In his role as Inspector Lestrade, Eddie Marsan is the first face we see in Guy Ritchie’s recent version of Sherlock Holmes. His penetrating look draws us in and keeps us on the edge of our seats to the final scene. Liz Smailes interviews character actor Eddie Marsan.

Eddie Marsan’s character Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard is a great foil to Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes, but you’re more than likely to have seen Marsan in any of the dozens of movies he’s appeared in over the past decade without even realizing it was him.

Marsan’s magnificent performance as Reg in Mike Leigh’s Vera Drake (2004) had critics claiming, “Imelda Staunton may be the headliner here, but Marsan is the buried treasure.” Since then, he has won over audiences in roles such as the bank robber in Will Smith’s Hancock and as a neurotic driving instructor in Leigh’s Happy-Go-Lucky. Audiences at the Toronto Film Festival last year enjoyed his performance as a kidnapper in The Disappearance of Alice Creed, which will be released in March this year, along with his performances in Heartless and Moby Dick.

Although he has played a lot of strange characters, both villains and supporting ones, Marsan has always been a character actor. Born and raised in London’s East End, his background proves fitting that he should also play the keeper of the city, Inspecter Lestrade, in Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes, but within minutes of speaking with Marsan, its very clear why he is a face the big screens will be showing much more of in ever-diversifying characters.

Off screen, modesty, more than acting is his natural role.

Liz Smailes: What inspired you to go into acting in the first place?

Eddie Marsan: Growing up in working class family in the East End of London, theatre and drama never really touched upon my childhood, however, I do remember being about five or six years old and sat on my father’s knee listening to him admire actors such as Gene Hackman and Rob Steiger. I guess that instilled in me a kind of awe and idolization for such figures, and I was always a bit of a show-off as a kid too [laughs].

But the real spark came by chance, when my dad and I were asked to be extras in a film being produced in London. It was called Empire State, and I’ve never actually seen it, but I watched the actors working and thought “I could do that,” so I took it from there. I left the printing industry, which I had just started out in, and since then I’ve always felt it was the right vocation for me.

LS: How did you train to become a character actor?

EM: I learnt my most valuable lessons from my Russian drama teacher who taught me the classical tradition of technique, appreciation, characterization, delivery, etc. Living in London and from a working class background, it was a bit of a frivolous move to leave the printing industry after just finishing my apprenticeship, but it was a motive where I knew even then that it was what I was meant to do, and be good at it.

After Drama school I spent almost seven years acting above every pub in London. When paid jobs eventually started to roll in, from the National and the Bush theatre, I thought: “I’ve cracked it now. I’m earning a living as an actor, and it’s never going to end!”

What I didn’t realize until a few years into the profession is that there is an ethical approach to being an actor – you don’t show off. It sounds weird, because you are in the spotlight, its all “lights, camera, action”…but no one ever tells you that. It’s an actor’s responsibility not to indulge in self-importance. Actor John Gielgud summarized it best when he said, “It’s about being the centre of attention without being the centre of attention.” It’s our job to create something or someone off the page, not to project our self into a role or overshadow that character in any way.

I always keep that in the forefront of my mind and I think actors have to be very careful. It’s a discipline, because as an actor, you have to be self-aware, you have to realize that certain qualities that you have are not conducive to period pieces, so you have to work to change them, and that can take days or years to perfect. Some actors don’t get that. You watch period pieces and there’s something strangely modern about them, it doesn’t work.

The character I played in Hancock, Happy-Go-Lucky and Sherlock Holmes are quite belligerent characters. I think being a character actor, no one employs me to be me, because I don’t really exist on film. You get a certain star who has a star quality, then you pay for that star quality. Somebody like me, they don’t pay for me to do that. They pay me to create the characters, not to be myself. Working as a character actor, invariably there will be diversity, because that’s how I earn a living and that’s what’s asked of me.

LS: What kind of research do you do for your roles?

EM: I use a lot of photographs and music. I find period music, music of the time and photographs. Whenever I start a film, I go to the make-up department and I go to the production design to ask for any of their source material. In Sherlock Holmes, for example, I got some great photographs of old police stations and people. Just people I have no affinity with and I begin to create relationships with them. From there I create a whole family and social network for my character, none of which appear on the screen in person, but they are there with the character in his mind – his wife, his children, his colleagues, who he likes, his mother – I create a whole world for him off screen so that to me, that character is very, very real.

Music is also an invaluable source for me, you don’t realize how much we live in the 21st Century until you have to step out of it, and period music has a certain tempo and rhythm that helps get you into the tempo and rhythm of the period really. So again, for Sherlock Holmes, I would often walk around on set listening to very patriotic Victorian music to help get me in the mood and character.

I am not someone who has to be in character all the while I am filming, the more experienced you become the easier it is to slip in and out of character, but I believe a vital part of that is to have a solid and intimate history and background built up for each character in your mind.

What is it like to work with directors such as Leigh, Ritchie, Scorcese etc?

EM: They all have different approaches and methods, but they expect the same standards, so each director’s way of working pushes and draws on strengths and weaknesses in different ways. With each experience I grow more in my profession, even working with the same director several times, as I have done with Mike Leigh. His approach is to pay actors for a year to do research and preparation before even setting foot on the set, during that time we are in dialogue with Leigh and it’s an amazing and fulfilling experience from start to finish.

Other directors work differently, I was once given a script 20 minutes before rolling the scene out. Basically, as a character actor I am no different to a mechanic – I am paid to do a job and am expected to turn up whatever the weather and conditions. That is what is expected of me and what I have to deliver to the highest standards possible so that all the pieces work together.

One thing they do have in common, they expect me to come to the table with something. That’s what producers and directors employ actors for, you come in, bring ideas and create something. No matter who the director is, my job is to disappear really, so no one goes to see an “Eddie Marsan movie”, they should be going to see the character I help to create.

What do you feel has been the pivotal moments in your career so far?

EM: That would have to be two things in the same year, 2004. Playing the role of Reg in Vera Drake with Mike Leigh, because not only did it establish my working relationship with him, and he is one of my favorite directors to work with, but it also established me as a character actor in the film industry at large rather than just with TV drama and theatre. Then also my role in 21 Grams, as that took my career to America and thereby introduced me to an even broader range of directors and producers, who then introduce you to their circle of friends and the ball really began to pick up speed then.

LS: What does it take to become a successful actor?

EM: This might sound silly or just blatantly obvious; it’s about learning to act and the ethics of acting, but that isn’t so easily done as it is said. I spent seven years as an unsuccessful actor in front of an audience of three people in a room above a pub. During that time I learnt the mistakes and how to deal with them or turn them around, but I learnt to act in anonymity, nobody knew me, so the mistakes didn’t publicly damage me or my self-confidence. I didn’t know it at the time, but in hindsight I am so grateful for that anonymity I had while gaining what I consider invaluable experience.

I really feel for some of the young stars who are seen as “the next big thing” and are put on a big screen at an early age, because the pressure is intense when you get in the public eye, and if you are still learning to find your feet in it all, I can’t imagine what that is like.

You need staying power, perseverance and to remain in control of your own career. When you have mastered those, opportunities are always presenting themselves, as are rejections and in this game we have to deal more with rejections than successes. No one sat in an office or in a marketing department can tell you how to handle that, it comes through experience and I really do believe that you are the cause of effect of your own career, not the agents or marketing guys. Malcom Gladwell wrote that you have to put in 10,000 hours to your profession before you can claim any expertise or success…I think I am at that point, or at least close to clocking up that figure.

LS: What did it feel like to be asked to play Lestrade?

EM: Oh it was just great! Fantastic, really. I think it’s the best part in the film, at least for me. I don’t have the charm and charisma that Robert does, that’s why he is Sherlock [laughs]. Lestrade is like an old-fashioned copper. Holmes will use deduction to work things out. Lestrade will pull them in, he’s an old Victorian policeman. If you’re rude to him, he’ll probably handcuff you for a couple hours to teach you a lesson.

I love Robert’s interpretation of Holmes. He brings to the character a genius quality that is almost akin to autism…and maybe audiences today can relate to that better than much earlier interpretations of this role, because we are more aware and educated about conditions such as autism. With Robert’s interpretation, Sherlock’s mind is constantly working, complete fanatic and genius, which Lestrade isn’t, so there’s kind of a feeling of inferiority on Lestrade’s part, but there’s a mutual respect between Lestrade and Holmes, although Holmes teases Lestrade all the time and infuriates him. Holmes sees things and put things together; Lestrade hasn’t got a clue. Quite often, he’s the man who turns up late. I love him!

Were you a Sherlock Holmes fan as a boy?

No, the books didn’t feature at all in my childhood and I don’t remember ever seeing anyone play Lestrade, so what I did was I read… there are some books on Lestrade, short stories that I read, and I read a couple of Sherlock Holmes books, and I decided to then look at the script as a point of reference and judge it in that way. I also read a lot of social and political essays as part of the preparation to get a solid feel for living in that time.

LS: What was your favorite part of the film to be in?

EM: There are so many great parts to his film and it’s a rollercoaster ride all the way, that’s definitely something I love about it; it keeps you on the edge of your seat right up to the end. Perhaps most appealing for me though, is the depiction of Victorian London, the detail that has gone into it and the effects that Ritchie brings out are amazing. There are some blockbuster films that are lazy in that way, and this certainly isn’t one of those. I think it’s worth going to see just for that, in fact.

How do you think the Asian audiences will receive Sherlock Holmes?

They will probably have an easier time becoming familiar with Robert’s interpretation of the character than some western audiences, as they might not have fixed ideas to some of the iconic references – such as the deerstalker and pipe. Those are aspects that the actors back then brought to the character themselves, Doyle never wrote that anywhere in his books as a description of Holmes.

In this interpretation, I think the character of Sherlock Holmes is on the cusp of the end of the 19th Century and the beginning of the 20th Century, so what you have is a 20th Century Man at the end of the 19th Century. That’s how I look at it, and when I look at Holmes, that’s what I see. When I look at Holmes in contrast to Lestrade, Lestrade is a man of the 19th Century and Holmes is a man of the 20th Century, and that’s the dynamics of the two characters. It’s very easy for us to work out what Lestrade thinks of Holmes. He thinks he’s Bohemian, he’s into Buddhism and martial arts, a bit posh and arrogant, but secretly Lestrade respects Holmes, he would just never tell him so. (Laughs).

What do you have in the pipeline at the moment and can we expect a Sherlock Holmes sequel?

EM: Honestly, the whole time we were filming there were never rumors or mentions of a sequel, though I can see why people might think that and it certainly lends itself for more…and that would be fantastic, but no, there is no discussion at all on that front for the moment.

I have, however, just confirmed a role in a thriller called Sleepyhead with David Morrisey and Ian Hart so that is something I am very excited about this year. There are a few other roles in the pipeline, which will see a first for me to work with some directors and actors. That’s almost always a rewarding experience in itself, so yes, I am really looking forward to what this year has in store for me.