From the Archives: Colin Firth
There's no getting around it: Colin Firth is a charming man. Articulate and well-read, he talks with passion and lucidity and is strong but unaffected. The same can be described for his acting.
Best known as the darkly charismatic Mr. D'Arcy in A&E's Pride and Prejudice, Firth has also appeared in Apartment Zero, A Month in the Country, Circle of Friends, Valmont, A Thousand Acres, and The English Patient, among others. Firth can currently be seen as the decidedly pompous Lord Wessex in the enchanting romantic drama Shakespeare in Love. His character, a titled but unmonied aristocrat, arranges to marry Gwyneth Paltrow's wealthy Lady Viola who happens to be in love with a certain young man named William Shakespeare (Joseph Fiennes).
Though hailed as one of England's great hopes after his smashing theatrical successes in Hamlet and Another Country, Firth has never quite achieved the level of international success that Daniel Day-Lewis, Ralph Fiennes or even Hugh Grant have. But Firth has never been one to seek out fame -- he's certainly flirted with it, coming close to success in Milos Forman's Valmont. Unfortunately, Stephen Frears' version of Dangerous Liaisons with John Malkovich as Valmont was released one year earlier to great acclaim. Valmont, needless to say, did not turn Firth into the superstar the pundits predicted. Though Firth is still clearly stung by the film's reception, it still holds a special place in his heart: Firth and costar Meg Tilly's offscreen involvement produced son Will, Firth's pride and joy.
Firth, 38, now lives in London -- "the pickings are richer for me there" -- and is quite content with his place in the cinema. "I didn't want [fame] at the beginning because I just thought it would never happen to me," he explains, "and I don't know if that's really the best thing that could happen either. I think that sometimes being slightly marginalized can be a durable position. Flavors of the month are high turnover whereas people who are kind of second choice are always there."
UNDERSTANDING SHAKESPEARE
I don't think we have a reserve on understanding Shakespeare. Quite the contrary, actually. I think the Americans have just as much authority to represent him as the English do. I think it's very healthy to see Shakespeare in the hands of another nation. We've really fossilized [Shakespeare] or in great danger of doing so. [His time] was in 1592 or so. Many of the people that went to see his plays ended up here [in America]. You are the descendants of the people going to see Shakespeare's plays. My family is Dutch, Portuguese, Italian -- I may not have a descendant who ever saw a Shakespeare play and yet [the English] still have the sense of, "He's ours, he belongs here." I think it's been damaged. I get lectures on the way to do Shakespeare and a lot of that is very arch, very pompous and it doesn't let it live at all. I think there's an argument to the English putting Shakespeare away for a few years and then just coming back to it.
PLAYING LORD WESSEX
It'd be really hard convincing you that he's a great guy. I would only say that it would never enter his head to be a nice person but one also has to understand that it's a class thing. I'll never forget [reading Edith Wharton's] The Buccaneers which is about American girls in late 19th century going to look for titled husbands in England. The thing they were advised by the English governess is don't go near anyone who's charming or amusing because the real powerful aristocrat doesn't need to be, has no need to charm anybody. He's going to have what he wants anyway. So it helped me when I played Mr. D'Arcy. That was very much one of the clues to as to why he didn't actually try. Wessex is compounded by inane stupidity, he is not an imaginative man. But also he's operating in a much, much more brutal and competitive world than many periods of English history. The little we know of Shakespeare is that he wrangled money out of somebody. Francis Bacon was prosecuted for bribery. Everyone was maneuvering for position and I suppose you would just be cast by the wayside completely if you didn't.
HOLD BACK THE CHARM
It's very easy to play someone who's disagreeable and without charm. But, frankly, if you get scripts that say, "This man must be scintillating, captivating and charming," it's paralyzing. I think, Christ, can I do any of that? Then the minute I fail! If I fail to be dull, that's great: "Oh, Colin, you're still too charming, you're still too interesting." You can take that kind of criticism. (laughs) As Wessex, I had to be dim and charmless. I didn't find it terribly difficult. (smiles) I enjoyed, basically, that and the main thing I enjoyed about this job was actually working with the people I worked with. It was extraordinary to work on a Tom Stoppard script, which was just brimming with life and vitality, with a director who is judging it perfectly. It all sounds like a gush but I'm not ashamed of it. It was an absolutely dream cast and being a part of that was really what it's all about.
LOOKING BACK ON VALMONT
It was a terribly disappointing thing for everybody, to say the least. You either let it drag you down or you just go on and do the next thing. By the time it was out, I had done something else so I had realigned myself a little bit and had committed myself in another direction so I wasn't taking it full on the chin. However, yes, I still feel pangs when I look at that film because I think it really was a special film. In some ways, I wonder if it might also have been not unhealthy that I've experienced some big expectations and some big disappointments and that that has repeated itself. Because now I'm not easily taken in by projections of glory.
THE ALLURE OF ACTING
That's a really hard one, actually. I don't know. It's just once it becomes your profession, it's just what you do. I'm not particularly conscious of there being a pull there. It's just what I do, it's all I do, really. Initially, the pull was a combination of all sorts of things. It was the atmosphere of doing a play and the relationships you form and the exhilaration, the stakes are very high, you're all in it together. If it works, then joy. If it doesn't, then you go down together and it's an intoxicating thing. It's like a drug. But it's not something you can have every time. That's the thing that hooks you.
In fact, it's a very distressing thing to see people who spend three years in drama school and being given these extraordinary values. My drama school, particularly, considered its job to produce fresh blood with a real vision who would change theater and bring values back to the theater. We were all really fired up with this stuff and then you go out and it's "Now try and get an agent." It was just making phone calls begging somebody to see you, seeing if you can do a walk-on in the police miniseries. Seeing these people that had been given this vision of the Holy Grail suddenly crawling to be recognized just for the simple practicalities of earning a living is terrible. I have sometimes wondered if it was irresponsible of the school not to contrast the ideals with the reality.
