91热爆

Rupert Everett hit it big in 1997 when he appeared with Julia Roberts in My Best Friend's Wedding. Since then he's been the haughty posh bloke in an adaptations of Oscar Wilde's An Ideal Husband and The Importance Of Being Ernest, and the villainous Dr Claw in 1999's Inspector Gadget. Starring opposite Madonna in unconventional romancer The Next Best Thing turned out to be a very bad thing for his career, and the same applies to recent Kathy Bates rom-com Unconditional Love. However, as the voice of Prince Charming in Shrek 2, Everett is knocking 'em dead once again.

You started out as a classical actor, but comedy seems to have taken over...

Yes, I love being in comedy. The thing that's bewildering and frustrating is when I started off doing shadowy characters, I used to say, "I'd love to try and get into comedies." And people would say, "Oh no, Rupert. You're too serious." Then when you start doing comedies and you want to be in something serious - and because everyone has amnesia - people say, "Oh, but you're such a funny guy!" You can never win, but yes, I do like comedy. I was in a dramatic film last year [To Kill A King] and I didn't think I was any good in it, actually, so maybe the drama has been wrung out of me.

Were you surprised to be asked to play Prince Charming?

I always feel amazed every time I get a job anyway, but particularly this one because I... I don't know. I was just very surprised and extremely thrilled. It's an exciting journey because there's such an attention to detail, and they're such perfectionists. It's such a complete job that they do, and in a way it's kind of embarrassing because the people who do the voices get all the attention and we're only a tiny little part of it. It's been a great journey. You go in on those few mornings over nine months and you see this thing taking shape, and then you get to see it in the theatre and it's a faultless movie, I think.

How do you approach a character who is so overtly slimy - do you see him as a villain, or just very flawed?

Well they're not complicated psychological roles. I think he is a villain, but I didn't think further than a Terry-Thomas kind of voice - you know, some character who's all swagger but underneath it all is a bit weak, and vain, and wimpy.

Do you feel that you're only ever offered a certain type of role by Hollywood?

Yeah, I mean, you know, they're always English roles first, and second of all, they're always upper class roles. Yes, it's life. You always want more opportunity, I think, and I would love to have always had more of a range of things offered to me. But the thing is, the movie business is not necessarily - even though the making of a film is an imaginative thing - the business around it is not often imaginative, or risk-taking. So, you do tend to get cast as what you are. There're a million people to play every single role, so normally people get cast for what they're best at.

You say you get cast as what you are, so what--

What am I? I'm about to become a monster!

Do you share any characteristics with Charming - are you vain at all?

Yes. I mean, you become very self-aware after a few years in showbusiness. You are very aware of how much worse you look. I think vanity is quite often about wanting to look better, as much as feeling that you look really good. Being in front of the camera is a weird thing over the years.

You've said that you enjoyed working alone in the voice booth. Why is that?

Because you don't have to worry what everyone else is thinking about you - except for the director. The thing about Andrew [Adamson] is he's a very good actor himself. He mimics the parts brilliantly, and so you get a chance to really relax and try to do your lines as perfectly as possible, and change words - which you could never do if you were acting with someone. You can extemporise a bit without worrying what everyone else is thinking about what you're doing. It was fun, but very virtual - very weird.

In terms of the day-to-day reality, how does it compare to working on a live action film?

God, it's really relaxed. It's so relaxed. You go in there... anywhere you are in the world, it doesn't matter - you could be on holiday - and they'll hook you up to some studio and it's pretty easy. You really can do it anywhere. I did it from Paris, in London, and Toronto, LA, and so it's very quick and very energetic. They are a very different breed from normal movie people; they're a bit geekier, they all have long hair, and they sit around together making up the jokes, always huddled in dark studios.

How tightly scripted was it - can you improvise with something like that?

I think you can. The thing you have to remember if you're just an actor in an ordinary film is that the pictures talk much more. Everything is much more economical. Watching cartoon characters as an actor is great because they always take their time to make every gesture and it's slightly bigger than anything you'd ever do in acting, but it's actually more complete a lot of the time. So, in dialogue terms, it's quite economical, and you can ad lib - but from my point of view, generally, none of them made it to the big screen.

Have you been approached about the third instalment?

I think Jeffrey [Katzenberg] is still, more or less, deciding what's going to happen, but hopefully I am going to be in the third one. Fingers crossed.

Do you have any ideas about where you might take your character?

We've talked a little bit, but nothing is written in the stone. I'm just willing to go on the journey.