine began: early March 2020.) I love that he loves Will. Saw Rylance on Broadway in Richard III and in “Twelfth Night or What You Will.” twice, including the final performance as the actors threw flowers at us, the audience, for ten minutes -a magnificent experience, all from fifth row center. Now we need Tom doing Will in NYC: producers? Come on! Start now and by the time herd immunity is reached, (2022-23) you’ll be ready!
tom and mark are having none of simon's bullshit. love the way they lean in and glance at each other at around 14:50 they just smile and nod, but you know they are screaming inside.
is it just me or is this one of the only interviews where tom hiddleston isn't the main person talking. its funny when the historian cuts him off and he kind of looks a little offended cause normally he's allowed to just ramble on. but he just butts right back in while still being polite about it. :) Got to love the Hiddles
The historian was very arrogant and rude. Neither tom nor the other gentleman were given a chance to speak. This segment wasn't really long enough considering the topic.
Mark is so wise and so polite - leaders need experience and should be allowed to get them and be humanly imperfect - he had much more appropriate things to say than did that rhetorically eloquent gesticulating guy there opposite who interrupted all the time and did not say anything I can remember now - thanks also to Tom for the Shakesp. quotes that made you think, kings had to live duty-led their armies physically, did not only send soldiers somewhere without getting their own limbs involved..
All these people are amazing! But towards the end i did hear a few snide comments towards Tom, with the 'Etonian chomping on a pastie' and mentioning 'not forcing it'. I think it's a good think Tom is so well educated, it makes him who he is. and he is in no way snobbish! Amazing discussion none the less. thanks for posting!
I'm going to be an outlier here and say that I actually liked Simon Schama's points. He and Tom sparred well. Different perspectives are a good thing. And Tom contributed just as much as Simon did.
But I can't believe the way Mr. Hiddleston was treated.I mean,he's also a professional with a degree,he's not just good looks.Besides,every occupation deserves respect.You can't just say sth like that regarding different professional fields without sounding disdainful.I was so shocked and in disbelief when the historian said that.Is like he insulted them to their own faces.
Especially since Professor Schama and Tom both went to Cambridge University. It is not uncommon for academics, especially those with notoriety to hold people without a PhD in contempt.
Schama needs to go away. Love how he takes the piss out of Cameron when he's a purveyor of establishment propaganda himself. Although all Etonians should always have the piss taken out of them at every opportunity - they've earned it - it's obviously also true that having had the privileged misfortune to attend Eton need not damn you for life, as evidenced by lovely Tom Hiddleston.
This is such a fascinating discussion. I have to say, I do like Simon Schama, however I found him to be rather rude in the instance. Also, I'm getting sick of watching video's where Tom Hiddleston is speaking and he gets interrupted, it's not as though he not saying anything worth listening to! Let him speak! He's always so polite.
In my view there isn't. Tom knows his history and he is an actor, when he is in interviews and answering questions on his characters, it sounds as if he has had to somewhat research onto it and at the same time analyse the character. I think an actor knowing history is such an incredible thing!
for some strange reason people seem to be of this belief that actor has no clue or no intelligent idea about the character he is playing. its something that has really got to me everytime i've heard it or read it being said. the actor's are in my eyes the most qualified to talk about the persona they are portraying, since they had to become one with the mannerisms of the character, and speech, accent, everything to be associated with them.
The pasty comment is a reference to David Cameron, who also went to Eton. He said he bought one from a particular shop in a railway station, to prove that he loved them and his tax hike on food like them was fair. It turned out that the shop had closed years before Cameron had claimed to have bought his delicious pasty.
I think the historian was saying that what he did as a child quoting Shakespeare on a stool was a pretty crummy impression, so thats why the actors are actors and he is Not an actor. In other words they are awsome as actors and he could never be one. Well thats just what I got from it. :)
Dear historian guy: EITHER LEARN SOME MANNERS OR JUST GO AWAY. Seriously, those quips about Etonians were disrespectful on their own, but while Tom was right there? Absolutely rude. And the fact that Tom just shrugs them off, after having said in multiple interviews how he hates that people are judged for their social class, is absolutely admirable. He really knows how to politely communicate with everyone around him, Sad that can't be said for the historian.
I completely agree. I had the feeling the historian appeared as vexed that "mere" actors had a grasp on political things at least as good as the one he had on them.
Im also impressed, he really knows his stuff and he held up well here :) I personally had to replay a few things and google rhetoric to keep up :D haha you learn something new every day
David Cameron (British Prime Minister) went to Eton and pasties are a savory type of pie historically synonymous with working class people. He Ate one in what was conceived as him trying to look like he understood the common man. they show a picture of him doing it in the VT. I don't think he meant any disrespect.
I didn't say they were monarchs or didn't earn their money. What I stated was the lower classes in Europe for a very long time (and some still) had to put up with a monarchy by blood whereas we put up with a monarchy of money. I am using the word metaphorically not in a literal sense. The simple fact is having money gives one power and privilege the poor do not have, thus is can be argued the upper class is as a monarchy though without title (see the metaphor?).
Great thoughts by all. Obviously, Tom was brilliant, as always. I was a bit put off by the snarky historian, with his little jab: "That's why you two are actors, and I'm not!" Really, man? Really?
"Entonian chomping on a pasty" It seems it was an offensive statement towards Tom, but could someone briefly explain to me what it means? I'm not sure if it's a Britian thing, because I've never heard such in America.
It is class comment. The boys who go to Eton come from money. Not to say that there aren't the scholarship students but for most part the students come from elite backgrounds. Historically, a pasty is a working class food item -- a hand-held meat pie that is shaped into a half moon. Working class men would have a pasty packed for their lunch. "Etonian chomping on a pasty" literally means an upper class person eating a food item that is working class. Or in other words, an upper class person trying to come across as being a regular person and/or recognizes the problems of regular people. I don't know if there is still a class divide with the pasty. If a person travels around England, they will find pasty shops on high-end streets in cities around England. Supposedly, the Duchess of Cambridge makes them for Prince William.
Yes, I though that too, they weren't subtle with that vibe either, all things considered I think Tom was good not to make any comments back to them, he seemed to just laugh them off or ignore them.
19.59 he asks from hiddles to say something "quickly". Haven't you realised yet, you poor man, that short answers are against his style? Let the man talk!
@JM4EDR oh absolutely not - I was a history student and I know he's amazing at what he does; I just think he could have been a bit more polite. He seems to have been wanting to talk all the time (which is an important quality for historians), but not exactly the most courteous thing when there are other people whose views are no less important.
A lot of people don't like Etonians (boys who went to Eton school) because it's traditionally very posh and seen as old fashioned. It's probably the most famous school in England, lots of foreign royals send their sons there. 15 British Prime Ministers went and Prince William was in the year below Tom. And since they're posh, they're seen as out of touch, usually they're anything but.
That is true, but he is a journalist who knows all that is relevant in his shows (University Challenge and Newsnight). I'm just annoyed that he is in the prescence of one of the best actors of the Y Generation.
That would have been an interesting discussion if the historian hadn't been so incredibly rude. The thing that bothered me the most was how he wouldn't give anyone else any sort of credit. Like how Tom and Mark were talking about the leaders speaking from experience because they actually did ride into battle back then, but the historian just kept insisting it was pure rhetoric with no experience to back it up.
Simon Schama is brilliant, everyone go away. (Call the man by his name.) He was talking about David Cameron when making his Etonian/pasty reference, and went to a public school himself. (He's great and the sassiest historian.)
One who went to Eton College, it's a boarding school that would encompass the 8th to 12th grades (roughly) in the U.S. It means daddy had money and thus opens Tom up to a lot of class based quips. People here are scandalized someone would dare bring it up on camera that is all. Considering where he lives, if he ain't over it by now I feel sorry for him. It's just going to get worse with the way the economy is going (not saying it's right, just calling it like it is).
The Historian seemed to be quite dismissive of actors in general, especially with the "pastie" comment, and it seems like he had far less of a grasp on Shakespeare than Tom did. That's to be expected, of course, as the only way you can truly understand Shakespeare is through experiencing his works live and that is done most intimately through acting them yourself. (Along with detailed analysis obviously) I have great disdain for scholars who pour over plays as if they are books and nothing else.
Also, that historian is such a big head, what he said want interesting! I actually think it is only interesting when actors talk about characters they play!
I couldn't agree more! Young Hiddleston demonstrates nothing but respect towards the other members of the panel. From the way he is dressed to the way he speaks, even his body language. The pompous historian, on the other hand......well, no need to point out the obvious, I guess.
This is very politic-y. haha. i know the word doesnt exists but its more direct than sayimg this is running seriously deep. well very interesting, nonetheless. considering the fact that they hear the opinion of actors portraying political figures.
I agree with you and Tom, people these days really don't believe speeches. We think politicians are charlatans saying whatever's popular to sell themselves to a disillusioned public. Leaders don't go out and prove themselves any longer, making these portentous discourses all they have left. But all that does is gain them recognition as great orators not actually inspire people to follow. Also, you totally pegged that historian. lol :)
I want to explain something else, I am not saying this guy is flaunting status. I'm just explaining why people are so outraged over something the actor himself doesn't seem to care about. Excuse me if i came off badly,I am not trying to frame the conversation in an adversarial manner. If that is how it came across, it is not what I intended. As for my "monarchy in kind" argument, if you don't believe that go look at the nephew of a former president who just filed papers to run in Texas.
I would say Americans tend to view it more favorably than Europeans do. If you want to talk further you can send me a message as I doubt 500 characters could do you justice :) I don't mind talking to anyone as long as they are nice.
I explained it already but you brought up the usage of the word. It's very simple, Europeans view social status very differently than Americans. Americans pretend it doesn't exist and Europeans know it does. This has everything to do with Europe being subject for most of it's existence to an actual monarchy versus the U.S. with it's rule by the Rich without title. I lived there, and i can tell you flaunting status can get you knocked on your butt quicker out there, not so much in the states.
A lot of these people who are scandalized are probably American. American's don't believe in class and are scandalized when you bring that reality up. Don't make me quote Howard Zinn on here people. But yeah, I agree with you. I didn't see it as more than an attempt at a joke. British humor is a bit dry so Americans don't get it.
