Having Words With Ralph Fiennes And Linus Roache

By Tony Phillips

In The Almeida Theatre Company's productions of 'Richard II' and Coriolanus', British
actors Ralph Fiennes and Linus Roache have taken on the daunting challenge of
performing two Shakespearean roles in rep, sometimes in a single day. Best known
to American audiences for movie work, Fiennes gained fame as a Nazi general ('Schindler's
List') before becoming a modern-day matinee idol ('The English Patient'). Roache
similarly stirred up controversy first ('Priest') before going on to leading-man
status ('The Wings of The Dove').

But neither is a stranger to the legimate stage. Five years ago, Fiennes picked up a
Tony for his portrayal of Hamlet; a year before that, Roache did his own 'Richard II'.
Tony Phillips talked with these two performers about the eternal theater-versus-film
question, and the Shakespearean roles they feel born to play.

CITYSEARCH: Do you think there's a definite Shakespearean acting role?

LINUS ROACHE: Richard II, which I played six years ago, for me was almost a greater role
than Hamlet. I had no kind of that "I've got to play Hamlet" thing that actors have.
I always thought Richard was a far more interesting role, so that was the role for me.
I used to think King Lear was the ultimate, to be able to play Lear, but I don't know,
hopefully there's more than Shakespeare out there. Maybe the best in yet to come.

RALPH FIENNES: I think Hamlet comes around again and again because of the questions
Hamlet asks and the dilemma that he's in. Everyone, regardless of sex, just seems
to be able to identify with the moral choices that he's confronted with. I think
everyone can look at Hamlet and make sense of it in a way that's absolutely taylor-made
for them.

CS: You both must be sick of the film-versus-theater questions by now, but I'm going to 
ask it anyway.

LR: Well, I always loved film more. It's what I aspired to and wanted to work in
and it's what I enjoyed watching more, but I always felt, in the beginning, that
my home was in the theater. That's where I felt I could develop as an actor and
that's where, as an actor, I think you have more control.

Having said that, in the last two or three years, I've jumped ship again and I
actually love film more. I love working in it. I love the focus and the detail,
being able to hone things down and work specifically on one part, and not having to
drive through the whole thing every night.

As amazing as this run has been, we've been on it for about four months, so it'll be
eight or nine months before we're finished. It's hard work; I'm not going to
pretend that it's just a labour of love. It's hard.

CS: Ralph, what brought you back to the theater?

RF: I always wanted to act in the theater. I love it. There's a kind of purity
to it I suppose. The process of filmmaking is quite chopped up. And I love the
process, but it's very detailed and pressurized.

For an actor, you can refine moments and repeat them and repeat them, but there's
something about the flow of not only rehearsing, but playing a play in an evening.
There's an energy that's very special and it's a one-off thing. It only happens
that night, and each night is really, really different. So it's the addiction,
really, that, "What's going to happen tonight? What will it be like tonight?"
It's the sense of risk about it that I think must be attractive.

CS: Why do you describe filmmaking as pressurized?

RF: Because you're given a lot of money. It's entrusted to you, and it's an act of
faith. You've got to spend that money and make the right choices. You're at the
mercy of all kinds of things: weather, locations, the changeability of actors who've
committed and then say no and pull out. You've got one day to shoot scenes that will
be there forever, often, because you might not have the resources to make them
again.

You hope to get the right environment and that the actors are taking over in the
right way to get the right level of emotion, which makes a film clear to an
audience. If you mess up and if you get behind and if the atmosphere is wrong,
then it doesn't happen and it can all go down the drain. So that's why it
feels pressurized. I haven't found it different. It felt the same on every single
film. You need good, strong producers and srong directors to be able to weather
that kind of pressure.