|
“In
terms of acting there’s no difference in playing a conventional role
and playing a CG character in terms of the acting choices and creative
approach in building a character, a psychological profile for the role
and so on. In those terms, there are absolutely no differences. But in
technicality there’s a language you have to learn. It’s akin to being
on a bare theatrical stage – you have to imagine everything. You don’t
have a costume, or make-up to help you for instance, but what it’s
about in performance is a very pure form of acting. With Kong, it was
technically very difficult in terms of proportionality of Kong as
compared to Gollum, who was one to one with my physicality in terms of
size. With Kong there were huge technical challenges, with the length
of the forearms and how we made him relate to the environment and so
on, but in terms of acting, there’s no difference.”
Andy
Serkis talks about building character in his roles as King Kong, Gollum
and as "El Presidente" the King Pin of The Jolly Boys - their Last
Stand comes out on DVD this week - AND his own ambitions to work behind
the camera directing film action.
Andy, it's so nice to meet with Hollywood’s biggest leading man…..
Well
James, it was certainly my first romantic lead, though I never expected
that to be a 24-foot high gorilla! But you know… you take what comes
along….
No Oscars category yet for Motion Capture, but then it’s a relatively new form of performance, isn’t it?
People
are beginning to understand; it’s been a bit of an educational process.
People are beginning to understand that there’s a very strong link
between the acting and the CG manifestation on the screen, that this is
not an animated character, but a CG character driven by the actor.
You
are now the acknowledged as the leading actor working in Motion Capture
- How different and difficult is it, having to perform to get technical
results?
In
terms of acting there’s no difference in playing a conventional role
and playing a CG character in terms of the acting choices and creative
approach in building a character, a psychological profile for the role
and so on. In those terms, there are absolutely no differences. But in
technicality there’s a language you have to learn. It’s akin to being
on a bare theatrical stage – you have to imagine everything. You don’t
have a costume, or make-up to help you for instance, but what it’s
about in performance is a very pure form of acting. With Kong, it was
technically very difficult in terms of proportionality of Kong as
compared to Gollum, who was one to one with my physicality in terms of
size. With Kong there were huge technical challenges, with the length
of the forearms and how we made him relate to the environment and so
on, but in terms of acting, there’s no difference.
What about things like interactivity between actors – do these technical problems get in the way of that?
With
motion capture to date, and it won’t always be this way, we shoot
everything on set first of all, so you live through the scenes, you
create the scenes with the other actors. All the scenes between Naomi
Watts and myself were conventional, played for real on the set.
Then
I relived them on the motion capture stage, playing off her close-ups
that we’d shot, so everything was specifically linked. But the way
motion capture is moving on, in future, more and more films that use
motion capture will be shooting them entirely on a virtual stage. So,
going back to this thing about live performance, it’s just acting
between two people. The interactivity thing is... Well, when you are
working with a CG character the thing is to make him as real as you
can, to have as many human emotions or tangible emotions as possible.
Millions
know you from these big budget blockbuster roles with these wonderful
characters – but which was your favourite character out of those two,
Gollum or Kong?
 Oh,
Well, They are so entirely different from each other psychologically.
Gollum was hugely fascinating psychologically because he is so complex
with his lust and craving, his addiction to the ring, the schizophrenia
– he’s a very rich character and has fantastic dialogue. But in many
ways he was an easier character to play than Kong. Kong was a simpler
character, purer, operated at gut level really, but from the acting
perspective that’s not a simpler thing to do. There so much more to
hang on with Gollum, with Kong it is very, very subtle. He needed a lot
of understanding of character, of gorilla psychology and physicality.
We wanted to keep him other. It was how we translated those emotions so
that we weren’t anthropomorphising him too much and making his moments
with Ann into magical movie moments. We were trying to create this real
relationship. So trying to answer you question James, I enjoyed them
both, for different reasons in each case.
 You
have another rather complex character in the lead that you played in
The Jolly Boys – now that’s coming out on DVD shortly isn’t it?
Many
years after its original release and I am so excited about it because
it was a film made for almost nothing. Compared with making gorilla
films, it’s getting back to the essence of low budget filmmaking and
all relying on a great amount of skill. We made it in about three and
half weeks on about £7,000, which is the complete opposite of a Peter
Jackson experience! It is just great seeing it finally getting its
audience. And it’s a perfect arena at the moment for it to come out.
Audiences are ready for it. At the time it was made, very few films
were shot on video and the while concept of shooting a feature film on
video was almost unheard of. It was prior to Dogme films, prior to
reality TV, prior to capturing that real life in drama documentary
style. It was very fresh and while we were doing it, it felt like we
were almost ahead of the game really.
 It was pioneering in that sense, but did you have any qualms about that?
No,
Not at all. I suppose what I love about acting is getting involved in
projects that are pushing boundaries. We were fortunate enough to have
a visionary director who said, “Look, what is there to stop us telling
a tale that everybody is going to relate to?” For Chris it was very
much about telling stories about people that we could connect to. Most
dramas. Most feature films revolve around characters that you have no
connection to whatsoever. They are metaphorical in the sense that you
relate to them, rather than people you really feel about and care
about. It was like we said let’s set out to make a film about being
around a bunch of friends, about people that we know, that doesn’t
revolve around high drama, that revolves around low- or no-drama. Lets
do that and see if we can make it into a good story, a very passionate
story for people to plug into.
How
do you connect to characters like the lead in Jolly Boys, something of
a late maturing man about him – maybe we are all late maturing men, I
don’t know - but how do you find them?
Well
he’s based very much on my brother actually. My brother lives very much
the life of Tony Dale. He’s not very much like me. When he was at
school he had a gang of mates exactly like The Jolly Boys. In fact they
all still live within about a one-mile radius of each other in Amersham
and they all go around slapping each other with fish – I expect they’ll
grow out of it. I mean the other day we were talking about stag do’s
and on his, he went down to Bath with all his mates and he ended up
skateboarding down the main shopping arcade in a pair of tights,
pretending to be one of the gladiators and ended up in a shop window.
He totally relates to it, the whole kind of mad culture, the stag night
culture. People who go through these things will totally get this film.
 It makes you wonder if we had exactly the right brother playing the role, if you see what I mean?
[Laughs]
Hah, Yes, that’s absolutely true! I know exactly what you mean. But
going back to what we were saying, it is about this point in time where
your life changes and you have to make the decision to move on. Tony,
the character that I play, has reached that point in his life where
things are more serious. He wants to mature and the Jolly Boys isn’t
going to do it for him any longer, which causes a sort of cataclysmic
bullet for his friends and traumatises his best mate, Des, who has been
asked to direct the wedding video. All his side, for a present, are
going to make the wedding video. Then the home truths begin to come out
and it is very painful. And the observation in the film, the way it was
written and the way it was performed by all the cast, including Sacha
Baron Coen of course and Ed Marlow who plays Des. It’s very richly
acted and very subtle. In fact one of the best compliments I have had
for that film was after a screening of it with punters. A woman turned
around and said, “That film was amazing!” Then she turned around again
and said “You were in it were you? You’re actors – its incredible!”
That is such a huge compliment.
Low
budget films can attract well-known actors, but don’t actors have to
keep moving up in budgets to maximise their exposure - is there good
motivation to work in films like this?
 Any
actor worth their salt will do a script if they like the project, if
they believe in the story. It’s all about story and character. Yes, at
some point it is nice to have a payday, but as a true actor, as an
honest actor, you are going to want to tell stories that affect people,
that touch people significantly. I think its interesting that in the
States in particular this year, the low budget film is beginning to be
applauded. Film like Crash, Capote, all lower budget films with some
kind of political or personal message, or the personal story. They are
all coming to the fore and they are vying with the big budget movies.
It’s really reassuring to see that audiences are prepared to commit to
those movies, especially for us in Britain where in filmmaking we
really are at the low budget end – it’s quite encouraging really.
Is that one of the reasons you’ve been keen to step behind the cameras, to try your hand at directing your first feature?
Before
I became an actor I studied visual art, so I suppose story telling has
always been of interest to me. When I became an actor I loved the idea
of story telling; of being the actor storytelling on stage or on
screen. But I have always had a hankering to direct… I have directed a
short film and a play and now I’m in a position to direct my first
feature and it is something I am very excited about. It’s not that I
want to stop acting and become a director, its just that I feel this
particular story is one that can achieve best by telling the story from
behind the camera, from a directorial stance.
The film’s called Addict, is it not? What can you tell us about it?
That’s
right. It’s based on an autobiography by a man called Stephen Smith,
who is an extraordinary survivor and led a life that was a roller
coaster of a ride, particularly through the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s. He was
a Dexedrine addict. His book is… well, you could tell a thousand
stories about his life. Part of our problem has been finding which
parts of his life we should concentrate on because we can’t possibly
get it all in within 90 minutes.
What sort of budget will you be shooting to and when?
This will be a low to medium budget, about five to six million pounds.
We’re
in early stages of pre-production at the moment. Shooting later on this
year is the idea, but as always, if you hit the first base, suddenly
you are up and running and then the next thing is you are standing
behind the camera and calling “action.”
After Addict, you have another film you are planning to direct, haven’t you?
Do you mean Mybridge?
That’s the one I had heard about…
Yes, Mybridge, it’s the story of one of the early pioneers of moving pictures actually.
 He’s the man who photographed the movement of horses, on a treadmill or something isn’t he?
[sounding
surprised] That’s correct, Yes! He’s another fascinating character, who
had a life full of intrigue and scandal. He’s also someone who has been
very under-credited for being one of the fathers of modern cinema and
moving pictures. I hope that will be happening next year, in 2007.
 |
Show/Hide comment form
