INT: Colin Firth
Everyone’s favorite neurotic British chick returns to theaters this Friday with BRIDGET JONES: THE EDGE OF REASON, the sequel to the highly successful 2001 film BRIDGET JONES' DIARY.
Reprising his role in the first film, Colin Firth stars as Bridget’s main love interest, the successful human rights lawyer Mark Darcy. Essentially, Darcy is every delusional woman’s wet dream. Not only is the guy handsome, wealthy and sophisticated, he’s completely devoted to Bridget. He doesn’t merely accept of all her flaws – her obsessions, her paranoia, her plus-size booty – he’s actually turned on by them. He’s the equivalent of the models in Maxim magazine who sing the praises of bald guys with beer guts. They’re not real, of course, but it’s nice to imagine that they might be.
Colin stopped by the Four Seasons in Beverly Hills a few weeks ago to talk about his experience playing Bridget Jones’s boyfriend. Check it out.
Does Mark Darcy have a character arc? If not, what was the challenge of bringing something unique to this role?
I don't know if there's an arc. The Darcy thing's been going on for so long for me. It's beginning to feel like an arc that dates back to 1994. This felt like another episode in this ongoing story of some guy's life in one version or another. I suppose that if there's a shape to what he goes through, in some ways it would be the path from the film three years ago. What happens when they walk off into the sunset? What happens to happily ever after? You see something the bliss of their relationship, which I think is one of the hardest things that you can seek to portray in any sort of genre or comedy. You see the irritations and you see the patterns repeat themselves. You see the things that annoyed each of them about each other when they first met actually come to haunt them. You see them separate, and then, you actually see a pattern that's actually one we've seen before. She suspects him of being, well, she finds him standoffish. She finds him arrogant, rigid and all the things that she didn't like when she first met him all come back. And all the good deeds he's doing are hidden away. He doesn't demonstrate any of them. Daniel Cleaver comes back on the scene. So you've basically got it very familiar.
you ready to do this again?
I didn't want to think of it as “again.” You see, I think it certainly wouldn't have been something I wanted to do if it felt like doing it again. The way we like to characterize this is that it is an adaptation of a novel, which was finished, done, dusted and an entity in its own right, I think already on the shelves by the time we made the first film. So, it did have a right to exist. It wasn't just conjured up to try to cash in on an earlier film. Having said that, yes, we were extremely cautious all of us I think. We didn't want it just to seem like an homage to something else. There are great dangers when the first film is very much loved. But we didn't want to mess with that really. And I don't think anyone recalls ever having said "Yes" to this job. It was something that, you know, there was a momentum that happened and it seemed inevitable. Not unlike getting your draft papers really.
you rehearse the fight scene with Hugh Grant? How did you get it to
look so realistic?
We didn't rehearse it very much. I'm ashamed to say the reason it looked real is because we were two normal fellows who don't know how to fight. My experience of violent confrontation dates back to the playground age, about six or seven years old. So that's what I drew from, and I think Hugh would say the same. If you get two very angry yuppies and then put them together, I think you will get a fight that looks much more like that than Jackie Chan.
you do a Bridget Jones 3?
In the abstract, it's unthinkable. I don't really plan in the long term about anything. I can't think where a sequel could go. I think this time one would have to think of it as a sequel, unless Helen wrote another book. The only which I could possibly imagine it being interesting is that if it showed us in a state of advanced decrepitude really – a heavily deteriorated Mark Darcy. I think we're on the way. And Daniel Cleaver and Bridget…really puncturing the fairy tale completely might be a way to take it. But I've been ready to move on to other things for quite a while now actually. I'll be quite content to live my life without another one.
you be willing to alter your physical appearance/weight like Renee
did for a role? Your reaction to her?
I didn't give it as much thought as many people do. The degree to which I'm asked questions about it and the sheer level of fascination on the subject is I think really a symptom of how this issue affects people, particularly women. The fact that women are in utter disbelief that anyone would consciously go the other way, to actually try to do that, is mind-blowing. And I think they look at Renee with the same kind of awe that people watch someone on a highwire or something. Are they going to fall? How could anyone jump across the Grand Canyon on a motorcycle? Put on weight on purpose? What's that like? Tell us about it. She did it. It's not that unusual for actors to alter their appearance to play a part. Put on a bit of weight, lose a bit of weight. I mean I have done that before, advertently and otherwise – not to perhaps quite that extent, but I think if I did it, it wouldn't get anywhere near the amount of attention.
I just hoped Renee was under the proper supervision, and I think she was. I think you are taking your health in your hands. I think it's a very courageous thing to do. But the reason why people are really interested isn't because of that. I just think it's absolutely fascinating to think that a woman would dare to do that on purpose, particularly someone who's very attractive and has a Hollywood-based career. It just seems almost reckless. So I think that's been admired and I think that, to be honest, Bridget doesn't have to be particularly overweight. I mean this is about women think they are whether they are or not. But on the other hand I think if she'd been, if she'd had the kind of leanness that only Hollywood actresses have, I think it would have been quite hard to accept her as representing that kind of neurosis. So it was important that she did it.
odd encounters with fans after doing the first Bridget Jones?
My life has been largely taken up with weird encounters.
They're not particularly anecdote-worthy. They're just people very
often who…they're polite usually. These don't take the form of
propositions or psychotic belief that you really are the character
that you're playing. They're people who obviously identify very
heavily with a female character and
we are devices seen through her eyes. It's quite interesting
to be in that position because very often it's not that way.
The sexual roles are reversed in cinema conventions. It's
much more often the male protagonist and the women the device. And
we are I suppose somewhat archetypal. In that way it's resulted in
the fact that we remain the archetype, we remain something that was
deliberately created in the eyes of a woman who wrote a book, gained
through the adaptation and through the eyes of a central character.
All of them are female, directed by a female.
the book, Bridget Jones actually interviews Colin Firth. Was this
scene considered for the film? Would you play a dual role like that?
No, it starts to get confusing. No, there was never any talk of Colin Firth appearing as a character. That wasn't contemplated for even a second. In fact, when the contract was being negotiated for Bridget Jones's Diary four years ago, I remember when they were discussing the option for the sequel, which was part of the contract, I think my agent said to whoever was at the other end of this, "If there is a sequel, who will play Colin Firth?" And there was a long pause at the other end of the phone, and the woman said, "We'll call you back." They called Kit about a half an hour later, saying, "There are currently no plans to feature a character named Colin Firth." There were discussions of creating a version of that interview using some other figure. It didn't have to be, it could be anybody really. Bridget Jones interviews someone, a celebrity. And they toyed with versions of it. It eventually went by the wayside.
was the experience of working on set with Renee?
She makes it terribly easy for everybody basically. If you're a leading actor, you are enormously responsible for the tone on a shoot in terms of the level of peace and happiness and harmony. And the leading actor can make literally all the difference. It doesn't matter what anyone else is like. If that person's a shit, then the whole thing's just a struggle. She was actually ridiculously generous. I've never seen anything like it. I've never seen punctuality like it. I've never seen devotion to off-camera performance, which is essential. To have someone who's that talented is obviously useful to us all. It reflects well on you. It makes you raise your game. But if that very, very talented person is not giving you very much once they're off camera, their use becomes limited. She gave as much off camera as…if she was crying in a scene on camera, she'd do it again off camera.
She would do it for the cutaway to Uncle Bob. She'd be there no matter what, no matter how jetlagged from her trips around the world. She's incredibly busy. This sounds like a gush, but it was so astonishing to all of us that we were gobsmacked by it really. She was even off camera, after three weeks of night shoots, about five o'clock in the morning when she could have gone home, for a shot of my feet. "My feet don't need you. This is fine." "No, no, no. I'll be here. It makes a difference. It makes it real." And so that's what we're talking about. It was good-natured, involved with everybody on the unit no matter what their role was. Film is a very hierarchical environment. The pecking order is very strong. People can profit from that. In all sorts of negative ways. She made it very egalitarian. It was wonderful.
you discuss what you and Kevin Bacon were doing?
This is a film, Where the Truth Lies. It's from a novel of
that name by Rupert Holmes. It's a little hard to pitch. It's set in
the U.S. and it goes from 1959 to 1974. It cuts between those two
eras. It's about an entertainment duo in the '50s. We're a
fictional, legendary entertainment duo and their peccadilloes and
their involvement with sex, drugs, the Mafia, and how it all gets
out of hand. Eventually, it leads to the death of a woman in a hotel
room. And it's never resolved. It's a big mystery, and then cut to
1974 where this investigative journalist on the case trying to find
out why the actors broke up and who killed this woman and were they
involved. That's basically the mystery of it.
how do you find Atom Egoyan, the director?
I find him absolutely fantastic. A lot of freedom. He has a
very, very strong idea of how much he wants. He doesn't over-cover
things. He knows exactly how he wants to shoot it. He doesn't
protect himself with endless coverage. He just knows how he wants
the scene to be revealed, depends on his actors and works with them
very specifically. There's no -- sometimes you have a slightly
adversarial relationship with your director. And that can be a good
thing. I mean, it can be a stimulating, slightly contentious
relationship. Adam doesn't work like that. He does it very gently.
You have enormous regard always for his intelligence. So there's
always a big listening relationship. He tends to work by watching
what you do, finding something that interests him, even if it's just
a speck of what you've shown him, and then expanding that.