What you should learn from Rachel Weisz

I have always enjoyed the performances of Rachel Weisz. I wouldn’t say any of them blew me away, but she’s an enjoyable actor, who doesn’t draw undue attention to her performances, which means they are that much more enjoyable.

But a recent Belfast Telegraph article had me banging my head on the studio office wall. Weisz was talking about her preparation for the most recent Bourne film. She talks of her preparation work for the role of virologist, Dr Maria Shearing.

Weisz says she ‘spent time talking to a real-life virologist‘ and that ‘preparation is key to portraying a character convincingly’. She also says ‘what happens in that moment when I sit and talk to someone, is that I realise they’re just a human being like me and there’s no reason why I couldn’t pretend to be them.  I guess my main thing is that I don’t judge the character, ever, and if I do, I think I’ve probably failed in bringing the character to life’.

Look, I respect Rachel Weisz, but let’s examine her words of wisdom. She says she spent time talking to a real-life virologist and that preparation is the key to portraying a character convincingly.

I would say that the time she spent talking to a real life virologist was entirely wasted.  In fact, Ms Weisz (or Mrs Craig as I believe she is now), could get a PhD in Virology and it wouldn’t help her play the role of Dr Shearing.

Why?  Because she has made the basic and widespread mistake of misunderstanding her job as an actor. Her job is not to become a virologist, or to empathise with a virologist, but to enact the words of the scene, to bring them to life, and none of that has to do with being a virologist. She does not need to become a virologist, she needs to bring the words on the page to life, and that has to do with the human interaction and not the specialist field of virology.

Let’s say she has this line to say: (I made it up)

SHEARING:

But if it goes airborne, we’re all dead.

She doesn’t need to understand virology to speak this line, she needs to warn the other character of the danger, or panic the listener, or educate them, or something, but zero knowledge of virology is required.

All scenes are about the interaction between people, and all the research in the world won’t help with that.  What you must understand is the scene.

A friend on Facebook asked me if the trip to the virologist was important so that she understood what she was saying in the script.  Well, yes, I suppose to a minimum degree, hearing the virologist explain some of the references could be useful, but again, that’s not what she says she’s doing.  In fact, if human communication is only 7% verbal, I’m not sure that even knowledge of the technical aspects of meaning of the virology references is THAT important.

It seems that meeting the virologist helped Weisz to realise that the character is ‘just human’, but ALL characters, all roles, are just. human.  Maggie Thatcher – just. human.  Wolverine. just. human.  Human in their qualities.

To play a part ‘convincingly’ you must have something real to achieve in a scene from the other(s) and then work off what it REALLY happening, when you do that, it looks convincing.  There is no ‘convincing’ way to play a virologist, just makes sure you don’t do something to break the audience’s assumption that you ARE what you say you are.

It seems that actors feel that they need to justify their jobs by bringing credibility to the ‘research’ that they do for their roles.  You don’t need to do that! Don’t justify your job, acting is hard enough, you do not need to justify it with fake work.

The second thing she says is about judging her character, and yes, that is VERY important.  You must never judge your character, no matter how despicable, you must see them as the hero of their story, find something to love about them and then do not play your opinion of them, but play the scenes that are written.  When you do that, you can forget all the fake work that actors do to justify their jobs, and get on with the tricky bit, the acting!