Chiwetel Ejiofor – The Actor’s Actor
Chiwetel Ejiofor is a true actor’s actor period. Since his film debut in 1997’s Amistad, Ejiofor has turned in attention-grabbing yet seemingly effortless performances in such varied works as American Gangster, Inside Man, Kinky Boots, Talk to Me (which screened in the 2007 Cannes Film Market) and most notably his breakthrough role in Cannes alumnus and former Grand Jury President Stephen Frears’ Dirty Pretty Things. Ejiofor spoke with IFQ regarding his latest role in Redbelt (which has been acquired and now represented by Sony Pictures Classics at the Cannes Film Market), directed by fellow Cannes filmmaker David Mamet (Homicide, 1991, The Winslow Boy, 1999, and The Postman Always Rings Twice, 1981), alongside his working method as well as his own thoughts on Cannes.
IFQ: Many of your highest profile films like Dirty Pretty Things and Talk to Me received much of their buzz on the festival circuit with Talk to Me actually screening in the Cannes Film Market. What are your thoughts on the film fest scene in general, in particular Cannes?
Chiwetel Ejiofor: I’ve always been aware that the Cannes Film Festival is the biggest film festival of them all and thereby the most hectic. I’ve had some films that have played in Cannes, but I’ve unfortunately never been able to accompany them timing-wise so I would be excited to finally visit. I know Stephen (Frears) had a fantastic time there heading up the jury.
IFQ: In Redbelt you play Mike Terry who’s a skilled jiu-jitsu practitioner that does not believe in competition for philosophical reasons. How did the physical preparations for this role affect in any way the overall approach you took in portraying this character?
CE: I think to play a part like this and to learn jiu-jitsu is vital. It’s the kind of character I don’t think you can get under the skin of unless you know what jiu-jitsu is all about philosophically. The film in many ways is about the philosophy of jiu-jitsu and that being applied to this character Mike Terry’s everyday existence in Los Angeles. The month that I spent in preparation of jiu-jitsu was if nothing else an important part of learning or understanding the character. So studying jiu-jitsu, not only physically but also the mental side of it, was the bulk of the preparation for this particular character. Everything else was filled in based on the script and so on, but really understanding what jiu-jitsu is all about was the most important part of getting under the skin of Mike Terry.
IFQ: You worked with David Mamet whose reputation as both director and writer is obvious. What was it like being directed by Mamet, especially in regards to the text as he is known to have his actors stick very closely to it? Did he generally have you and the actors do as such or were there opportunities for improvisation when appropriate?
CE: He was very fluid; I mean it was in many ways a very easy process. We were able to work very closely with the template being the script which was so detailed and complex. There wasn’t much room for improvisation, and I think on a script like this you wouldn’t want that much improvisation. But the real fascination for me wasn’t so much the detail in terms of screenwriting that David enjoys; it was really the detail in terms of performance that he speaks about which I found exciting. Actually it was very illuminating to talk to somebody who wanted to present the nuances of the character and go to places that were the most distinct and the least obvious. I think that was where our relationship was able to flow. But with the script, David is an exceptional writer and an incredible writer of character. This script sort of takes care of itself with both great writing and characters. What is different are the nuances of performance, so I think in a way David manages to put on the different hats. When he’s a screenwriter that’s what he does and when he’s the director he is somebody who can approach it very freshly without being locked to the script, but more than that, wanting to illuminate the ideas and nuances of his characters.
IFQ: In the film, we learn relatively little of Mike’s past other than his military service and obvious relationship with the Silva family via his marriage. Little is stated outside of that. However your performance suggests a deeper, more complicated history especially regarding The Professor’s character. What do you think happened to Mike off-screen that shaped him from a common soldier into the man we finally see on screen?
CE: The character has a lot of background and it was important to uncover some of it and somehow, without hitting it on the head, to indicate within the story his past so that an audience is able to piece together bits but not have anything explicitly spelled out. I think everything you said is the attempt to present basically that he’s been in the Army in special operations. One of the bases of his military training is obviously hand-to-hand combat. So Mike is somebody who has taken on into civilian life what he’s learned about judo and jiu-jitsu and has extended that into Brazilian jiu-jitsu. That has become over time his complete passion and as we pick him up in the story it’s a point now where he has a gym that’s his own. He is extending what he has learned about jiu-jitsu, the code of Brazilian jiu-jitsu and the lifestyle of Brazilian jiu-jitsu and is reapplying that and teaching it to people.
IFQ: Since your film debut in Amistad, you’ve portrayed a wide range of characters yet they are all linked by your ability to convey them in a remarkably realistic and effortless manner unlike much contemporary acting where often one notices the effort in communicating a performance more than the character itself. How do you feel you are able to craft such convincing portraits of disparate people without seemingly breaking a sweat?
CE: I think in a sense people don’t find it hard work most of the time to be themselves. It is important when approaching a character not to seem as if there is effort involved in portraying it because then [the performance] defeats its own purpose. People are in themselves naturalistic if nothing else. It is important to me to create an ease with which an audience can perceive and understand the individual that they’re watching. So that’s a kind of primary, if there is such a thing, part of the way I like to approach characters.
IFQ: What do you feel you may have taken away as a human being, either consciously or subconsciously, from playing a character as unique as Mike Terry?
CE: I think if there is anything it’s more subconscious; I’m not consciously aware of taking things from characters into my life beyond the character. Obviously there are some characters you would love to be like and there others whom you hope you aren’t like. But with Mike Terry, he has an incredible amount of integrity and compassion that makes for a very absorbing character to play and hopefully to watch. He is the vessel of the audience in a way because he approaches the situation with a degree of naïveté. The audience through him understands the complexity of the situation he’s in. To answer your question, the attempt would be to play a character and then come out of that character without any conscious baggage, but inevitably I do think you carry things on into your life but for the most part I think it’s pretty subconscious.
For further exclusive online comments from this interview, go to www.independentfilmquarterly.com.