Monday, November 14, 2011

Henry Cavill - Interview, The Province




Luck is about to change for Cavill

A few near-miss high-profile roles didn't keep Brit down and now his star rises
November 13, 2011 The Province

Actor Henry Cavill lost a few roles to fellow Brit, Robert Pattinson, but his stock promises to soar this year with starring spots in Immortals and Man of Steel. Not that long ago the British film magazine Empire named British actor Henry Cavill "the unluckiest man in Hollywood."

Cavill, a native of the island of Jersey in the Channel Islands near France, was almost Cedric Diggory in the Harry Potter movies, but Robert Pattinson got the nod. He had been cast as the new Superman, only to lose the job to Brandon Routh when the project changed directors. He almost won the Edward Cullen part in Twilight (Pattinson, again) and had been in the running to be the new James Bond.

"The funny thing is, that the roles I almost had are the ones that kept me going," he says. "Because almost getting Bond or the previous Superman were a sign, to me, that I should keep on pluggin.' And I was right. It's turning into a great year."

Cavill, 28, begins his "great year" with Immortals, the 3-D sword and sorcery spectacle that opens Friday. The actor hitherto known as a supporting player on TV's The Tudors shed his shirt to play Theseus, the mythical warrior-founder of Athens, battling to save humanity when Titans (led by Mickey Rourke) take on Zeus and the Olympians of ancient Greece.

"When Tarsem [Singh, the director] and I first met, I did a screen test and he said, 'OK, let's take the shirt off. By the way, you know if you get this part, a six-pack won't be good enough. You're going to need an eight-pack.' I was far from having even a six-pack, then. But I took it as a challenge. 'No more excuses for not getting into shape. I am doing a job that requires me to be in this kind of shape, so . . . let's do it!'"

Cavill could let himself go, physically, for a role in the upcoming Bruce Willis movie The Cold Light of Day. Then Man of Steel, the next Superman incarnation, beckoned. Director Zack "300" Snyder put Cavill into the suit, and decided he could work with that.

"Back to the gym," Cavill says with a sigh. He wouldn't have to be in Greek demi-god shape to wear Superman's tights. But as the Tudors might have put it, he'd have to "show a little leg."

"The amount of back squats, the amount of time I spend hobbling around a set because my trainers beasted me with leg work is just uncountable," Cavill says with a laugh. "I may be a crippled Superman, but at least I'll have great-looking legs."

Cavill has long professed a love of all things historical. So Immortals would be a fine place to practice his swordplay.

"There's a similar message in all the stories of Western mythology: The hero rising from nothing to greatness, against all odds," Cavill says. "These are idealized characters who triumph over repressive regimes, tyrants. Modern myths work the same way as the ancient ones. The setting changes, the story doesn't."

What would Theseus have to say about the threats - debt and corruption - facing modern Greece?

Cavill laughs. Theseus, he notes, "was a reluctant hero, one of those guys who ignored the problems of the world around him until the world took his mother from him. If he were to be alive today and see what's happening in Greece, he probably wouldn't give a fig."

But Cavill does. He's finally at that point where doors open and auditions for roles may be a thing of the past. He doesn't plan to make every character "larger than life," pursuing more human-sized roles. But he has a dream part in mind, should anybody bother to ask.

"I've always had a soft spot for Alexander the Great," he says. "It'll be years before anybody tries that again (Oliver Stone's flop Alexander came out in 2004). But I'll keep my legs in shape for when they do!"

4 comments:

Laissez Faire said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Laissez Faire said...

I didn't back then realize Oliver Stone's Alexander was a flop, but googled it now and indeed it was, in the US. What a pity! I think it was the best of all historic films since then (Troy, 300, Clash of the Titans etc.) and many of the preceding. Here in Greece it was a hit, no doubt. It was amazingly produced and directed, with a great casting, and as much historically accurate as it can get.

I like what Henry Cavill says about Theseus not giving a fig for Greece's political problems today. Indeed he wouldn't. Theseus (and I suspect HC as well) is not a man of "collective action for the common good" but more of a loner, fighting for personal interests only. Good for him (and HC too, if he truly is like that).

Karen V. Wasylowski said...

It is amazing to me that so many movies I love are not considered big hits. Everyone sees something different and I love historicals, no matter what the era. Great comment, thank you.

Laissez Faire said...

Thank you for your kind words, Karen!
My name is Aggeliki Koutsoukou, it appears in greek because of some connection with my google account, whatever...
I love historicals too, very much so. Speaking of that, and me being greek, I'd like to add some thoughts on Immortals' script; not in relevance to this post, but because I think that script is really good and I despise all the negative web buzz about it.
Parlapanedes' story is not following the actual greek myths. They invented a fictional story with references to the greek myths, which is cool if you just bear in mind and don't expect any "historical" accuracy. It gets even cooler when you realize that they did it ingeniously, creating a new myth in the exact manner and essence that ancient greeks would have done. Actual greek myths are incoherent, fragmental, absurd, cruel and unhuman (and so, SO fabulous). So is this new Tarsem/Parlapanedes' myth. Both ancient greek and Immortals' hero myths are about men who do nothing else but act. They act on their own personal and very clear motives —not necessarily virtuous, even pathetic in our modern eyes— , without many words, nor expression of feelings, nor sensitivity. Greek heroes are stiff and dry and so is Tarsem’s. They are not romantic heroes, they are humourless and romanceless, even emotionless.
Tarsem is a master in story-telling (The Fall) and made no discounts on Immortals (I wonder how haters can even imagine that). His film is only about heroism, true-manly-man heroism, and the hero's apotheosis through his deeds, which is the only thing that counts. Story details, dialogues and expressive acting are irrelevant (not that I didn’t like the acting; I did; I think it was great, because it was as good as it could be, and exactly as it should be in this movie, by all the actors).

I’m sorry for the length of this comment, and thanks for reading :)