Matthew Goode is both good and bad cop in Netflix's 'Dept. Q'
Being a leading man? Matthew Goode quite likes it.
He's the star of 'Dept. Q,' based on the books by Danish author Jussi Adler-Olsen and set in the cold case division of an Edinburgh police station. From 'The Queen's Gambit' showrunner Scott Frank, the nine-part miniseries launches Thursday and sees Goode playing a one-man combination of good cop/bad cop. While Detective Chief Inspector Carl Morck is a brilliant investigator, he is equally successful at annoying people — even begrudging respect for his talent quickly turns into intense dislike.
It's not that Goode hasn't been No. 1 on the call sheet before, it's just that he didn't enjoy it.
'It's something I shied away from after the beginning of my career where I was there for a bit and then I had some sort of bad things … things weren't necessarily positive at that point, after that. And I just went, I just want to be, you know, not the lead anymore,' he says.
Goode also acknowledges that actors don't get to choose if a main part is 'bestowed' on them and notes that Frank fought to cast him in 'Dept. Q.' The pair first worked together on 'The Lookout' (2007) with the English actor portraying an American thief, a long way from the period dramas Goode has been recently known for, playing suave Brits in 'The Crown,' 'Downton Abbey' and 'Freud's Last Session.'
Goode and Frank talked and teased each other in an interview with The Associated Press about working together, cast bonding and breaking Goode out of his period drama groove. The conversation has been edited for clarity and brevity.
AP: To start with, can I get you to describe your relationship?
GOODE: Father and son.
FRANK: Taxing, toxic, troubling.
GOODE: Well, he's the genius and I just do what he says, basically.
FRANK: I wish. We go way back. We made a film together, the first film I ever directed, in fact. And I was lucky that I had Matthew because he was outstanding and made it easier for me at that point. And I think we both just really know one another and I love this man — I would work with him in everything I ever did, but he's a pain in the ass.
GOODE: Well, you know. There has to be some cost!
FRANK: He is Carl Morck, in many ways. To know him is to want to strangle him. Does that sum it up?
GOODE: OK, so now you see what I'm working with. This is the second time he's given me a character that I genuinely don't think that many other people would have taken that chance, because I don't really scream Kansas City bank robber (in 'The Lookout'). And I think this is a part that some people would have kind of gone, it's a bit more sort of Tom Hardy-ish, perhaps. But that's what we are, we're actors, but you don't necessarily get to be versatile a lot of the time, so I feel very indebted to you.
AP: And did you write this with Matthew in mind?
FRANK: I had always thought he would be terrific for this, and I didn't know if we would end up doing it together, but from the minute I started thinking about it, doing it here, I really thought, oh, and I knew he would love it.
I think a lot of times people only see actors in one way or a particular way, is because they don't really see them, they just see the roles they've already played, they're not really paying attention to what else is happening.
AP: It's not a period drama.
GOODE: There you go, that's a prime example, yeah.
AP: So is that part of the appeal?
GOODE: I mean a career is, for want of a better way of explaining it, is a bit like a river where essentially you can go, there's the main channel in it, but there's eddies and you get caught in certain things and you get cast in certain ways. So you're not really ever particularly in control of it. Certainly unless you have your own production company or you become a massive star where you actually sort of have the keys to Hollywood and then you have a bit more of a sphere of influence and you can dip your toes in different waters. And he had to fight for me a little bit for this one. He had to go bat for me to actually do the part.
AP: Have you played a detective before?
GOODE: No, this is my first time, I think. I've got a memory like a sieve now; I've got three kids, that's the only thing I really think about. But no, I think this is my first time.
FRANK: I don't think you have.
GOODE: Only with my wife with some dress up, but that's about it.
AP: Carl seems to wind everybody up.
FRANK: A lot of people he winds up are people you want him to wind up and then a lot of times he's shooting down. But then, the people he's shooting down at surprise you by coming straight back at him. They don't necessarily let him get away with Carl being Carl.
AP: And he's not a posh character.
GOODE: No because (Frank) transposed it from the original Danish setting, Copenhagen, and it works brilliantly, obviously, in Edinburgh, and it becomes this amazing character. But he made the character English. But we haven't given too much detail yet as to as to his past, which I love the fact, because we're aiming to be able to keep doing this because there's 10 books.
AP: I spoke to Leah Byrne and Alexej Manvelov, who both had first day nerves and are so good in this. Did it surprise you that they needed reassurance?
FRANK: We all need reassurance. Including me.
GOODE: Every actor I've ever met.
FRANK: Your first day is really scary. There are all these people ... and acting, as I like to say, is the most difficult job in all of this because you're making yourself so vulnerable in front of a hundred strangers. So Day 1 is even worse.
AP: And Matthew went out with Alexej for a long lunch?
GOODE: I know it sounds a bit unprofessional, but actually, it's really, for me, that's the way that I like to work is to give myself to the other people that I've got major relationships in the show with, because I'm not competitive as an actor. I really want to share the screen. I find it weird when it doesn't happen the other way toward me. And so that's a really important relationship ... and I wanted us to have a great friendship.
FRANK: The one thing you can't fix in post-production is casting if you've not cast well. And there were a lot of different relationships happening here, so they all had to work together. And they were all terrific. I would be surprised every day by something one of these actors would do. And, what was really fun for me too, is how much Matthew appreciated the skill on the other side. He was never like threatened or felt he was being shown up, it was like this delight.
GOODE: Probably was being shown up.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
STV News
24 minutes ago
- STV News
Former St Mirren director defamed colleagues over comments on charity build
Two St Mirren directors were defamed when a former colleague accused them of pursuing a 'secret plan' to build a charity centre on the club's land, a judge has concluded. Alan Wardrop claimed that children's charity Kibble – a shareholder in the Premiership side – had applied for a £2.65m grant from the Scottish Government. Mr Wardrop claimed the application was to allow it to finance a 'first of its kind' wellness centre for disadvantaged children on ground belonging to the side. He then claimed the charity had lied about what it was doing. He then made allegations against Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, the chief executive and director of corporate services of the charity, who are also directors of St Mirren. These remarks prompted Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan to launch a legal action against Mr Wardrop, who was a Buddies' director between 2016 and 2022. The two men claimed the remarks made by Mr Wardrop had damaged their reputations. They instructed lawyers to pursue a defamation action at the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court. The remarks were made in May 2023 during his campaign to become elected to the board of the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association – an organisation which owns 51% of shares in the club – and the Herald newspaper. Lawyers for Mr Wardrop told judge Lord Clark that Mr Wardrop's comments were covered by sections six and seven of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. Section six covers matters of public interest – that somebody being sued for defamation can defend themselves against the action if they can show that the remarks were made in the public interest. Section seven covers honest opinion – that if a person can show their opinions were formed as a consequence of scrutinising evidence available then this can be a defence to the action. In a written judgement published by the court on Wednesday, Lord Clark concluded that the statements made by Mr Wardrop were defamatory. He said that the evidence showed that the two pursuers and the charity weren't planning to build the facility on land owned by St Mirren. But he did not award the two pursuers any damages. He said this was because lawyers for Mr Wardrop had shown that his remarks were covered by sections six and seven of the 2021 Act. He wrote: 'The central issues in this case are whether the statements were true and, if not, whether the defences under section 6 or section 7 of the 2021 Act succeed. 'Each side had sound reasons for the positions they took before the court, with evidence giving a fair degree of support. As has been explained, there was sufficient material before the defender which allowed him to reach his understanding about what the pursuers planned to do. 'But, on balance, it has not been shown that his allegations were true. They were defamatory. 'However, the circumstances result in the defence under section 6 applying in relation to the campaign statement and Herald statement, and also the defence under section 7 being made out for the Herald statement. 'As a consequence, the pursuers' claims for damages have not been successful. 'It is not necessary to grant an interdict against the defender from making any such statements again, as sought in the pursuers' first conclusion in the summons. 'The defender will be aware, from the reasoning I have given, that the statements made were defamatory and, but for the defences, would have led to awards of damages. 'There is no right or basis for him to be able to make such statements again and if he were to do so the defences would not apply. 'It would not be in the public interest to make such statements, since the true position has now been determined, and as he now knows the statements were not true he could no longer have an honest opinion.' Lawyers believed the case was the first time that the Scottish defamation law was considered by the courts. The judgement tells of Mr Wardrop's defamatory remarks. Lord Clark wrote that in the supporters association statement, Mr Wardrop said that Mr Gillespie and Mr McMillan 'failed to disclose' to club shareholders, officials and supporters that the charity wanted to build a facility on land owned by the club. Mr Wardrop said that 'together with Renfrewshire Council they applied to the Scottish Government for a £2.65m grant under the name The St Mirren Wellbeing and Regeneration Masterplan.' Mr Wardrop also stated: 'It was not disclosed to other SMISA club board directors and no prior agreement was secured. 'Both Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members but denied any conflict of interest. 'Having discovered the issue under Freedom of Information, I raised it at the club's AGM. I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble's directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them'. The judgement also states that Mr Wardrop told the Herald: 'I have been made out to be a liar by Kibble and the board of St Mirren, now it should be clear to everyone what a huge cover-up this has been, in denying, denying and denying, when they were actually lying, lying and lying.' Lawyers for Mr Wardrop argued that these comments were made on a matter of public interest. They also argued that he made them after scrutinising publically available information and that the legislation covered him in the action. Lord Clark upheld these submissions. He wrote: 'It was apparent from the evidence that the defender actually believed that publication of the campaign statement and the Herald statement were in the public interest. 'There is no suggestion that he knew that the defamatory facts presented were untrue. 'Far from it, his post-publication conduct supports his actual belief and indeed on his evidence in court he remains in the belief that the statements were true. 'He did not unwarrantedly or gratuitously drag into the statements any allegations which do not have a real bearing on the theme of the statements generally.' He also wrote: 'The evidence supports the point that the defender took reasonably extensive steps to verify his belief that it was in the public interest to publish what was said. 'They were reliable sources. The amount of information sought and obtained demonstrates the steps taken to verify the information. 'The status and content of that information, taken together, is reasonably capable of allowing the inferences to be drawn, resulting in his view. 'He carried out the enquiries and checks that were reasonable to expect and open to him, coming across no obviously contradictory evidence.' Lord Clark also said that if the pursuers had been successful, they would have been awarded £40,000 each. Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
BBC News
28 minutes ago
- BBC News
Idah insists he can handle 'big pressure' at Celtic
Striker Adam Idah is convinced he can handle the "big pressure" that comes with playing for 24-year-old, who completed a reported £9.5m switch from Norwich to Celtic Park last summer after a successful loan spell, finished the campaign with 20 goals despite making almost half his 53 appearances from the he also suffered testing periods, not least after a video of him apparently vomiting from a taxi circulated on social media, prompting a stern defence from manager Brendan about the pressure, Idah said: "The pressure is a lot and you are expected to deliver. I think with my experience now, you have to put that behind you. You know what you are good at."If you don't score for a couple of games, it is not helpful to listen to an ex-player. I am not really concerned with what he thinks - I am there to do my bit."I had a good run in the last few games, but I know it can turn quick. That is football. There have been plenty of games I have gone without scoring in, you have to stay focused and help the team."There is a lot of pressure at the club to be successful. It is good, I think. Every player wants to play at a big club, but what comes with a big club is the pressure."Rodgers' backing was welcome, but Idah has vowed to continue to live his life despite having to do so in the spotlight at times."At the end of the day I am a human being," he added. "I go out. I don't have to stay inside all the time. It's hard when people are videoing you, it can be quite upsetting, especially when the story is made out to be what it is not."It can be tough, but like I said, I am human and I'm going to carry on with my life."
Glasgow Times
31 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
St Mirren directors accused of 'secret plan' were defamed, judge rules
Alan Wardrop claimed that children's charity Kibble - a shareholder in the Premiership side - had applied for a £2.65 million grant from the Scottish Government. Mr Wardrop claimed the application was to allow it to finance a 'first of its kind' wellness centre for disadvantaged children on ground belonging to the side. He then claimed the charity had lied about what it was doing. He then made allegations against Jim Gillespie and Mark MacMillan, the chief executive and director of corporate services of the charity, who also directors of St Mirren. These remarks prompted Mr Gillespie and Mr MacMillan to launch a legal action against Mr Wardrop, who was a Buddies' director between 2016 and 2022. The two men claimed the remarks made by Mr Wardrop had damaged their reputations. They instructed lawyers to pursue a defamation action at the Court of Session, Scotland's highest civil court. The remarks were made in May 2023 during his campaign to become elected to the board of the St Mirren Independent Supporters Association - an organisation which owns 51 per cent of shares in the club - and the Herald newspaper. Lawyers for Mr Wardrop told judge Lord Clark that Mr Wardrop's comments were covered by sections six and seven of the Defamation and Malicious Publication (Scotland) Act 2021. Section six covers matters of public interest - that somebody being sued for defamation can defend themselves against the action if they can show that the remarks were made in the public interest. Section seven covers honest opinion - that if a person can show their opinions were formed as a consequence of scrutinising evidence available then this can be a defence to the action. In a written judgement published by the court on Wednesday, Lord Clark concluded that the statements made by Mr Wardrop were defamatory. He said that the evidence showed that the two pursuers and the charity weren't planning to build the facility on land owned by St Mirren. But he did not award the two pursuers any damages. He said this was because lawyers for Mr Wardrop had shown that his remarks were covered by sections six and seven of the 2021 Act. READ MORE: 'Sickened': Police officer faces sack after 'shocking' racist jibe He wrote: 'The central issues in this case are whether the statements were true and, if not, whether the defences under section 6 or section 7 of the 2021 Act succeed. 'Each side had sound reasons for the positions they took before the court, with evidence giving a fair degree of support. As has been explained, there was sufficient material before the defender which allowed him to reach his understanding about what the pursuers planned to do. 'But, on balance, it has not been shown that his allegations were true. They were defamatory. 'However, the circumstances result in the defence under section 6 applying in relation to the campaign statement and Herald statement, and also the defence under section 7 being made out for the Herald statement. 'As a consequence, the pursuers' claims for damages have not been successful. 'It is not necessary to grant an interdict against the defender from making any such statements again, as sought in the pursuers' first conclusion in the summons. 'The defender will be aware, from the reasoning I have given, that the statements made were defamatory and, but for the defences, would have led to awards of damages. 'There is no right or basis for him to be able to make such statements again and if he were to do so the defences would not apply. 'It would not be in the public interest to make such statements, since the true position has now been determined, and as he now knows the statements were not true he could no longer have an honest opinion.' Lawyers believed the case was the first time that the Scottish defamation law was considered by the courts. The judgement tells of Mr Wardrop's defamatory remarks. Lord Clark wrote that in the supporters association statement, Mr Wardrop said that Mr Gillespie and Mr McMillan 'failed to disclose' to club shareholders, officials and supporters that the charity wanted to build a facility on land owned by the club. Mr Wardrop said that 'together with Renfrewshire Council they applied to the Scottish Government for a £2.65 million grant under the name The St. Mirren Wellbeing and Regeneration Masterplan.' READ MORE: Man made £442k in ill-gotten gains during time as drug dealer Mr Wardrop also stated: 'It was not disclosed to other SMISA club board directors and no prior agreement was secured. 'Both Kibble employees did not declare their plans to build on St. Mirren owned land to St Mirren SMISA board members but denied any conflict of interest. 'Having discovered the issue under Freedom of Information, I raised it at the club's AGM. I, like many others, no longer have trust and confidence in Kibble's directors serving on the board of St. Mirren FC and I put my SMISA board application forward on the basis I wish to remove them'. The judgement also states that Mr Wardrop told the Herald: 'I have been made out to be a liar by Kibble and the board of St Mirren, now it should be clear to everyone what a huge cover-up this has been, in denying, denying and denying, when they were actually lying, lying and lying.' Lawyers for Mr Wardrop argued that these comments were made on a matter of public interest. They also argued that he made them after scrutinising publicly available information and that the legislation covered him in the action. Lord Clark upheld these submissions. He wrote: 'It was apparent from the evidence that the defender actually believed that publication of the campaign statement and the Herald statement were in the public interest. 'There is no suggestion that he knew that the defamatory facts presented were untrue. 'Far from it, his post-publication conduct supports his actual belief and indeed on his evidence in court he remains in the belief that the statements were true. 'He did not unwarrantedly or gratuitously drag into the statements any allegations which do not have a real bearing on the theme of the statements generally.' He also wrote: 'The evidence supports the point that the defender took reasonably extensive steps to verify his belief that it was in the public interest to publish what was said. 'They were reliable sources. The amount of information sought and obtained demonstrates the steps taken to verify the information. 'The status and content of that information, taken together, is reasonably capable of allowing the inferences to be drawn, resulting in his view. 'He carried out the enquiries and checks that were reasonable to expect and open to him, coming across no obviously contradictory evidence.' Lord Clark also said that if the pursuers had been successful, they would have been awarded £40,000 each.
