How do you define the actor?
The actor is a doctor of the soul, a catalyst of emotions and feelings that allows the viewer to get to know, to ask questions about himself, about the meaning of his own life. With a film and thus the work of the actor, it can open, learn, live personal things in another way.
Peter Brook spoke of the actor as a tightrope walker must keep ééquilibre. What about you?
This is very true. You have to find that balance in this by combining its horizontalitéé related to what is going on around you (the script, the director, the other actors, …) and its relation to the vertical inner self, that is, -dire the heart, stomach, mind. We can then give, not to mention the best of ourselves but each role is a new test, a leap into the void, a total abandonment where there is no compromise.
Some actors are afraid of passing time …
I do not, on the contrary, I consider him as an ally in the evolution of his work, the actor can take advantage of past experiences and acquire and always little more strength and maturity. It must be constantly looking, keep moving forward and do not repeat themselves, do not duplicate the same character and be confined to a specific register. It must invent something new to every story
Will there any roles that you regret?
Never have regrets nor in his profession or in his private life. This creates melancholy, bitterness, a return to the past. The pain itself is a form of knowledge, learning self. It teaches us to live, to move, to guéérir our ills
What are your models actors (actresses)?
Peter Brook course because at the beginning I did not think forcéément cinema. But the éécran, there for me an essential trio: Anna Magnani, Liv Ullman, Gena Rowlands, there is no better
You started in theater?. What (s) difference (s) key (s) to the cinema?
In the theater, it is in direct contact with the viewer that directly receives what the actor can – wants – bring. In film, the camera is a technical tool that filters the energy and the viewer does not receive the same faççon. This is another mode of transmission that the actor must use because there is a transformation, the image of what he gives to the viewer. However, in film as in the theater, you have to play constantly with his whole body, his whole being, to engage fully in each moment regardless of the camera position, very close or more distant. And then there are the silences in the theater, they are raised by the actor himself, cinema, it is the director and editor who decide
Have What reports. with the directors?
There must have an opening, a complicity, a special relationship because a film is placed on a common reflection, teamwork, continuous exchange. It’s like a road that we must do together. Anyway, I think I have a good adaptability. I like to be flexible, elastic, like a reed, like a reed.
But I feel more comfortable with experienced filmmakers as they leave the space, freedom to the actor. On “Sils Maria,” Olivier Assayas was a large room for improvisation and really had a sense of laissez-faire. The actor, he said, what matters to me is “filming invisibility.”
Younger immediately want to control everything, run everything and often anticipate the work of actor rather than intervening possibly afterwards.
Kundera’s book, of course, I read every morning before shooting; great affection for Daniel Day Lewis; behavior Philip Kaufman, director, always éécoute players, the difficulty of playing some nude scenes, despite the tension, it was necessary for the joy of living; uncertainties of this troubled time before the fall of the Berlin Wall; reaction Vera Kundera, so happy to have fully recovered in my character.
Are you working régulièèrement with the Americans. Is it very different from the European theater?
No, but it can be effectively forever. The weight of money creates additional tension even if you feel worn by a big production machine.
My character is more suited to lighter shootings, even if there is less As, there is a lot more freedom. And CCA, this is priceless.
No comments:
Post a Comment