“When I began to take my first steps on stage, I did nothing but devote myself to the technical aspect of acting. Gassman said I was manic. And I thought: “from which pulpit the sermon comes”.
Like someone who plays a scale after another maybe even quickly but without putting into it the warmth of invention, “er core” as the jazz musicians in Rome say.
I lacked the humility of those who put themselves at the service of the public, of those who are able to look at themselves with the eyes of another without hiding behind pure technique.
I had to get naked and instead I insisted on excessive virtuosity that covered every exchange, broke all communication. I continued with that attitude until I made my big discovery, the closest thing to an epiphany I have ever experienced: “I am fucking unsympathetic”. Excessive technique made me unbearable. Today I notice it when I see some footage of that time.
Too many times, in the cinema world, I had heard myself say: “you are too good” which is different from “You are very good, outstanding”. It hides the fact that you are unpleasant. When you overdo it, you get the opposite result: you do not pop on. And getting out of that trap that you have set for yourself is not easy. You are confused and you ask yourself: “Should I do less?”. But for someone who wants to give the best of himself, doing less is very difficult. Even on television the “experts” said I didn’t pop on camera. Then when I did Marshal Rocca they were silent.”
While this has to do with teaching and research ? Both of them require possessing techniques (the standards, they would say a jazz musician) but you do not have to be possessed by the technique. The technique is a tool not the topic (unless your topic is the technique).