Fraught with opportunities for brilliant things to happen too. Here's a good one: we were doing "Belfry" by Billy Roche at The Bush Theatre in London. This was a lovely, intimate play in a tiny theatre. During a blackout between scenes I was escaping out of a doorway with handfuls of jelly and cake from the scene we'd just finished. In the dark I felt something brush past me that wasn't usually there. Didn't think too much of it right then, it's a really quick scene change, we have 15 seconds or something to do it in. One of the other actors whispers something like, "did you see a kid go past there?" Anyway, the lights go up on the next scene and I can hear Des McAleer, who's supposed to be alone onstage giving out a monologue, falter slightly. I can see his face through a crack in the set and his eyes are flashing a bit, cos...there's a youngish boy on stage, standing right in the middle. He's not supposed to be there and he may be slightly high. He had wandered in off the street through a fire exit, up the stairs, through a (pretend) church door into a dark room where the lights had come up and there's 100 people looking at him, expectantly. Don't know if Des was expectant, more like just wondering what the fuck was going on. Anyway, the kid got over his shock and walked off stage into the dressing room to rifle a few pockets. That was a real highlight. When we were doing "The Caretaker," I noticed during the first scene, when I'm supposed to stare at this gold Buddha on top of the oven that it wasn't there, which was alarming cos it's vital to the coming action. I was leaving the stage any second now so I wasn't going to have to deal with it, although obviously the first thing I did was scramble to the stage manager and inform him of the missing Buddha. Then there was a nail-biting 10 minutes while the crew had to try to pass a Buddha to Kyle MacLachlan through a space behind a shelf or something - having first gotten his attention with subtle waves and hisses from the wings. Anyway, they succeeded and all was well. I do realise these 2 examples have me safely on the sidelines watching the fun but they happen to be the best ones.
Those 2 were great to work with I have to say, we were kind of thrown in it, cos we only had 3 weeks to rehearse a play which is over 2 hours long and it's all dialogue. Which meant you had to come in with ideas, which we all did, and have your lines after the first week, which we pretty much did. Dominic Dromgoole, who directed, claims he sat back and let us get on with it. Don't know about that. But now that I think of it he didn't seem to be saying too much. No fucking time. The sheer terror of having to perform this in 3 weeks kicked us into gear early. There wasn't too much blocking to be done, seeing as we were chained to the pipes, but it's loads of dialogue and loads of ideas. But it's a great play, so lots of the work has been done already, by the writer (Frank McGuinness). Being restricted, onstage all the time, in bare light, scantily clad, meant there was no hiding, physically or otherwise, so you just had to commit, early on, and trust your fellow actors (I mean you always have to do that anyway, but this situation seemed to intensify everything). I felt lucky, cos we did look out for each other, and care about each other (as actors and characters) and that grew stronger as we went on I think.
There are parallels between the Carcetti storyline and the real life Martin O'Malley (Mayor of Baltimore) but as far as I'm concerned I'm not playing O'Malley. If I was supposed to be playing him, yes this would influence how I'd play the character, cos then you're playing a real person and might move into the area of impersonation. "The Wire" is very specifically set in Baltimore and all the interweaving stories are meant to reflect life in Baltimore as it is, and you'll get people cropping up playing themselves or characters similar to their own public persona. This adds to the effect and of course people can see the influence O'Malley has on my character, and why not, what has happened with him and his role in the city now is interesting. As far as reaction from people in Baltimore goes, I don't know. I don't get much feedback personally, as once I take off my tie and uncomb my hair people don't make the connection much.
I saw "As You Like It," which Dominic West was in. As far as I know neither of those 2 saw "Someone Who'll Watch Over Me," which I was in. Dominic's play started just after we finished and I went to that cos I'm a sucker for a first night party, which was a lavish enough affair compared to some of the evenings out I've had. Bumped into Idris Elba in the tube station one night, didn't see his play, would have liked to though. Meeting him in the tube was a close second best.
Yeah, I have seen "Factotum". I liked that book but wasn't mad about this film. I had a feeling this was made half in Europe and half in Canada or somewhere and that this messed with the vibe. Could be talking through my hat there. I think Matt Dillon is a terrific actor, look at "Drugstore Cowboy," "Rumblefish," etc. for proof if you need to but wasn't mad about his Hank Chinaski. I liked Lili Taylor, thought she was right. I preferred Mickey Rourke in "Barfly", thought it was a better Bukowski film, even though it wasn't brilliant either. "Crazy Love,"a Belgian (I think) film, is the best Bukowski adaptation I have seen. It's made up of 3 sections, the first from "Ham and Rye," Bukowski's brilliant account of his childhood and teenage years, and the other bits from short stories, maybe from "The Most Beautiful Woman in Town" or maybe it's "Tales of Ordinary Madness." Or both. Or neither. Anyway, it works. There's a great prom night scene which is very sad and very weird. There's a romantic scene with a stolen body at the end. I think there's a film called "Tales of Ordinary Madness" starring Ben Gazarra, which I'd like to see now, having recently seen "The Killing of a Chinese Bookie" and really going for Ben Gazzara in it. Good movie. Cassavettes. I'd do "Post Office," starring Steve Buschemi.
Well, first of all, before I get into my interpretation of the American people's responses and attitudes to the war, I'd like to state that I personally don't see the war in Iraq as something which is liberating the Iraqi people, unless you can call the killing and maiming of huge numbers of people, numbers running upwards from very conservative estimates of at least tens of thousands of men, women and children (the real figure you can bet is much higher) a liberation of the Iraqi people, with civil unrest becoming more and more widespread in Iraq, and also the large scale loss of life on the U.S. and allied side. The U.S. (with the U.K. and others close behind) blasted into Iraq having failed to locate any Weapons of Mass Destruction (presence of which and failure to hand over control of said WMD's was presented as a main reason to enter into war with Iraq, and its not as if the U.S. is not in possession of a large number of WMD's themselves, and has used them in the past), taking advantage of peoples ignorance of who may have been responsible for the 9/11 attacks (and that wasn't Saddam Hussein or anyone else in Iraq) and of the general feeling of fear present in the world but also enhanced through the media post 9/11.
As an outsider I can certainly feel an air of fear in this country at the moment, where to speak against the war or even express uncertainty about it is seen as "unpatriotic" and "unamerican". And I have heard some fairly ignorant things said in relation to the situation. For example, cos I live in London when I'm not here, people have been asking me how things are over there, particularly after the bombs on public transport last July (which killed among many others a man from a couple of streets away from me, I watched the hearse go past the end of my road with my kids who'd quickly gotten used to the idea of bombs in their town). 2 people here suggested it was a good thing that this guy was shot at Stockwell Tube, and that it had "sent out the right message". They were referring to the shooting dead of Jean Charles de Menezes, a 27 year old Brazilian electrician on his way to work, in the aftermath of the London bombs, mistaken for a suicide bomber. How could it be a good thing for an innocent man to be tripped to the floor of an underground train carriage and shot between 5 and 7 times in the head, the first shot in the mouth? Can you imagine a more undignified death? And then for the police and a lot of the media to allow the (false) stories to circulate for 2 weeks of how he ran from the (undercover) cops, leapt over the ticket barriers and was wearing bulky clothing at odds with the warm weather but which looked like they could conceal a bomb. To allow these stories to get around long enough for people to believe them, without clarifying the facts, so that, for example, 6 months later 2 people here can tell me that it was a good thing and that it sent out the right message..and for it to have got to a point where it's "ok" for an innocent person to be killed cos they kind of match up with the physical "type" we're supposed to be wary of is horrific. Just after he was killed, by the way, British government officials showed up in his village in Brazil trying to buy off his parents with a small sum of money.
Someone else suggested to me that the real suicide bombers in London had been brainwashed. They weren't brainwashed. They knew exactly what they were doing and they thought they were right. And they were nearly all born and raised in Britain. I'm not saying I think they were doing the right thing, I don't. But the important thing is that they did. I used the word "guy" back there I noticed to my dismay. Cos this is another thing that should not be happening - the oversimplification of events on news stories where it all comes down to "good guys" and "bad guys". To the rest of the world this is laughable. And people in the rest of the world are becoming more and more angered by America's actions abroad. They didn't feel threatened by Saddam Hussein in the first place but can see the entire world becoming more unstable as a result of the U.S. going into Iraq, and what's next?
I don't know that being Irish gives me any extra insight into any of this, even if one of my earliest memories is of a huge bomb going off that killed nearly 30 in Dublin now that I think of it, but look at the history of pretty much any country. There's usually been lots of bloodshed somewhere down the line. Anyway, I'm straying off the point. I think people should think a lot harder and ask a lot more questions before allowing themselves to be drawn into a war. I know a lot of the soldiers believe they're doing the right thing, but people join armies before they're old enough to think straight, and once you're in there, you have to do what you're told. Sure, the world knows Saddam Hussein has committed atrocities, but it just doesn't all fit together. And as usual, it's mainly the economically and educationally disadvantaged who are paying the price, with their lives or limbs. Cos armies are generally made up of people from the poorer sections of society, often fighting to protect the interests of the better off sections of society. Nothing new there.
I don't think an American life is worth any more than an Iraqi life or vice versa, the loss of life is tragic across the board, especially when it may have been avoidable, and I don't know what the
way out of this mess is going to be. I just hope there is one. So I'm still straying from the question. I don't feel people are too vocal in condemnation of the war if that's what they feel, with exceptions, and I think the voice of support and argument for support isn't thought through enough, seems too simplistic. You have to try and see why the people on the other side are fighting back. It's not just because they're "bad". But I'm not a political analyst nor anything approaching it. Noam Chomsky has some interesting observations on this, look him up. He stands out a mile as some kind of radical but what he says isn't really that radical at all, just there's not that many other people saying it. If you look in the right places there's all sorts of stories and information there that would make you think twice about what's going on in your name.
This is the work of Laurie who runs the site, its not run by me, although I have had some involvement, doing stuff like this Q and A for instance, or providing information from time to time. I mean I have had some input into the layout and provided a few pics but it's not really my baby. I'm usually asking her to take stuff out, if anything. A friend of mine came across this site a couple of years ago and said I should check it out. I was impressed and let Laurie know. When people I know come across it they think it's very professional and comprehensive. So well done Laurie, and thanks.
I'd say they would say I was an actor, kind of obvious that. Being a father hasn't really changed what I would or wouldn't do, it does give you insight into a new world though, which is good for an actor. I've done a couple of things from time to time that I might not have done if I didn't have small mouths to feed, but they were never outrageously off the track.
I do get offered stuff, but just as much stuff you have to go after. I'd say pretty much any job I've ever had that wasn't a straight offer I've talked my way into. I'm not much of an auditioner, and if I was casting something myself, I wouldn't get people to read, unless they had never acted before maybe. Some people are good at it and some aren't (reading, auditioning), but I don't think that's necessarily an accurate indication of whether they'd be a good actor or not.
Some performances that inspired me to want to be an actor or continue to be include: Christopher Walken, Robert DeNiro, John Cazale and Meryl Streep in "The Deer Hunter," Sean Penn in "The Falcon and the Snowman," Al Pacino and John Cazale in both the Godfather parts (1 and 2) and "Dog Day Afternoon," Harvey Keitel and Robert DeNiro in "Mean Streets," Mickey Rourke in "Rumblefish," Donal McCann in "Buddawanny," "The Dead," and "The Steward of Christendom." They're just the first that come to mind, there's loads more.
Different every time really. The leave-you-to-it lack of direction doesn't work though, in my experience. Too much discussion then on the other hand, that can do your head in. Sometimes it's good to keep secrets. It's often a mix of some of the above, some talk, some gut instinct, some argument. Good directors usually can and do cast the right people in the right parts. It also depends on how much time you have, if it's a new play and you're actually trying stuff out that may not make it in, or if the writer's around he might write some new stuff based on what he's seeing (or not seeing). Depends on how experienced everyone is, like now I could just go in, rehearse a play, go to lunch on my own, come back, rehearse more then go home. Whereas in earlier days with like-minded people I was more prone to rehearse, go to the pub with the other actors and director, get smashed, everyone have a fistfight, crash on someone's couch and continue next day in the same mode until the end of the run, everyone living on everyone's laps, and it's all very intense but it's brilliant.
First gift...hmmm...possibly a box that you put different shapes in. It was before I went to school so I would have been 3. I remember my mother bringing it into the kitchen wrapped up in brown paper from Ron's, the shop up the road. It was a reward for eating a bowl of cornflakes with warm milk. I hated milk and warming it up didn't help much. I remember gagging it down at the table with my mother and father watching expectantly. I managed I think but it didn't kick off a lifelong love of milk or cornflakes. The last gift I got, I got 2 mystery Valentine cards. Memorable and unexpected. I was doing this drama workshop thing, live-in in a convent of all places in the Irish midlands. I was 16. Me and my friend decided we'd pretend it was our birthdays and see what happened. In reality, our birthdays were days apart (but that was months ago) so we told everyone and out in the fields later we were presented with these newspaper packages. Can't remember what he (my pal) got, but I got a pig's ear. Think he got a foot or something. Or was it the other ear? Can't remember for sure. Then we got the real presents - 10 major each (smokes) and I got a kiss from a girl I liked a lot and I felt bad and confessed and she said, "we all knew anyway."
I think there's politics involved sometimes (and hype, and PR). I mean, they have "campaigns" to win, particularly in the Oscars, but it's not ruled by that. They're not usually too far off the mark within the list of nominees but there's always certain kinds of deserving performances or films that just aren't going to get nominated. Like Harvey Kietel in "Bad Lieutenant," or something like that. I've been nominated for a Tony and a BAFTA, but I am not in the business for that reason though. Did have a rough list in my head of who to mention, but nothing prepared or rehearsed. At the Edinburgh Film Festival I got something and made what I thought was an intelligible little speech but apparently it wasn't. See the '05 Q&A for a report on the 2004 Tony Awards. If someone wins something and they get up and get soppy or carried away or whatever, I'm not going to hold it against them too much.
Independent films are essential cos generally they are far better than the other ones, carrying on the tradition of what cinema is supposed to be, daring, exciting, new. It's worth noting that a lot of the mainstream films in the '70s were so good and would have a lot more in common with what gets made independently now, and there were audiences going to these films. It'd be nice if that came round again. There definitely is a middle ground where there's interesting intelligent films being made on a decent but not wasteful budget. And the more of these the better, so mainstream audiences could get used to quality again, cos it vanished for a time there. That's not to say there's not tons of dumb crap out there too cos there is. So hopefully things won't be getting any dumber. From my point of view, tight schedules and budgets are good to work with as long as there's a good script and at least resources for it to look and sound good. You can be more adventurous when you don't have money people standing behind you.
Well all my first decent screen roles were BBC single dramas, and working on these dramas, which you knew would have high production values, an audience and a tendency to push the envelope was such a great way to start. From the 60's to the 90's some of the best films around were coming from there or ITV: "Cathy Come Home," "Sense of Freedom," all the Mike Leigh ones, all the Alan Clarke films ("Elephant," "Scum," "The Firm," "Made in Britain," etc.), "Pennies from Heaven," "The Singing Detective," "The Grass Arena," "Safe," "Priest," etc. I'm just picking these off the top of my head and they were nearly all brilliant. Being involved in "Safe," I'd say significantly influenced the path I've been on since then and yes, I have been wondering what has been going on with British TV as they produced more and more reality shows and less of what they were so good at. Anyway, I hear that BBC is at least hoping to move back to producing more single dramas which is good news for writers, actors, directors, and audiences alike.
I've seen a good few films over the last year, and when I think back, one that really stuck with me was a French film called "Innocence." I wasn't totally gone on it when I saw it first, but in retrospect, it was maybe the most intriguing. It's a dreamy fable with these young girls in a kind of school in a forest, I suppose it's about a specific mysterious and maybe safe time in a girl's life. As far as the second part of the question goes, I don't think I've ever seen someone play a part and then think I wished it was me.
Dublin has changed a lot in the last 15 years, I'll tell you. Last Christmas there was a documentary about Moore Street on TV. This is a street market in the North city not far from where I'm from, and the footage was amazing to look at. Cos it was made in 1985, not too long ago, but Dublin, or at least that part of it, looked like London after the blitz. It's changing so much an d so fast that it's easy to forget just how different it was and the economic climate was 20 years ago. I would stay away from the tourist-oriented Temple Bar area, which was once a great place to hang around, and really did have some good bars and streets, now they're all pretty awful. If you've never been to Ireland or Dublin and you end up there you'll probably think it's OK though. I like walking around town really early in the morning, all areas. Used to like walking down the docks, think that might be a building site now. Stephens Green is good to sit around in, or there's this other park hidden a way off Harcourt Street, not sure what the park is called but I like it. Take the dart (train) to Dalkey or Killiney and find your way up to the top of Killiney Hill where the obelisk is. Further along that line is the seaside town of Bray, which I like a lot. Get a pizza in Pizzas'N'Cream in the lane near the station. Take the dart the other way to Howth where there's a path along the cliffs, really good too. There's a long pier with a lighthouse at the end of it called The South Wall, you drive through all these freaky looking industrial structures to get to it and it goes out a mile or so into the sea. Great walk. Very healthy, my tour of Dublin, isn't it? There's a cafe called Simon's Place on Georges Street (South Great Georges Street is its full title), my fave. If you've got a car, go up the Dublin/Wicklow Mountains, not too far at all. There's lots of new immigrant groups in Dublin now, with corresponding cuisine, check out the Chinese joints on aforementioned Moore Street and other Asian stuff on Parnell Street. Think there's a couple of full-on Polish bars there now too. Bars keep changing in Dublin, hard to recommend, maybe Grogans, Mulligans, Stags Head, Long Hall. All very nice in the afternoon. There's usually some good bands on too. Get the Dublin Event Guide, a free paper with all the listings. But just go for a walk, and see what happens.