Actually the fact that there are only bare facts is, I think, a great advantage. Because if we knew too much about the guy, then that would probably frustrate some of my dramatic license. I mean, he blazed bright as an actor and as a star for a couple of years. Then he was gone and back to playing supporting roles, so he doesn’t get the theatre history treatment that a lot of more famous actors [receive]. Even Thomas Betterton, the character that Tom Wilkinson plays, you can find a lot of material on Thomas Betterton, but very little on Kynaston. I found that the information that was available was just enough, just tantalizing enough, to give me the bare bones and then I was able to build around it.
Do you feel the film version is much sexier than the play?
I think film is almost always sexier than theatre. I’m not sure I know what sexy theatre is like, outside of a couple musical numbers I’ve seen. I think there’s something about the intimacy of the camera that makes it sexier, and the chemistry of the actors. If the actors have the right kind of chemistry onscreen, it really travels.
I think the stage, that kind of sexuality is hard to transmit off the stage. Of the many things the stage can do, emitting sex tends not to be one of them. It’s really once in a blue moon where an actor, or a couple of actors, kind of engender that. As good as I felt the various productions of the play are, I felt the film is much sexier.
And you are happy with the way the film turned out?
Oh yeah, oh yeah (laughing). We cut a few lines here and there because naturally the play was longer. The play was over two hours long and the movie was something like 110 minutes. So there are little bits of dialogue that I felt, “Oh, I wish we’d kept that,” or wish it wasn’t on the cutting room floor. But by and large, I’m terrifically pleased. They brought terrific actors in for it. Richard Eyre was able to call in lots of chits in London for people who had worked with him over the last 23 years. I’m just thrilled.
Did you have any misgivings about having two very American actors in the lead roles?
Well not in terms of what they could do as actors, but rather the way in which they could be received. There’s always the perception, right or wrong, that you put American actors in these roles because it means box office. And I’m sure a lot of people thought that about “Shakespeare in Love” with Gwyneth Paltrow. I’m sure people think that right now about Reese Witherspoon in “Vanity Fair.”
I know that the reason we picked Billy was simply because there are so few actors in the world who could do what he had to do. We did talk about other people – the Johnny Depp’s and the Jude Law’s. Robert Downey Jr. we even thought about for a while because you needed to have a certain kind of theatrical background. You had to have stage training and you had to look at least presentable in a dress. It’s not really that you need the audience to believe that Ned is a woman, but you have to believe that the audiences of 1660 would accept him as a woman. And Billy was really one of the few people on Earth who could cover all those bases. The fact that he is an American actor, well, there you have it. And Claire showed up and did a great audition. If it helps it at the box office, great. But we didn’t really try to.
This role is so meaty. It really gives Billy Crudup a chance to stretch.
Billy is kind of notorious for being really choosey about the roles he plays. He turned down DiCaprio’s role in “Titanic.” There are a lot things that would have made him a bigger star and made him a lot more money that he just doesn’t like to do. He’s a real actor actor who cares about his craft and doesn’t want to do dopey stuff. And I do think that he likes to stretch himself. He doesn’t want to pigeon-hole himself. He’s kind of a character actor who happens to be ridiculously handsome (laughing).
