At first glance, one is reassured: Edgar Ramirez is not Carlos. Of course, held in common the taste of foreign languages, safe in the attitude and the words, but the similarity ends there. Smiling and friendly, answered when asked about the terror victims, and their vision of the human dimension of the actor Charles Edgar humanist is not cynical, and the contradiction is even more interesting in the latest film by Olivier Assayas,
We read a lot about how to get out of the skin of the characters … I wonder how they stay in the skin of Carlos, seven months of filming
We play. I think that is not specific enough to answer that. For me it was a very organic process, not intellectual. I tried not to make too much intellectualization of the process, because of the enormous inconsistencies that I have had this character. That’s why I tried to act without thinking too much. There have been six months of filming, but the preparation, and any research: all that was a year!
It’s Olivier Assayas has instructed before production?
Not at all. has not been pre-guidelines before: it was a movie that was more a matter of place, performance, and instead of shooting at the time. Olivier is a director who does have confidence in their players, which does not give too restrictive or specific parameters on how to act in a particular scene. He was surprised: lies, he sees you, you’re looking at, like a curious child, intelligent … It was great, it gives you much freedom to act.
As the character appears on stage Carlos was affected you personally?
Their insolence, I think. Somehow, perhaps perversely, that fascinated me a bit. His attitude is always sassy, arrogant … Carlos, as the character written by Assayas, a character who was still on the verge of collapse, he was in good humor, and always had pride. If I was fascinated.
Why a perverse way?
Yes, because always be arrogant and shameless … Life is not so, and I’m not like that. It was a bit of liberation, too, as human beings, for having put me in the shoes of someone who is like a sort of Don Quixote, struggled with her fantasy.
Does the issue of terrorism came into account in the construction of the character? How to handle the moral problem as an actor?
There are two dimensions. As an actor, can not impose, or my ideas or my ideas about the world of the character. We must embrace all the features and all the elements belonging to nature, all the light and darkness all. I think our job as actors is to serve people, not in the opposite direction. As Edgar, if what is done to defend the claims of political or ideological involve the sacrifice of innocent victims, then draw a line and I do not condone. For me, the value of life is absolute and constant. I’m lost with this idea, because unlike the character of Charles and not think in terms of collateral damage, even minimal. For me it is a euphemism to disguise the devaluation of the value of life. That’s the game: I also try to play characters that have nothing to do with my own personality, so I can deepen my knowledge of the human condition.
This is also part of a “liberation”?
No, that’s really only insolence. As a human being, I always try to understand the points of view and be as humble as possible, but on terror, I can not justify it, no matter where it comes from. There is no political or ideological right, which justifies the killing of a human life is absolute.No, that’s really only insolence. As a human being, I always try to understand the points of view and be as humble as possible, but on terror, I can not justify it, no matter where it comes from. There is no political or ideological right, which justifies the killing of a human life is absolute.
You belong to a generation younger than Olivier Assayas. Do you have a kind of learning the history of the time, to embody?
I tried to read as much as possible of contemporary history to understand the political context of the time. During the 70s and 60s, we saw how an entire generation that has made the transition from revolutionary theory to military action. I think the film, a point of view rather dramatic, analyze what happened and why many of these dreams of revolution and change have failed. Perhaps now we have the historical perspective to talk about. But in the film, try to speak with a dramatic point of view and human, not a political standpoint. The film is about politics, but this is not a political film.
From this point of view of humanity, is there not a certain loneliness of the character of Charles in the film, and also the solitude of shooting? There are actors repeated, but only places the resistance until the end .
It was a very ironic similarity. Even at the end of the story, the character was just … like us! Because in the end of filming, we were very little, fifteen or twenty people who had started from the beginning. It was interesting the environment at the end of the session was very similar to Carlos at the end of the film.
Multilingual has many powers. From the perspective of the actor, is there a difference playing in different languages? Is there any inhibitions fall?
Interestingly, I never thought … I feel very comfortable in the languages I speak. Each language offers a special experience, is a different mentality. Each language has a particular rhythm and different ways to build ideas … But for me, it’s fun to go from one language to another, especially for someone like Carlos. This mix of nationalities, languages has been an important part of the mimetic nature of his character and the International … internationalist! And so romantic: he believed in an international revolution, where all people come together to change the world in a kind of Tower of Babel.
And to learn Arabic for the phonetic was still a different experience?
Different, and hard. The Arabic language has nothing to do with Western languages,
Want DAILY news on Edgar Ramirez?
Subscribe to WEB OF EDGAR RAMIREZ YOUR #1 SOURCE
Follow ER on TWITTER