Interview with Christian Friedel

P.B.: Your acting is so natural even though the text is complicated. It exceeds the normal performance of an actor. How complicated is it to speak Kleist – not to act Kleist?

Christian Friedel: It’s actually a great pleasure to speak Kleist. If you are coming from the theatre, for example, then you are already somewhat used to and you have already dealt with the language. And I already had acted in four Kleist plays in the theatre, thus it was a great pleasure for me to speak Kleist. The difficulty is in the intricate sentences, – to not lose the arc of the narrative in the language, in the gesture – that was the greatest challenge. But if you got it out once and you wanted to continue, then it is – I can’t say “easy” – but “easier”.

P.B.: You learned your dialogue by heart and at the same time you gave the body language an impressive naturalness. In the theatre sometimes the acting already feels theatrical – and a nice aspect of AMOUR FOU is that this theatricality does not exist.

C.F.: It was interesting for me in the preparation that – unlike other films that I had worked on up until then – it was important to know the dialogue insideout. You learn almost the complete script in the effort to make the character seem natural, despite the reduction in gestures and this somewhat artificial language. That is why it was important to really know the dialogue well. And then on the set, you try to speak the dialogue yourself, so to speak. I also recited it out loud at home in order to let it set in.

P.B.: That means that you lived as Kleist at home.

C.F.: At home I read the script out loud, the dialogue, and then as I learned it, I always recited it again in front of myself. I then checked whether I could believe myself or not, and whether it was understandable.

P.B.: And what is the difference between playing Kleist in the theatre and with [director] Jessica Hausner?

C.F.: In the theatre you have six to eight weeks of rehearsal during which you can get used to the language. It is ultimately a very different construct. With Jessica the main task was to make the characters seem as natural as possible despite their somewhat artificial language – as uncomplicated as possible, and as believable as possible. And Jessica is a director who pays very precise and exact attention – sometimes so exact that you have to be careful not to become wooden trying to do everything   properly. For her it was above all a matter of the language being an important gesture for the characters, that the communication and the conversation are sometimes more important than the physicality. That is one difference with respect to theatre, that when you’re on stage, you often have to act larger with your body, and here and with Jessica it was important to reduce such movements. I found that incredibly exciting, as well as Kleist’s biography, which you have to use in order to honourably play Kleist. That was a real challenge in front of the camera to recite the script with a director who pays such exact attention.

P.B.: You read about Kleist before shooting?

C.F.: Yes. With the plays or theatre productions you also always come into contact with Kleist’s biography, but for the film I read a few books. In the beginning I had the sensation and the ambition as an actor to incorporate the facts from the biography into the character, and then I quickly realized that Jessica had her very own vision of “her” Kleist and “her” Henriette, and that all these efforts, for example showing Kleist as a stutterer, had no importance for the film. Rather, what is important is following Jessica’s own version and vision. And then I put the books down and thought, okay, then let me engage myself completely and set my aspirations aside to bring a possibly believable Kleist biography before the camera.

P.B.: What was surprising to you when you first read about Kleist? And what surprised you about Jessica’s vision for Kleist?

C.F.: There is an essay by Kleist that’s called “About the Gradual Formulation of Thought While Talking”. And this essay describes that, by beginning to speak with a human being, you formulate your thoughts into sentences. This paper is, I believe, important material for every actor in order to speak Kleist. And in addition to his plays, his novellas are especially exciting. In “Earthquake in Chile”, Kleist packs five to six situational encounters into one single sentence. Other poets would need ages for that. I would recommend that everyone read it or analyze it. What surprised me with Jessica’s version… Jessica once said, “we learned a lot from Kleist’s correspondence, how it could have been. But in fact, we don’t know anything precise about him”. She sees this man longing for death, but also as someone selfish and stubborn, whose feelings are hurt if a partner cannot be found to die with him – this perspective in this radical form surprised me, and I found that very interesting about the project. Also that Kleist in the film is very eloquent and not a stutterer, as it is indeed believed that he was, and who is able to persuade people with his linguistic virtuosity.

P.B.: What is the particularity of Jessica’s directing?

C.F.: Jessica reminds me strongly of Michael Haneke in her work. Because she is insanely precise with the actors and pays strict attention. She doesn’t let herself get distracted by appearances, but rather she watches and listens very carefully to see whether something rings true, and she doesn’t let go until she gets a phrase or a situation to be the most authentic to her. She is also very detailoriented with the composition, which bouquet goes here, which dog looks where, and she actually basically paints pictures. In conjunction with her linguistic precision that characterizes her work. She doesn’t leave holes, and she repeats until she has the feeling that it’s really correct.

P.B.: There is a very interesting, ironic humour in the film. Part of the humour stems of course from Kleist’s social incompetence.

C.F.: Yes, what I really enjoyed is that the film has a very fine sense of humour and a certain lightness, even though it’s about death or about the construct that true, pure, strong love can only be maintained with a common death. And despite this dark theme, the film has an unbelievable lightness – and that was also very important to Jessica.