I am not an enormous believer in research being the be-all and end-all. I get suspicious when I read about actors spending six months in a clinic, say, in order to play someone who is sick.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
When actors talk about research, they're just patting themselves on the back.
I'm not the kind of actor who goes into exhaustive research for each role.
My view of actors is that basically they're all harmless lunatics who'd be on the psychiatrist's couch, except that we get this sort of catharsis every six months or so, and we go and be absolutely someone else.
Most actors are starving. Most of us are walking around with a flashlight and tweezers looking for evidence. When you have someone that actually writes an acting role, it's rare.
You know, the great thing about acting or, indeed, filmmaking in general, is that we're all given a reason to do research. You kind of have to, really, if you want to know what you're doing, but it opens up this whole new understanding.
Actors in general have become very spoiled in the roles they choose these days. When I first started in this profession - about a hundred years ago in the last century - it was all about taking risks, it was about doing the job and honing the craft.
Actors create a fantastic lifestyle thinking they're going to be able to maintain it. Then they can't get work or have to start taking work that doesn't suit them.
I'm not sure I'm the sort of actor people are hugely interested in finding out an awful lot about.
One of the joys about acting is researching.
Part of the fun of acting is the research, finding out about other people.