Tim Roth's first film was Made in Britain, but he spent many years erasing that label. A journeyman actor who journeyed to the States at the turn of the decade to take the independent film scene by storm as Tarantino's bad boy of choice, the slight and slippery Roth is the male Meryl Streep of the American indie scene, a magician with dialects who doesn't like to reveal his bag of tricks.
Roth was a product of the burgeoning TV film scene in England in the 1980s, when directors like Alan Clarke, Mike Leigh, and Stephen Frears made films about the down-and-out of the here-and-now in London, in sharp contrast to the historical costume romances of Merchant Ivory. Roth's too-smart-for-his-own-good, post-punk street-tough image struck a chord with British audiences, but it wasn't until a little film called Vincent & Theo hit the U.S. art house scene in 1990, with Roth as the obsessive Post-Impressionist painter, that the Cockney lad made an impression on American critics.
Much of the general public, on the other hand, first experienced Roth as an American in the following year's Jumpin' at the Boneyard, in which he played a Bronx dad trying to get his younger crackhead brother to clean up. This, combined with his breakout role as Mr. Orange in Reservoir Dogs (as an American) and Nick in Bodies, Rest & Motion (not only as an American, but a Southerner), caused some confusion among audiences-and among casters-as to Roth's nationality, which was exactly his intention.
Never one to allow himself to be pinned down, Roth is very cautious in interviews and has a reputation for disdaining the byproducts of fame. Unlike his pal Gary Oldman, who came up at the same time as Roth and from a similar background, Roth has never truly entered the studio mainstream-despite his brief dalliance as the effeminate psychopath in Rob Roy, which earned him an Oscar nom. Perhaps because he will be forever associated with the Tarantino's hyper-violent Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs, Roth has recently stated that he's taking a hiatus from bloodshed. He's a father now, after all, and not just a wise-cracking kid off the London streets.
He's also countering whatever damage Tarantino's films inflicted on the minds of America's youth-if you buy into that theory-by taking on projects that work for the good of society, and as a director. His first effort is The War Zone, a film about the long-term emotional effects of incest on one family, set in Roth's native England. The film, which has garnered great reviews at festivals worldwide, opens in December.
Meanwhile, Roth is making the rounds promoting The Legend of 1900, a fantasy film by Cinema Paradiso director Giuseppe Tornatore, in which he plays a piano prodigy raised onboard a ship who has never set foot on dry land. Perhaps significantly, Roth has a very different look in the film than in past projects-he's dressed in natty tuxes throughout, which is a far cry from his garish mobster suits or the punk uniform of T-shirt and jeans that we're used to.
Back Stage West recently sat down with the chameleon-like actor to discuss on-screen violence, the point (or pointlessness) of discussing craft, and whether Roth has truly lost his wrath.
Back Stage West: Because there's so much money to be made in independent films today, it seems as if there aren't as many quality low-budget American films out there-"art for art's sake" films-as there were a few years ago. Is it harder for you to find worthy projects?
Tim Roth: Not really. There is this notion that independent film has sort of changed recently. And it's true that the studios have caught on fairly quickly to the potential for moneymaking. But it's very easy for most people to say, "Well, isn't it awful what's happened to independent film-what the studios did to independent film?" However, a lot of independent film directors are desperate to audition for the studios. I see quite often that the films that they make, especially first-timers, are aimed at getting a job at the studios. So the weakness is on both sides.
The assumption generally is that independent film, which isn't independent of anything particularly, is free and of itself, and generally involves young directors, and that's just not the case. There are a lot of very experienced directors out there who work without approval, without studio input.
BSW: I've heard recently that you've decided to take a hiatus from film violence. Why?
Roth: If I pull a gun out in a film, I want it to mean something. I think what's happening now is it means nothing in film-or it means box-office. As a human being and certainly as a parent, I want to get beyond that. It's lost its allure for me. It really was about, for me and a lot of actors, getting our rocks off. That's what it was about. It felt good. What fun! And we really didn't go beyond that. We couldn't look beyond it.
But I'm in my late 30s now and I have to start thinking about what kind of stories I want to tell a little bit more than I have done in the past. I think if I'm going to make a gun film, as you could call them, then I want to feel the power that that piece of metal has in everybody's life in that film. I want it to have an impact. I think it's losing its impact. It doesn't mean anything anymore.
I get asked a lot about the violence in cinema issue. It is a big issue with me. I've been involved in a lot of the films that have been blamed for Columbine and things of that sort. But, that being said, I'm not arming those children. Who's arming them? Why are the guns so readily available in this country? It certainly doesn't come down to the film industry that they're readily available. I think both sides of the coin have got to be looked at. Politicians have got to do some soul-searching. And the constitution that was written 200 years ago is not necessarily correct for the times that we live in. It's time to move on, I think.
BSW: You've a reputation for not wanting to speak about your craft. Why is that?
Roth: I think it takes away from it. Who cares how I arrived at the performance, as long as I did? At least as far as the audience is concerned. I don't mind talking about the homework, per se. That's kind of interesting-vaguely, possibly-to people. I think that the mystery and the magic of film, the more that we talk about-and we now have to talk about it a lot because there are so many magazines coming out every week-takes away from the magic that film can be. It's lost its magic, definitely. And in doing so, it's lost its magic for me. The more I talk about it, the less sort of glorious act it becomes and the more homework it is. It makes it mundane.
BSW: I know you're not a proponent of the Method, but what kind of work did you do to prepare for The Legend of 1900?
Roth: I had four or five months of learning to fake the piano, which was infuriating because I can't play the piano, and there wasn't any other preparation. The rest of it was: Look at the script, talk to the director, and come up with a character between myself and those two elements. And have a go. A lot of it is just instinct. "I think he should be like this." "Yeah." "How about we throw a little of this in?" And it was not, well-let's say I didn't have to go and live in an igloo to do it.
BSW: Starting with your New York accent in Jumpin' at the Boneyard, did you make a conscious decision to neutralize your nationality?
Roth: No. It was an accident. Purely coincidence. But then it became: Well, hang on a minute, this might be a smart move. When I was first offered the film, I actually considered the accent to be a problem. But the director had some guts and we pushed on from there. That being said, then it became a good calling card for casting directors. Most of them were seeing me for the first time. That was my first film as far as they were concerned, so some of them thought I was American-which was a help in being seen for characters who were American. After that, I did make kind of an effort to play Americans for a while, so that my nationality would become even less of an issue. And it worked. Now it's very refreshing to play English characters.
BSW: People like to draw parallels between you and Gary Oldman, perhaps because of Meantime and Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead [two early projects together], because you're both Brits who can play any nationality, because you both entered the scene at the same time. Yet Oldman went into mainstream studio fare at one point and hasn't looked back. Do you ever look at his career and think, What happened?
Roth: No. Whatever happened with him is for him to decide. And there are decisions that he made quite clearly. But they're about his life, which I wouldn't presume to judge. Some of the stuff he does I like, some of it I don't. But it's the same with me. Some of the stuff I've done I like, and a lot of it I don't. The analogy drawn between me and Gary is a very easy one. We've been in films together; we come from a very similar background. But we don't really care that it's drawn. I particularly don't. I think it's quite flattering. I'm happy with it. But it just makes for easy journalism, I think.
BSW: It took a long time for working-class Brits to get a voice in feature film in the '80s, when Merchant Ivory-type projects were the rage. Considering your background and your early work, what's the importance of doing average Brits again? Do you feel a loyalty to these characters?
Roth: Not necessarily, but there's a shorthand you have with your own language that you can't have with somebody else's language. Like with the American language, I don't have that shortcut; I don't have that shorthand with the audience. So playing somebody from a different culture can be exhausting at times. But playing someone from Scotland or from Ireland or even from another part of London would be just as exhausting to me. The challenge is always there. Of course, it's much easier to play someone who is closer geographically to where you are from, but I've kind of gotten used to not having that luxury. And when I read a script and it's an American, I still think, Oh, the dialect coach thing again-here we go. But if you want to play that character, that's what you have to go through.
BSW: What made you choose The War Zone as your first directing project?
Roth: It was the first thing that came through the door when I said to my agent, "Start looking for something for me to direct." I didn't think about directing for a long time; I put it off, because I didn't want to take that much time off from acting. I was very worried that I wouldn't get a job afterwards. And that is a concern-it doesn't matter how successful you are, that is a concern.
But then I thought, Well, I have to go through this and see if I can do it. That way I would get it out of my system. So we started looking and the first thing I liked was this novel. Then it was never a question of, Should I? It was a question of, How do I put this onto the screen-adapt it in the correct way and do it justice? That was the challenge. I wanted something that would be very, very challenging, and it was the ultimate challenge for a first-time director. But we got there.
BSW: In the same way that people believe a film like Reservoir Dogs might affect society negatively, so should a film like The War Zone affect it positively. To what degree do you feel films can truly change society?
Roth: I think they really can. For example, victims of incest, which is what the film's about, have seen the film and it's changed them in a way. They can talk about what's happened to them, and talking about it for the first time has an extraordinarily powerful effect.
I think what people are really worried about, especially come election time, is what kind of films will affect society. I think all art affects society, and should. I mean, that's the reason it's there. Why are you drawn back to one painting over and over and over again? You can't put words to it, but you are. But again, the gun issue comes up. What are we doing as artists? We're reflecting life or mirroring life, or we are mirroring lives that don't exist; we're giving you fantasies; we're giving you fairy tales; we're giving you a short, sharp burst of reality. It should have many, many colors. Film should. And should continue to.
But what I think has happened is that we're trapped into one way of storytelling over and over again, and it's kind of getting dull. That's why I was thinking about scrapping the acting thing completely and just going into directing. But luckily I've been asked to do some films that are very exciting and very interesting, and it's gotten me involved again. Because I'd had enough. I was bored. I was bored with the same old story. Getting scripts and them going, "I think you'll like this, Tim, it's a cross between Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs." I'd just fucking had enough.
BSW: What was the hardest thing about directing for the first time?
Roth: The most worrying thing for me was that I wouldn't know what to say to my actors. Because I'd been badly directed myself many times, and I knew what that was like. And I was going to take them through hell and I had to be ready for them. But luckily, I was. That was the thing that scared me most.
The technical side was easy because I'd paid attention. I've always paid attention to what the team does, what the crew does, often moreso than the other actors, because nine times out of 10, the other actors are just self-serving. They're not actually there to serve the scene or serve the film. They're much more there to serve their own futures, and that was becoming mind-numbing. But I knew my lenses by the time I arrived there.
BSW: Is it important for a film actor to learn about the technical side of filmmaking so he can improve his performance in a given film, or just for future reference?
Roth: I think of most things as performance-related, whether it's performance as a director or performance as an actor. I don't tend to think too often of things with my career in mind-which I think is quite a good way to go about it. You can fail or you can succeed in this business, but that success is really based on other people's very strange ideas about what is successful. It's really out of my hands, all that stuff. And if you worry yourself about that, you'll worry yourself into unemployment.
BSW: When did you feel you were in control of your career enough that you could finally start choosing projects?
Roth: You really have control over what you are doing from the beginning, because you can always say no. The fear is, by saying no, you will never work. And that's the thing you have to come to terms with. But I had kind of a belligerent attitude about it. I used to say, "I'm not going to do that, that's rubbish." And I wouldn't work for a year.
Then again, I did not get into acting to be on the cover of a magazine. That's a byproduct. People I know who did get into it for that reason, and succeeded shortly thereafter, soon failed. I wanted to be an actor all my life, and that was and is my intention. That being said, I've done some terrible fucking jobs. I've done some rubbish. But I've always entered into them with the best of intentions.
It depends on what you want: If you want a short burst of fame, you can get that. If you're lucky, you'll get it. If you want to be an actor, you have to think, Could you put your heart into this particular piece? It doesn't matter if it's one line in something or it's the lead. The same rule applies. And if you can't put your heart into it, don't do it. Be strong about saying no to stuff.
BSW: Alan Clarke's Made in Britain was your big break into film. How did that come about?
Roth: Well, I'd been doing youth theatre for a long time, and fringe theatre and pub theatre, which is something they have in Britain-just theatres above pubs, really. Anything to be working and to be acting. Then I was selling advertising for some awful company, trying to make a buck, and it wasn't working. One night I was soaked and riding through London and I got a flat tire on my bike. I called into a theatre that I knew and worked at doing youth theatre, and said, "Do you have a pump?" And they said, "There's these auditions tonight. Do you want to have a go?" And I got the job. It was Alan Clarke. So it was a stroke of luck. It was a cold, wet night, I remember, but I was lucky to get a puncture.
BSW: To what degree is stage experience essential to acting well in film?
Roth: I don't think there are any rules. I didn't want to be a stage actor. The last thing I did onstage was Metamorphosis with Steven Berkoff in London [in 1987], and I haven't been back since. I have a fair degree of stage fright. It would take something very extraordinary to bring me back. Of course, I would love to work with Willem Dafoe and the Wooster Group or to work with Malkovich and Steppenwolf. But that's the kind of thing that it would take to get me back.
I always wanted to be a film actor. As soon as I started acting, I wanted to be a film actor. I never thought it would happen. But that's where I always wanted to be. And I do love doing it.
BSW: You refuse to audition. How have you gotten by?
Roth: Well, initially you can't refuse. But after a few times out, when I had enough film work or television work under my belt, I decided, Look, I'm very, very bad at this auditioning business. So I will lose 50 percent of work by auditioning, and I will lose 50 percent of work by not auditioning. If that's the case, I'd rather not go through that process. So I decided not to. I said, "You want to see some stuff? Here's a tape. There is enough out there now of a different nature for you to be looking at." And I just stopped. I stopped doing it very early on. I refused. And it probably did effect me negatively. Especially out here in L.A.
I've been told, "You'll get the job if you go along and meet." And I've said, "Well, I'll meet, but I won't read." And they say, "Well, you have to read." And I say, "No, you don't understand. I won't." And I've lost jobs. So it does deeply affect me.
I find I've worked with actors who are terrible but give great auditions. So I don't know if an audition is really a good indication of how good an actor really is. My idea of an audition is to meet somebody and talk to them, and that was how I cast when I was directing. I didn't ask anybody to read.
Actually, in the end, I did; we cast non-actors for the two young leads in the film. I got them to read, but I wasn't paying any attention to anything that they were saying. It was just about them. It was about, How do I feel about this person and how do they deal with the fear of the audition process? But they were not impressed, because they were not actors. They didn't give a shit. They'd read something out loud, have a cigarette, and be done with it. I wanted to put cameras in their faces to see how they would respond to that. And 99 percent of them were completely unimpressed. For them, it was a good way to spend an afternoon.
BSW: What advice do you have for actors struggling to make a living in L.A.?
Roth: My advice would be that it had better mean something to you. It's harder out here. It's harder, I think, than anywhere else in the world, because it's such a temporary thing most times. And looks play such an important part in this business, which I think is garbage. But they do.
I actually think you're better off if you're not good-looking in Los Angeles particularly, because you stand a better chance of lasting in your film career than if you're pretty. Because the next pretty one is always coming along.
So I think if you want to be an actor, you should stick to your guns and concentrate on acting and not worry about all of the rest of it, which is a complete byproduct and really out of your hands. Just concentrate on getting the work. And even if it's work where you think, Well, I'm not sure about it. Do your best and concentrate on that. And work in complete collaboration and don't isolate yourself or try to make yourself a star and sacrifice the stuff of the film. Because in the end, you'll just end up being in a bad film. BSW