Studio Magazine Article

February 1995

Ralph Fiennes
Questions for a champion

(Translated by Carrie)

How this British and reserved actor conquered Hollywood thanks to his performance in Schindler's List and today, in Quiz Show.

His reputation precedes him like a journalist's bad dream. Ralph Fiennes does not like to talk, Ralph Fiennes does not respond to questions, Ralph Fiennes detests interviews. At least this is what they say. But reputations can be proved deceptive. And in this comfortable armchair of his Ritz suite, although he is ill at ease (his own responses often make him blush and his sentences run on sometimes), the actor also shows a simplicity and an exemplary courtesy, obviously surprising. Ralph Fiennes came to Paris to speak about Quiz Show, the new film by Robert Redford. This is only the second feature film in which one can see him in (the first being Schindler's List, in which he was incarnated into a terrifying SS officer), but his performance is again fresh and brilliant, a corrupted individual, that one would not be surprised to see him again soon at the Oscars. Then, remember well his name (which is pronounced Rafe Fines), for he has not finished climbing....

LT: All that you have to do is look at the Oscar nominations of the last five years to realize the emergence of British actors in Hollywood: Jeremy Irons, Anthony Hopkins, Daniel Day-Lewis, Emma Thompson, Kenneth Branagh, and now you. To what do you attribute this phenomenon?
RF: Don't think about it, no. The only evident difference between the American actors and English actors --in particular those that you cited -- is that the English generally make their debuts in the theater. And perhaps this experience brings them a work approach more pragmatic. I did a great deal of theater before making my first film, and I have always found out that this has given me a very practical sense of acting. In the theater, one does not ask for a second take. And even when one feels that his performance isn't good, one is obliged to go until the end, sometimes during the whole performance. This compulsorily gives you another attitude, a different work approach. But I believe that the difference ends there.

LT: When Robert Redford chose you for Quiz Show, Schindler's List had still not been released on the screen. How had he heard of you?
RF: In the same fashion that Steven Spielberg did, in fact: he had seen me in a British television film in which I played Lawrence of Arabia. He contacted me through my agent, but I was still working on shooting Schindler's List in Poland, and I had to ask the permission of Steven Spielberg to let me slip away for two days to go for an audition in New York. I was overcome with anxiety at meeting Robert Redford, first because of my Nazi hair cut and also because of the weight I had put on for the Goeth role. I was convinced that he was going to say to me, "Thank you for coming, but from all the evidence, I made a mistake." And in fact, no, it went well. He was very calm, very cheerful. This was someone who truly knew how to put me at ease. We did a screen test and he said to me, "Take your time, do it as many times as you want." This was a truly agreeable meeting. To such an extent that, even if he hadn't given me the role, it still would have remained an agreeable meeting. (laughs)

LT: How did he present the project to you?
RF: He explained to me that he found this television game scandal very representative of the 1950's, of this period when America was obliged to take stock of a little trouble. This was the era of McCarthyism, of the Korean War, etc. The end of an era of carefree attitudes and of superficial innocence. When one looks at the subject of Quiz Show, this is truly a story of a country that collapsed because it was betrayed by a television game show. And this is what interested Robert; he found that this would say a lot about the American mentality.

LT: And you, what attracted you in particular to this project?
RF: The enigmatic side of Charles van Doren (the character that he plays) fascinated me enormously. For this is not someone who is bad to the base, very well on the contrary. This was a young man full of talent, but who did not succeed in finding a domain in which he could excel, differently than his father, for example. And what attracted me, these were the people who, in having flaws, make mistakes. The people who make the wrong choice, obviously without knowing at the moment that they are wrong, and who are obliged, at the end, to face their mistakes. The character of Goeth in Schindler's List, fits in this category. And what interested me towards him was finding what could possibly redeem him. No, not that he felt redeemable, of course, but I wanted to find in counterpoint to all his evident atrocities the few humane facets that he had in him. This was truly there that made him an interesting character.

LT: Robert Redford gave you documentary video tapes on the real Charles van Doren and it seems that you have even met him.
RF: Yes, well, I had really needed to see what he looked like, just like that, by curiosity. Then, with a friend, we passed by his house in a car. He was outside, and we stopped, under the pretense of asking for directions. This is all we said to him of course, and certainly not that I was going to play him in a film.

LT: Was there something in particular that struck you about him?
RF: When I met him? No, we only caught sight of him briefly and he was obviously a little on the defensive, like any man who is accosted by two strangers. But on the cassettes, yes.....The image that he gave was a young man who was a little timid but confidant and full of humor, not at all authoritative or aggressive. And with hindsight, one truly got the impression that this was all only a role. Perhaps not a role of composition , in fact, this side, young brilliant man who almost looks surprised at finding the right answers, was without doubt just an extension of his personality. But after a moment, with the success of the program, I believe that he was left trapped in this role, thinking that his principal error, like Herbert Stempel (the preceding candidate, played in the film by John Turtorro), was not to have known how to keep a sense of who he was. After a moment, in fact, he quite simply succumbed to the trap of vanity and celebrity. I saw an interview very recently of him, which was dated 1986. Someone interrogated him on some books and after a moment, naturally, someone spoke to him about the television game show scandal. And he had put weight on the issue, "I was very happy that this had happened, this was a good lesson, I learned a lot of things about myself." But one got the impression of an "official" speech of self criticism, thinking that this is really the kind of person who, like in the script, is capable of lying until the last minute, of looking you straight in the eye and saying, "No, really, I do not see what you want to speak about."

LT: What did you find most difficult about interpreting this character?
RF: The hardest part was without doubt defining the moral boundaries of Charles van Doren. Because for this, I needed to visualize the image that he had of himself, you know what I mean? As an actor, I believe that you cannot judge the character that you play, but that you must try to understand how he sees himself. And in the case of van Doren, this was rather scheming. Because after all, if he saw in himself the image of a young and brilliant intellectual, why would he embark on this television game, why did he accept this deception? Which justifications did he give to himself? Which excuses did he find? It is only in answering these questions that one can truly understand who is Charles van Doren. Personally, I believe that he was always very attracted by money and success, but that he never wanted to admit it. And certainly not to himself.

LT: How do you generally approach your characters? Do you do a lot of research?
RF: I look for everything that can keep my imagination going for the character in question, this can be a book, a film, a piece of music. At the beginning, this is a little as if the character is at one end and you at the other end, and your work, as an actor, is to approach these two entities, if possible, until they are no more than one. To describe concretely this work seems to me impossible, but in a general point of view, I would say that this consists of gathering in your head and in your heart all the mixture of the reflections and the feelings that finish by having their own logic. And this is something that can not be explained, that can not be justified, even to the director. Especially to the director.

LT: How would you describe Robert Redford at work?
RF: As I spoke very highly of him before, this is someone who is very calm, very patient, speaks very little, and when he expresses himself, he always goes straight to the point, in simple and clear fashion. But his principal quality, I think, is to know and understand so perfectly the strange territory in which actors move about. He happens to work differently with each actor because he knows to perceive the distinctive features of each one. In my case, for example, he was very conscious of the anxiety I felt, being British, to have to play an American. And at each take, he took me aside and he told me, "You see, this is good, this is less good. There, try it this way, rather than that." This was truly an effective method.

LT: And with Spielberg?
RF: Steven works at an astounding speed. He moves forward without ever stopping and this pleased me a lot, because his energy is extremely communicative. It made the effect of a blow of the whip to all that surrounded him. And besides, on Schindler's List, even if I had never worked with him before, I could really feel that he was different, that he indulged completely in the most total freedom. He was never bothered by structural considerations, he truly reacted according to the moment, according to what was produced before him. Very often, he said to me, "Forget that you just played him like this, try to play him like that, just to try it." This was very dynamic, very organic.

LT: And in a general point of view, what do you expect from a director?
RF: That he knows to listen, that he happens to understand where I come from as an actor. And although it is very important for him to have a very global vision of the film, I like that he is capable of stopping an actor for putting him at ease, for unbolting him of some sort. And I do not know how this kind of thing occurs, but I know when it does occur. In fact, I believe what I am trying to say is, this is confidence. And from there, I would also like to have confidence in him.

LT: In only two films, you have become one of the actors most in view at the moment in Hollywood. The directors are fighting each other to have you in their films (he has just finished Strange Days, under the direction of Kathryn Bigelow), and the studios are flooding you with scripts and propositions. How are you living with all of this?
RF: This has made me a little scared, of course. Because the hardest part in this kind of situation is to succeed in making the right choices while trying to remain objective in making instinctive decisions, rather than letting myself be influenced by whoever proposes what to me. When an actor is in the privileged position where he can choose his roles, I think that he must behave in an emotional manner. And this does not mean that I am going to obligatorily choose "serious" roles or "important" films. For example, I would love to be in a romantic comedy, but nothing yet seems to be right for me. If, in reading a script, I say to myself, "This is great, but such-and-such would be a lot better that me in the role," I will not be able to do it, thinking that; it is important to keep this form of honesty towards oneself. Because, when you are "hot," after a moment, people have a tendency to forget your limits, or rather they do not want to know that you have limits. And they say to you, "But if, but if, you will see, you will be great in this role." And this is obviously very flattering but also very dangerous. Because if you listen to them, you risk altering your principal asset, which is instinct.

LT: Do you remember what gave you the desire to become an actor?
RF: This is difficult to say, remembering the fascination that I had, as a child, for the theater. It was separate from this world, with strange people. But I didn't seriously consider making it a career, wanting to become an artist, until very late in life, but at the same time, the environment in which I grew up, had instilled in me the fear of not doing something "concrete." When I finished school, I decided to attempt painting, which seemed to me a compromise between pure art and "concrete" work. This did not succeed for me, but this gave me a certain freedom and a certain confidence, that permitted me to try new things, precisely like acting.

LT: The child that you were, how would he perceive today the actor that you have become?
RF: (He smiles.) He would be, without doubt, a little frightened. When I was a child, I had this very mythical image of actors and saw them like a species of icons, of mysterious and fascinating icons. So yes, he would be a little intimidated. But, at the same time, I can not see how one would seriously be able to consider me like a mysterious icon. But perhaps this would make him laugh. In any case, this makes me laugh a lot, just thinking about it.

Interview by Laurent Tirard.