There is always a shortlist of actors deserving of an Academy Award. Ralph Fiennes is one of them. He earned a Supporting Actor nomination in 1994 for “Schindler’s List,” but lost out to Martin Landeau for “Ed Wood.” He landed a Best Actor nod in 1997 for “The English Patient,” but Geoffrey Rush had that one in the bag for “Shine.” And in the almost three decades since, he’s been overlooked for incredible work in films such as “The End of the Affair,” “The Constant Gardner,” “Coriolanus,” and “The Grand Budapest Hotel.” That may change with his celebrated performance as Cardinal Thomas Lawrence in Edward Berger’s adaptation of Robert Harris‘ novel, “Conclave.”
READ MORE: For his contemporary “Conclave,” Edward Berger embraces the discourse [Interview]
The fact Fiennes is not synonymous with the Oscars is sort of head-scratching. He has starred in three Best Picture winners (the aforementioned “Schindler’s List” and “The English Patient” as well as “The Hurt Locker”). Even in an expanded era of nominees, there is a short list of actors who can make that claim. And yet, with buzz percolating about his first Best Actor nomination this century (he was robbed for “Budapest”), he’s taking it all in stride.
“That talk is essentially pleasing because it’s recognizing people are feeling this is a good film and the performances are working. But I think you can’t invest in it,” Fiennes admits. “I mean, if such a thing comes to pass, I’d be delighted. Of course, any actor it would be, I’d be very happy. But you can’t invest in it. It’s a thing to get; it has to be the way that if life gives it to you, how wonderful. If it doesn’t, the most important thing is that there’s a friend of mine who says, ‘You do good work,’ and I’ve got lots of work to prepare for next year, and that is where I want to put my mental energy into the work I’ve got coming up.”
For our interview, Fiennes discusses the research he did for the role with real cardinals in the Catholic Church, his intense scenes with co-star Isabella Rossellini, how delighted he is that the movie is a crowd pleaser, and much, much more.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
_____
The Playlist: This project comes your way. What made you say, “Yes.”
Ralph Fiennes: A combination of the path, the interior complexity of Cardinal Lawrence, and a good yarn and page-turner to read. It functions like a political thriller, and I enjoyed that. It was a great piece of writing by Peter Straughan.
Had you heard of the book beforehand? Did you know anything about the project?
I had not. I was late to the party in learning what a success the book had been. I had not read it, but obviously, I did read it once I had committed to the party and was curious to know what the source material was.
When I spoke to Edward, he said that he didn’t discuss character backstories with the cast. Does that matter to you? Did you feel like you had to come up with your own sort of backstory for Cardinal Lawrence in your head?
Yes, I did do a backstory. I mean, I remember working it out with a priest that I talked to, how he was just studied at Rome, studied at one of the Catholic schools in Rome, would’ve been ordained, but had probably gone back to England and had a parish in England and then found his way. I think the Vatican head hunts intelligence. The young priests who they see could have a role in the Vatican. I think he probably would’ve been headhunted and probably would’ve been flattered by that. But yes, I remember building up a backstory for Lawrence. Yes, yes, it’s important to have one. Definitely, you need to have one. I mean, the director isn’t obligated to give you one. Some directors are interested in creating a backstory with an actor, but often, it’s the work you do yourself.
In that context, during the film, Cardinal Lawrence is always seemingly uninterested in the papacy. He doesn’t want anyone to vote for him, and he’s sort of getting some votes along the way, but it feels like there’s a moment where he would be interested in it. It sort of turns for a second. Do you think he genuinely doesn’t want to be considered, or do you think subconsciously, the appeal of the position calls to him?
I think, like any human situation, I think in his head, he definitely does not want to be Pope. He does not put himself forward as Pope at the beginning of the film at all. He sees himself purely as the enabler, as the figure running the conclave. And then because of the way things unfold and he’s got votes because of the homily he’s given, there’s a crisis point where he thinks, I think he’s thinking, “If I can do anything to save the church from it being run by or being led by someone of extreme conservatism, then I will write my own name.” But I think that is defined. He lets his personal ambition out in that moment. And yes, I think, look, it’s interesting to think about those cardinals who will put themselves forward as candidates that there must be some personal ambition in ’em, and it there all kinds of questions about hierarchies and power. I don’t know. I am sure I can’t; this is my own pet theory or imagining, but I sometimes think Jesus Christ would be astounded at what has been built and constructed in his name.
To be fair, I think you’re one of many who would think that. You mentioned that you had spoken to a priest before filming began, and I’ll assume you did other research into the role. What surprised you the most about this process that you might not have been aware of beforehand?
That’s a good question. I wasn’t surprised by the process so much as what goes on inside the heads of these men. I mean, I think clearly it was more like, what is it that drives them? I mean, I think they are very devout. I mean, I’ve met two cardinals who struck me as extremely kind, good, intelligent, open-minded men. I really felt that very strongly. I thought there was a sort of puzzle. What did surprise me most? Probably actually the ordinariness of the simplicity of the men. They put on their robes, and they go along with these rituals, and actually, they’re profoundly human. What I did learn was that a lot of them are, I mean, I talked to one priest who said, yes, doubt, having doubt is very much part of your journey in life. As a priest. You are often confronted with situations where you are asking huge questions about the nature of what you are doing. And that was something that I think when I first was introduced to a cardinal, I think I was expecting someone to be a bit defensive and reluctant or certainly slightly telling you this is how it should be done. But it wasn’t like that at all. They were an extremely open-minded person, very kind, very open, very intrigued to know what my process was, and wanted to help.
I don’t know if the cardinals that you met had read the book or knew the details of the project, but do you think that they would be at least entertained by the film?
Well, I think it’s like any, across the board, there’s time to be some priests, cardinals, bishops, whoever, who will be possibly offended and others who will be entertained and amused. I mean, I think to be offended is odd because, again, it’s a story. I mean, if you are truly in the service of God, I don’t think you would lose sleepover over an adaptation of a Robert Harris novel.
Right before this interview, I received a press release from a film festival where the movie won another audience award. It’s proving it’s a crowd-pleaser. How thrilled were you with the final film when you saw it? Assuming you’ve seen it.
Yes, I’ve seen it once some time ago now. I think I felt a sense of relief. Edward Berger is a brilliant craftsman and artist in the way he brings to bear a film with so many elements. It’s camera, it’s composition, it’s editing, it’s performance, it’s use of sound. You are juggling all these elements to create hopefully a story or an experience that the audience leans into, and audiences now, I mean, they’re incredibly sophisticated. Everyone can make a movie on their iPhone now. I mean, they are very, very film-savvy. So, to be coherent and surprising and not be gratuitous in your filmmaking choices and to avoid cliches? I think it is rare now. I mean the sort of skill set, and I looked at that film, I thought, “Oh my God, I’m just taken with it.” I’ve sat through films in which I’ve acted and felt slightly awkward or gone, “Oh, that’s a good moment. I’m not sure that scene worked,” and come out of them feeling, “I don’t know. It was O.K. I don’t know. Could have done that better, but it’ll be fine. That was a nice moment,” and I didn’t feel that. I felt I was really in the hands of someone who was meticulous in bringing all those elements to bear in a very entertaining way, intelligent way.
You have several impressive scenes with one of your co-stars, Isabella Rossellini, who is portraying a character that does not have that much dialogue. There is dialogue, but it’s not a heavy dialogue role. Could you tell that the scenes that you had had the tension that was necessary while you were on set? Or was it, again, a pleasant surprise when you saw the film?
Oh no, I could tell that Isabella carries so much. You see someone, even as they’re listening, watching you see, “Oh my God, in that face a lot. There’s a lot.” Nothing is being overly projected, but she’s just got that thing, that X factor that makes her incredibly compelling. She’s been acting for many years, and you feel that she carries incredible charisma and presence. So no, I could see that I sensed when we shot scenes with her that they would have an impact.
You’ve received a lot of awards attention for this film and throughout your career, you’ve had other films where this has occurred. Is this something you pay attention to or do you block it out? What is your reaction when this conversation arrises?
Well, clearly, that talk is essentially pleasing because it’s recognizing people are feeling this is a good film and the performances are working. But I think you can’t invest in it. I mean, if such a thing comes to pass, I’d be delighted. Of course, any actor it would be, I’d be very happy. But you can’t invest in it. It’s a thing to get; it has to be the way that if life gives it to you, how wonderful. If it doesn’t, the most important thing is that there’s a friend of mine who says, “You do good work,” and I’ve got lots of work to prepare for next year, and that is where I want to put my mental energy into the work I’ve got coming up.
I know you just shot “28 Years Later,” and you were talking earlier about how some people shoot films on their phones. There have been reports that Denny Boyle shoots much of “28 Years Later” on an iPhone or in an unconventional way. Can you speak to that at all or talk about what that shooting that film was like?
Yes. Well, that is true in essence, but what I saw on set was an iPhone connected to very big lenses. So, I’m not technical, so I just accepted that Anthony Dod Mantle, a great cinematographer, is experimenting with what he can do with an iPhone and big, strong lenses. I mean, I can’t speak to what photographic quality they get or what they’re looking for, but the odd glimpse at the monitor told me the photography is fantastic. And I don’t know beyond that. I know they got great coverage, but it wasn’t just a handheld, it was an iPhone attached to big lenses.
“Conclave” opens nationwide on Friday