London-born
stage actor Chiwetel Ejiofor first entered cinema
with 1997's Amistad, but his
breakthrough came five years later, with his memorably adept, sensitive
starring role in Stephen Frears' Dirty Pretty Things. That film put him on the map, and roles followed fast and
thick, in Spike Lee's She Hate Me and Inside
Man, Woody Allen's Melinda And Melinda, John Singleton's Four Brothers, Ridley Scott's American Gangster, and Kasi Lemmons' Talk To Me. Most memorably, he played the chilly antagonist known as
The Operative in Joss Whedon's Firefly
spin-off Serenity, the more hot-blooded
antagonist Luke in Children Of Men, and
the flamboyant transvestite Lola in Kinky Boots. Ejiofor's latest starring role, in David Mamet's Redbelt, has him playing a passionately principled jujitsu instructor
trying to navigate moral challenges in a typically complicated Mamet web. The
A.V. Club recently sat down with Ejiofor
to discuss the process of becoming an instant martial-arts master, his "nervous
disposition," and what people don't realize about their favorite actors.
The
A.V. Club: Your bios frequently mention that you go by the nickname "Chewie."
Is that a voluntary nickname, or something you got stuck with?
Chiwetel
Ejiofor: I
actually don't like it at all. And I try and get people not to do that. Without
being dogmatic. It's just an abbreviation of my name that's stuck with people.
It's just one of those things where I'm trying to remove an abbreviation of my
name. It's really tough.
AVC:
Especially when it's in every bio.
CE: Yeah,
exactly.
AVC:
What kind of preparation went into your character in Redbelt?
CE: It was
mainly centered around the physical side of the role. I started out in London
working with the Gracie family, the premier family in Brazilian jujitsu.
They're based out of Brazil, but they have academies in various places. So
Roger Gracie's academy in London is where I started. I started the basics and
the groundwork, and began to learn the philosophies of jujitsu. And then I came
to L.A., and carried on working there for a month or so, with the Machado
family, Jean Jacques and Renato Magno who runs the gym up in Los Angeles and
Santa Monica. They were the group mainly involved in the choreography and the
fights in the film, but they were also very instructive in the ideas, the
philosophies of jujitsu. Then I went to see jujitsu in action—just went
to the fights and met a lot of the people, and got to be really involved in the
scene. And that was a way of understanding what was at stake for everybody,
what these characters' motivations and philosophies are.
AVC:
Is there a pressure involved in all that? People train their entire lives to
become martial-arts masters. As an actor, you're told "Here's your two months
on the scene. Become a convincing martial-arts master."
CE: Yeah,
it's tough. When I first read the script, it's like, you don't know how to do
what's required in the script. When I did Kinky Boots, I had the same amount of
time, and I just didn't know how it was possible. I wanted to do the part, but
I was like, "I don't know." I think the more you do, the more you work as an
actor, you realize you have to be a quick study. It is very intense. But most
people starting martial arts won't get the high-level people I got to work
with, giving them one-on-one training for every day of the week. So when
somebody studies a year, maybe what we're talking about is going to two classes
a week with a group of 20 other people. I was doing several hours a day with
some of the best people in the world, with nobody else. It was able to
accelerate my adjustment where I began to feel more comfortable doing the kind
of stuff that was required. In no way could I suggest that I was at any kind of
level where I could actually engage in a realistic way with any of these other
fighters, or even David [Mamet] himself, because their training is sort of
beyond me. But I could understand enough of the physical to embody the
character.
AVC:
Is there any sort of set process you go through in building characters that
would have encompassed both Kinky Boots and Redbelt? Were there any
similarities?
CE: I think
with Kinky Boots and
this, there was kind of a parallel in the sense that you put on the immediate
facets of this character. You start to grow into the character from there. You
start to learn about movement. In Kinky Boots and Lola, it was trying to walk in
heels. In Redbelt,
it's how to deliver a flying arm bar. Once you get those down, you start to
learn how to play a character. In that sense, there was a similar approach,
which I've not really applied to anything else. There was a distinct physical
aspect to this part and Kinky Boots that just wasn't true for everything else.
AVC:
What about when you're playing a historical figure like in American Gangster? Is there a very
different process for that?
CE: In American
Gangster,
it was just being able to get a sense for the world they were in. There wasn't
a particularly intensive rehearsal, really. It was reading articles about Frank
Lucas and getting to know the context of the time. And you know, things tend to
bleed into each other. When I came over to do Talk To Me, for example, I did a lot
of research around the time. It just seemed really important to know a lot
about the political situation, and the ramifications of what was happening. And
I ended up doing American Gangster not long after wrapping on Talk To Me. So a lot of it bled into
that. I was sort of up to speed on what was leading into the '60s and '70s.
AVC:
Do you tend to find your characters more on your own before the production
starts, via research and training, or do you find it more in rehearsal, or on
the set?
CE: Well, I
like finding things out beforehand, because I'm nervous in disposition, and I
worry that if I don't do anything, then I'll turn up and I still won't really
have a sense of it, and it might be too late. So I like to get things as organized
as I possibly can in my own head, to apply myself to the work before arriving
to a late-in-the-day rehearsal, or in extreme cases, the first day on set. But
you know, not everybody works like that, and I understand that there are
different ways to work. And actually being more open to it—obviously not
in a circumstance like Redbelt, because if you turned up on the first day
without any jujitsu knowledge, you couldn't do the film. But I understand that
some projects, you can come into with much less knowledge of what's going on,
and sort of catch up and feel your way around it. I think it's a risky way to
approach the work. Maybe I'm not brave enough. I'd rather just work on it, find
out what's going on, and use that to apply to a character.
AVC:
It seems odd that you describe yourself as having a nervous disposition, given
that so many of your key roles are very calm, centered, focused people—in
this, Serenity, Dirty Pretty Things. Are you attracted to that kind of character because you
consider yourself a nervous person?
CE: I think I
liked them all because I found them to be terrifically written roles. I wonder
if I end up bringing to them a certain quality, just because it interests me to
bring that to a character. It could all be more nervy, I guess. And that would
just be a slightly different take on the characters themselves. But I feel like
I only select roles based on how they impact me when I read. They're all very
strong, incredibly detailed characters.
AVC:
Getting back to the finding-the-character process, how much help do you expect
from a director?
CE: I suppose
it just depends on the director. Some directors are very good at creating a
world, creating an atmosphere, the visual, and they expect the actors to arrive
prepared to do what they do, and then do it. American Gangster was very much on that
basis. Ridley created an extraordinary visual construct for the actors to work
in. And apart from specific points where he thought things had gone a little
awry, he would just let the actors he'd hired do what they were hired to do and
capture the story within his context. Which was really exciting. Other
directors are very involved. I actually find both sides very satisfying. It's
great to be able to collaborate very strongly with a director on a character
and what a character should do, and I love talking about it, implementing it,
and experiencing it in many different ways. A lot of that is part of my theater
experiences. But at the same time, I also relish the responsibility of just
turning up, and the whole street looks like it's out of 1972. You walk on, and
you're there to do the guy and fit into that world and exist within it.
AVC:
Is there any type of director that you aren't comfortable with? Have
you ever encountered a working method that just didn't work for you well as an
actor?
CE: It's only
when—and fortunately, I haven't experienced this very much, but I think I
may in time—it's only when you're working with someone who's hands-on,
but you've really different perspectives of what the character should be, or
needs to be. And I've never had an extreme case of that, but I'd imagine that's
when real problems start to happen. That's the only slight disadvantage of
being a very involved director, is that you run the risk of the actor
completely disagreeing with everything you're saying.
AVC:
Where did David Mamet fall on that spectrum of controlling vs. loose with the
actors?
CE: Well, he
was very involved in the character, so he—I wouldn't say he was
controlling, but he was very much part and parcel in every decision made
regarding the character. It was sort of necessary, because the script—it
needed to unravel so people could understand the character, so he could sort of
sail smoothly through the story and an audience could go with him. I was aware
that I needed to have David there in order to work through the details. It's
the sort of film that if David wasn't the writer, we would have needed the
writer on set as much as possible, because it was very complicated.
AVC:
He's known for writing very mannered dialogue, and wanting it performed in one
very precise way. And this film mostly moves away from that—it isn't the
first film that doesn't have that speaking pattern, but it's on the far end of
his signature style. Is he still very precise about how he wants you to read a
specific line in a specific moment?
CE: No, he
was quite free with the script, I thought. We would go through certain bits and
I would occasionally want to change something, because it wouldn't sit right
with me, or it didn't feel natural or something. Then we'd come to a way of
doing that that still satisfied either what he wanted to do with the rhythm, or
through the meaning that he wanted to get across. There was always a way of
finding a compromise, or an alternative method that satisfied us both. And
there aren't many of his kind of staccato beats—though some of them are
there, and I always loved them, I love doing them. When I was working in
theater, I became familiar with Dave Mamet's plays. I just found them all very
exciting, Glengarry Glen Ross and American Buffalo. You know, the sense of
people overlapping and coming in over each other, the five different ways of
saying "I." Just that sense of real life. But with a plot like this, you don't
want to get too hung up on that. There's a lot going on, and you need to
progress the story.
[pagebreak]
AVC:
What's the hardest part of film acting for you?
CE: I'd say
it's the very early starts. You're trying to arrive on set basically at sun-up.
It sounds ridiculous, but they are very early starts. So the hardest thing for
a film actor, especially if you are in a lot of the film, is sustaining energy
for the entire length of a production. It's quite tough. With acting, it's not
the same as directing. Directors work the exact same hours; directing is
incredibly exhausting. The only difference is that directors aren't required to
have bursts of energy and focus. They're probably focused the entire day. Actors
have this thing of "stop/start." That can be quite draining, actually. This
sounds so ridiculous, almost like a complaint, "Why they got to go and make us
get up so early?" And I don't mean it like that. I'm just seriously trying to
answer your question. It does make me laugh sometimes that people watch their
favorite actors doing scenes and whatever, and I don't think they realize that
90 percent of the time, they're watching people that are exhausted. Absolutely
exhausted. It's kind of a funny reflection. They are long, grueling days. As
much as it's enjoyable, it's managing tiredness sometimes that's kind of
tricky.
AVC:
What would you say is the most grueling shoot you've been on?
CE: Well, I
suppose in different ways, it's different pictures. This one was tiring,
because we did all the fight stuff in the middle of the shoot. And that was
quite tough, because the last couple of weeks of the shoot, I was really tired,
because I had expended so much energy doing all the fight stuff in the middle.
If I had done it in the end, it maybe would have been a little easier. It was
quite tough and I got tired. American Gangster was quite tiring, but for
a completely different reason, which was that the cinematography of the film
was extraordinary, and a lot of the times they were doing something very
complex indeed, which was shooting from three cameras at the same time, which
meant that the lighting rigs would have to be set up to encompass three
different angles at the same time, which would mean that the time on set would
actually be quite short. You would readjust to get a close-up and readjust to
turn around. But the time in between would actually be quite extended. I
remember finding that quite difficult after a period of time. Just the idea of
being on set for a short period of time, and then being in the trailer for a
long period of time. I remember finding that draining in a peculiar way. But on
the whole, it's a very exciting job.
AVC:
What's your preferred way of spending that downtime? Do you read a lot,
socialize with other people on the set, rehearse?
CE: Well, I
try to do all those things, mainly reading and so on. But eventually, over a
period of time, you lose the will to do anything. Especially if it's over a
period of months, into the second or third month of that, you're sort of zoning
out. Getting up to do the thing, then zoning out again. It's a weird sort of a
paradigm. But most of the time, that doesn't happen. Turnovers and cameras
sometimes set up quick, or fairly quick. You're in and out, and you're doing
your thing, and there's this sense of constant movement. On Redbelt, there was so much to do,
there really wasn't much time to hang out, and any downtime, I was in the gym,
trying to get the fight sequences down. So this was an exciting, moving,
innovative production to be involved with.
AVC:
How did your first film role come about, in Amistad?
CE: I was
doing Othello for
the National Youth Theater, and somebody in the audience was a casting agent
who was aware that there was another agent, who wasn't in the audience, casting
for Spielberg's film. They got in contact with me, so I went in and did some
auditions on tape.
AVC: Years ago,
you told The Guardian that the experience was really scary for you—that you
constantly felt you were going to be found out as a fraud, because film was
above your level as an actor. Did you ever have that experience again, of
feeling in over your head?
CE: Well, I
think a lot of acting is about the removal of self-consciousness. The actor is
going to be in front of a lot of people, and will naturally feel
self-conscious. So a lot of the preparation for that is the removal of that
idea. Like you embody or are connected to this character, therefore you can
present this character in a way that eventually, when you come back to see it,
you feel not exactly ashamed of. Those learning experiences were just that for
me, learning how to make sure I don't feel self-conscious.
AVC:
Have there been other, similar milestones along the way like that one, places
where you've consciously thought, "I'm overcoming something here, this is
making me a better actor"?
CE: Yeah, I
think so. But I think the main thing that happens is life. I think just
experiencing life improves your work as an artist, as an actor. I feel I get
better as I get older. Not necessarily because I'm working more, or working as
much as I was. I just feel my connection to the world is getting deeper and
richer as I get older.
AVC:
You've often said in interviews that what's good in acting for you is disappearing
into a character. Is that largely an instinctive process for you, or is there
an intellectual process as well?
CE: I think
it's sort of both. I think it's intellectual to begin with, and then it's
instinctual in emotion. When you're no longer seeing yourself, in some ways.
You're not performing. You're as close to being as you can be. And I suppose
that's consistent with the moment that the mind actually turns off, and is no
longer questioning what you're doing. When the questions stop, that's when the
real acting takes over. And trying to get to the point where the questions
stop, "Would I do this? Would I do that? How do I feel about this? How do I
feel about that as a character?" When those stop, and it's just doing X, Y, and
zed, because that's what you'd do as this character, because you're inside this
character somehow—that's when it really kicks off.
AVC:
That disappearing act is presumably harder on film, with the big downtimes,
than when you're in a play, telling one story straight through.
CE: Once you
click into a character, to a certain degree, you can do a lot else. You can do
other stuff, then come back and click right into the character. It's sort of
funny that way, the way the mind works. Once it's there, it's sort of there.
For the stage, for example, all through the day, you're not onstage. You're
living your life, la-la-la, then the lights go down, then boom! All of a
sudden, you're in this thing. There's a kind of reflex muscle trigger that
happens, and all of a sudden you're back into the role. It's just getting there
in the first place that's tricky. That's that thing of sort of swimming, if
you're not there and you don't know where you are, you've taken a few days off
and you're not back, and you never really connected with your character, that's
when acting becomes sort of tough.
AVC:
If it's that reflexive, if it's that much clicking into somebody and being part
of them, do pieces of characters ever stick with you? With Redbelt, for instance, do you
think any of the philosophy or practice of martial arts will stay with you?
CE: In a
sense, no. I would like it to, in a number of ways, but Mike Terry is not who I
am. For me, it tends to disappear, which is good, because, you know, I've just
been playing Othello, and I'm not prone to psychopathic, jealous rages, which is
fortunate. It can be a positive and a negative. You want the good things in the
good characters to stay with you, but lose the bad things with the bad ones. When
I finish a project, I walk away, I just go back to being me, and looking at
scripts like I was before the project. There may be some inherent lessons
learned, things that I know, and blah-blah-blah, through experiences, but it
would be trying to be a character, and I'd be very aware that I was doing that.
It would be very clear to me that I would be trying to be Mike Terry, and I
would find it ridiculous.
AVC:
Are there any actors or directors that you've worked with in the past that
you're particularly eager to work with again?
CE: Yeah,
practically everybody I've ever worked with, I'd like to work with again. I had
a great time with the people that I've worked with, and the directors, and a
lot of the casts. There's really nobody where you'd say, "Oh, I got X, Y, and
zed again! Gahhh, no!" It really brings a smile to my face, because in 95
percent of the cases, people I've worked with, I'd be thrilled to work with
again.
AVC:
Is there anybody out there that you haven't worked with yet that you really
want to?
CE: Loads of
people, really. It's sort of hard to know. It's funny in a sense that I spent
my teenage years writing about, quoting, and watching David Mamet plays and
films. Some of the David Mamet films, I knew back to front. Yet if somebody
asked me two years ago who I'd really like to work with, I probably wouldn't
have said David Mamet. It just never occurred to me that that was a
possibility. I just didn't think. Yet when the opportunity came up to work with
David Mamet, I was, of course, completely thrilled. "Of course, I always wanted
to work with David Mamet! Why else would I have been studying his work in this
way for so long?" I think it's funny, it's impossible to really know how much
you want to work with someone until it happens, and then you judge it.
AVC:
So you've never gone after a role because of the people involved in the
project?
CE: I don't
think so. I think I've done things that I got excited about because of a kind
of package. Like in Dirty Pretty Things, I was a great fan of Stephen Frears'
films, but the decision was still because of Stephen Frears' films in
connection with the part itself, and the screenplay. It was kind of
irresistible. It is true that I hadn't read Redbelt. When I heard that David
was going to send me a script and he wanted me to play the lead, I was aware
that I was going to do it, regardless of what it was. It would have been a very
peculiar set of circumstances that would have led me to say, "No, I'm not going
to do this." It so happened that I loved the part and the script, so it worked
out.
AVC:
You've made films in Britain and here. Do you find them different at all in
terms of production?
CE: It's
funny, I was thinking about this the other day. It's been a couple of years
since I actually shot a film in England. I think the last film I shot in
England was Children Of Men. That's not to say that's the last film I've done
with an English production, but the last film physically shot in England. At
any rate, things aren't much different. I think it's just a question of money.
I think the only thing that separates, in most ways, styles of filmmaking, is
how much money there is in the production. So a big-budget movie will be very
different anywhere, I think.
AVC:
What about stage work? You have extensive UK stage experience, but have you
done plays here?
CE: No, I haven't,
actually.
AVC:
Is there any particular reason?
CE: No, not
really. I find theatre sort of synonymous with London for me. But I'd love to
do plays here. I'd love to do plays in New York. I would be thrilled to come
out here and do some plays.
AVC:
The media seems to want to present you as a package: "stage actor who broke
into film," or "British actor who works in America," or "breakout black actor."
Is that kind of labeling a problem for you?
CE: I don't
actually notice it that much. It certainly doesn't bother me. Certainly what
constitutes a stage actor, what constitutes a film actor, I don't even know
what that is. And both things are very accurate, in a sense. In terms of
people's needs to concentrate on race, I wonder if it's completely necessary,
but it's not something that is so dynamically relevant to me that I feel it
should be one thing or another.
AVC:
Do you feel race has ever been an issue, in terms of roles you get or don't
get, or in terms of how people treat you?
CE:
No, I haven't, actually. I don't feel like it's a massive thing in
terms of my working life at all, thankfully. I've felt like I've been able to
work on a number of different things. I work on a career, and it's not
something I particularly notice or feel that I have to adjust my thought
processes around or something.
AVC:
What about being labeled as an American actor? You've been doing so many films
with American accents lately. Are people surprised when they meet you and hear
what you actually sound like?
CE: Yeah,
actually. It was funny, I was doing a radio show the other day, and the host
said "We have here a great American actor…" I think here more than anywhere,
there is some kind of ownership sense that America has. I moved to New York for
a while, and somebody who lived in New York said, "The true New Yorker really
feels that anybody talented who says they're from somewhere else is just
kidding. Everybody's really a New Yorker deep down." I think that's something
that can probably be applied to America in general. There's a sense of
ownership to anybody on American soil. "They're really Americans, really."