Michael Cunningham’s writing seems to have a theatrical quality as if it were set for a play. Did you find that to be the case? It’s very dialogue-driven.
“To put it another way, it’s true that there are movies that don’t rely on dialogue so much. But usually that’s simply because the writing’s bad. (Laughing) I think in general dialogue ought to always form the characters. It’s just that they don’t always achieve that. It’s amazing to me to read writing that is supple and fluid and rooted in the moment and the situation and yet gives such a strong sense of character. I agree that there’s a kind of heightened drama to it. But I think that’s in the situation and particularly a wedding, which is inherently theatrical, like a court case or something, there is always a kind of theater involved. But what I liked about it, particularly with Buddy, is he’s wrestling away with the same questions but in a much more dramatic way. I couldn’t have done it and I wouldn’t have felt comfortable going to those excesses if it hadn’t to me tied down in reality and rooted in honesty. If it was just grandiose, all written in a dramatic way, I would have been very uncomfortable.”
Buddy’s entire family is very repressed. They all show it in different ways, but do you think that would be a hard lifestyle to grow up in?
“Maybe. For Buddy, yeah, but not for everybody. Some people love that. (Chuckles) Some people love rules. They want to know what to wear. I know if I go to walk down the Kings Road in London, I’m going to see guys wearing that uniform of the button down shirt and the red jeans and the loafers and colored sports socks and a blazer. Did you never stop to think, ‘Maybe I’ll wear something else?’ They’re happy that way. I’m not saying that’s repression, but there are a lot of different cultures that don’t reward looking outside. I don’t think that has to be a bad thing.”
In many of the films you’ve been in you’ve dealt with that kind of repression, maybe because of the British experience, but also coming into that society.
“Yeah. I mean, again I’m so wary of making sweeping statements… ‘Expert Hugh Dancy embarrasses himself with sweeping generalizations.’(Laughing) I suppose that may be true. I’ve never selected anything with that in mind. It is feasible that unbeknownst to yourself a trend emerges in the work that you do. You suddenly think, ‘God, I seem to have some access to the mindset of the outsider,’ or whatever. I really don’t know whether that’s true, or if it is why, but it may be the case.
I think usually it’s more interesting to see a character that is set apart in some way. Eventually in fact, every character has to be that way. That’s what you’re looking for in every character. It’s the grain. Even if the guy is 99% conventional, it’s the one extra percent that’s going to make him worthy of having a story told about him. Usually that 1%, if it’s a good story, is going to blossom and grow. So your job as an actor is to scrape away and scratch away and find that strength. There’s an infinity of variety. It can be anything.”
So how are you approaching that idea in The Jane Austen Book Club?
“Well, he stands out in the context of that movie in the beginning because he has never read any Jane Austen. He’s the only guy in there. He gets almost accidentally invited into this book club, because one on the women thinks one of the other women who has just gotten a divorce might like him. He misunderstands the situation and thinks the first woman wants him. He’s just a kind of a schlub and a computer nerd who reads science fiction, sitting in a room full of women who are Jane Austen experts. I didn’t really need to work on the outsider status on that one.”
Did you find in playing this role with the tension between you and Claire [Danes] that it heightened your ability to connect with her?
“No, no, no. When you work with another person as an actor, nuances of character in a relationship are a result of close understanding of the script you’ve got and then the ability to realize it. I really do believe that. I’m not just trying to avoid your question. I’ve worked with actors before that I’ve liked very much and felt the results were not so wonderful. And I’ve worked with actors and actresses that I really didn’t feel that much for and felt like we achieved some kind of so-called chemistry. I think it’s acting. That’s what it comes down to.”
