Rupert Fennessy is a London-born actor based in New York. He’s worked on a range of productions, with lead credits including feature film, ‘The Falconer’, Off-Broadway production, ‘Bard Overboard’, and short film, ‘The Promise’. Fennessy’s most recent role as Hamlet prompted him to reconsider the preconceptions he had formed around acting. ONLYCHILD was able to talk with Fennessy about his thoughts on acting as a creative art form, and its ability to not only shape the creative direction of production but to also influence and connect with an audience’s mode of thought.
AB: I thought we’d start with your most recent performance as ‘Hamlet’ at the Flea Theatre in TriBeCa. ‘Hamlet’ is a timeless production: What do you feel you’ve done differently in your own approach to the play?
RF: It was quite an experimental production so we did few things differently, all inspired by a script created at RADA [Royal Academy of Dramatic Art] that our director, Emma Tadmor, had worked on. The first was that it was more concentrated than conventional productions. ‘Hamlet’ is so mammoth that to get anyone to sacrifice their time to see it can be difficult, so we made it punchy and digestible. It’s tough because it's such an intricate play that even cutting a single line is a shame, but it’s also good because it forces us to get to the core of the play.
We also placed a strong emphasis on the psychology of the characters. Emma worked closely with a clinical psychologist who specialized in personality disorders, and explored the possibility that Hamlet suffered from multiple personality disorder. We began treating Hamlet's personality as being “split” into four, and as we spent time analysing the play from this perspective, it was remarkable how seamlessly it weaved into the script and the relationships.
AB: You say you’ve never performed Shakespeare before but have taken part in Shakespeare-inspired productions. Could you tell me a bit about ‘Bard Overboard’?
RF: That was a really funny one, it was kind of like a bastardised Hamlet I did at Soho Playhouse a few years ago. It’s based on a cruise ship with these resident actors. When they hear that there is a big Hollywood agent on board, they try to impress him by scrapping the usual show and doing a run of Hamlet instead. I played the manager of the cruise liner, this very strict, stern, awkward, laughable guy. There was some Hamlet in there, but whenever it appeared, it was almost always in a slapstick way.
AB: These productions were obviously drastically different approaches. What do you think is the main difference in terms of your approach?
RF: I mean the thing with “Bard”, purely in the fact that it was a comedy, was that choices were largely made on what we found funnier or what would land better for the audience. So its reception was at the forefront of our minds in that sense, whereas in “Hamlet”, apart from a couple of lighter scenes where there was humour, the driving force was really just the characters and wanting the play to feel true, as opposed to being liked.
But performance-wise, other than some heightened behaviour in “Bard”, they were surprisingly not too different. The characters and the worlds had to remain serious; they had to be believable, to the audience but also, and maybe even more importantly, to themselves. Because as soon as that bubble bursts and you see the actor laugh, for example, I find that it’s no longer funny. To me, it’s the tension that makes it.
Despite ‘Hamlet' and ‘Bard Overboard’ being almost opposites in their treatment of Shakespeare, it is interesting that comedy is a linking factor. Most of us come to Shakespeare from an academic perspective, in education. We tend to read his plays rather than see them performed, but the fact is that Shakespeare wrote not for academics, but for actors. Engaging with Hamlet as an actor allowed Fennessy to see Shakespeare in a new light. In studying the lines from this perspective, he was able to bring his newfound understanding of the play and transfer that to his audience.
AB: It sounds like you made ‘Hamlet’ more accessible.
RF: I mean, I hope we did. It's really tough. The language can be so dense but I had to keep up the pace and rhythm of the play. A lot of it is finding the balance between allowing the verse to lead me in the way that it does, but also giving myself time to feel and react and absorb what’s happening.
But I hope people were able to follow it. That’s really the ultimate test with Shakespeare. It’s a play, it’s meant to be viewed and understood. We had the privilege of rehearsing for three months, dissecting each line and seeing the depth in the wording and the characters and it’s great to understand it from that side, but the key is then conveying that understanding on stage.
"I hear someone say one line just a little bit differently and it clicks; it’s like hearing it for the first time."
AB: In the UK we all study Shakespeare from a young age. It becomes hard to get away from. How did you find performing to an American audience?
RF: It was brilliant. We had a lot of English actors in our cast and it seemed to fit in a way - probably because we’ve all been taught Shakespeare since primary school.
In terms of audience, it changes every night. Are they smarter? Are they getting more of the jokes? The time of day is also really weird. We had a couple of matinees and people were less ready to laugh at 1 pm. Whereas at 8 pm, I don’t know if they've had a drink beforehand but once the sun is down, they’re ready to be a bit more jolly.
For some of the cast members, it was their first time reading Shakespeare. It's nice to see that introduction. I started to understand why our English teachers were so excited to show us Shakespeare. There’s a moment when it clicks once I start to dissect each line. I started to go, ‘I think I get what this speech is about now, what this scene is about.’ And it made me happy to watch someone else have those realisations. I was having them all the time in certain bits of the play. Even down to the last performance, I hear someone say one line just a little bit differently and it clicks; it’s like hearing it for the first time.
AB: Even as an audience member you must also always be learning. When you go and see a show, do you take bits from what you see and implement them yourself?
RF: Always. There’s an endless amount to learn. I watched ‘The Motive and the Cue’ by Sam Mendes a few weeks ago and it was fun because it's about Hamlet itself. During the interval, I immediately picked up my phone to take notes.
It’s the dedication to learning, observing, and sharing with others that makes acting an art that speaks to so many people. We are all hooked by certain shows, films, and plays, but we are also drawn to the actors themselves. Part of this is about the effort they put in to truly research and understand their characters: for some people, the line between actor and character is a thin one. This human connection is a key part of acting and Fennessy uses the connections he makes with others to create a character. Each role is a conglomeration of people, making acting the ultimate art of both the study of a role and the observation of the people around us.
AB: You’ve said in a previous interview that you think we could get more done if we listened more, and delved a bit deeper into issues that we care about. How do you implement this view in your acting, and what kind of research do you prepare before playing your characters more generally?
RF: I like to draw from different aspects of people I know or see about. I find that works best for me, so it comes from observing how people behave. Noticing a particular mannerism from this person and a little bit from this person; Eventually, I build up this character which is a combination of maybe ten or so different people, even if they are just strangers I pass by. But there's always a part of me in every character. I think there has to be. We all share something with another person, there’s always some overlap, even if we wish there wasn’t.
The second part of research is script work – not just trying to think about what the character would say, think, and feel, but also what’s prompting them not to say what they're thinking and feeling. I find myself hesitant to intellectualise too much more than that though.
It’s really the actors that carry the emotional impact of a production. They carry a deep understanding of the production and their characters and are able to transfer that to an audience. They aren’t just filling a role - they inhabit it. As such, it is vital that actors contribute to the creative vision of the production team. ‘The Falconer’, Fennessy’s first feature film, is an example where the actors were able to shape their own roles in the production.
AB: You’ve also worked on films, including ‘The Falconer’, which was based on a true story. Could you tell me a bit about it?
I filmed ‘The Falconer’ in 2019 and got it by pure luck. It was an online casting that I submitted in August 2019, then by mid-September, I was out on set, shooting in Oman for a couple of months.
It was based on a friendship between two teenagers, Tarim and Khaled. The story follows their life and friendship in Yemen, where they steal a falcon and attempt to sell it on the black market.
It was a higher-budget production than I was used to. It was my first time doing screen work, on set, and in front of a camera. It was the other lead, Rami Zahar’s , first time as well, so we were learning as we went along. There was a lot of improvisation, finding locations last minute, and adapting the script. It felt like we were making it together, as opposed to just filling in the roles. It was a whole process that grew. The environment was perfect and the fact that it was my first job was so lucky. Everyone was so comfortable, it was really a dream.
AB: How did knowing that ‘The Falconer’ was based on real events impact your approach to it?
RF: I was quite nervous going into it. When my character is based on a real person as opposed to essentially just words on a page, I, of course, feel a sense of duty to that person.
The first morning at the hotel was actually a bit of a shock. I wasn’t expecting to meet him. It’s funny when I had pretty much built a whole person in my mind based on pictures and research, but then actually meeting them face to face. I saw everything that I had gotten wrong. But yeah, he had flown in from, I think, the west coast of the US, and was our animal wrangler on set.
Soon after that though, the directors sat both Rami and me down and told us that it was our story. That gave us the freedom to take these characters in our own direction. It was really special having the two guys there, getting to follow them around, and see the bond they had, but we definitely formed our own one too. We all became really close.
AB: Your most recent film, ‘Promise’, is also very character-driven. Could you tell us a bit about that?
RF: We filmed ‘Promise’ in March 2022. It premiered at Heartland’s Indy Shorts Festival last month. It's the first time people are seeing it, so it's really exciting and rewarding to see such positive reviews about it.
‘Promise’ is about an isolated guy with a dark secret that he reveals to his close friend. It was interesting because of the isolation he was feeling, whereas the ‘Falconer’ role was interesting because of the friendships that my character, Cai, had. They are opposites in a way.
Fennessy made an effort to get to know Tarim, the inspiration behind Cai, but, like in his portrayal of Chris, it’s in making the characters his own that Fennessy’s films have been able to grow. Even in the trailers for both ‘The Falconer’ and ‘Promise’, Fennessy’s characters shine through as thoughtful, deeply realised, and considered narrative elements. The beauty of film, as a medium, is that it allows characters to be explored in this level of detail. The story can really be led by character, as every detail of the actor’s performance can be captured by the camera, allowing for a closer, more intimate, connection to the viewer than in theatre.
I get to tell a story the whole way through; I can be entirely honest with how I feel, and complete the journey in a way.
AB: It seems to me that film, as a medium, allows characters to be explored in greater depth than in the theatre. Do you think there’s any truth in this? How do you portray your characters differently for these mediums?
RF: I’ve thought about this quite a lot recently. There’s the obvious physical differences in that some directors will tell you that the acting needs to be bigger, more dramatic, purely because of proximity. Someone sitting ten rows behind won’t be able to see if you’re acting like you might on film.
But I think the distinction is more subtle on an emotional level. I feel like film acting is very true to life in the sense that you don’t put your vulnerabilities on show. In real life, no one walks around showing their vulnerabilities and their emotions. I think a lot of us try to put a wall up, and that’s okay to do in film acting because the camera has a way of seeing through it, just as we do with our friends and relationships. When I’m close with someone, I can read how they’re feeling even if they’re barely showing it.
Whereas in theatre, I find, a lot of the time, I have to get rid of that wall. By doing that, I wear my heart on my sleeve more; what I feel is more raw and I’m allowed to show that. So in many ways, it’s a more honest form of acting. I’m showing how I feel, with no veil covering it, so I think that’s the difference to me, at least at the moment. Screen acting is more true to life, more realistic, but theatre acting is more honest.
Also, I find that makes theatre more cathartic. Instead of zooming in on one scene and focusing on one part of a story, often out of sequence, I get to tell a story the whole way through; I can be entirely honest with how I feel, and complete the journey in a way.
AB: I hadn’t thought of it like that! Does this come into your decision to return to your roots in theatre after having worked on films?
RF: It was mainly just the opportunity to have a stab at [Shakespeare]. Hamlet, in particular, is such a pull for any young actor, as both a play and a character. I used to think, ‘Why would I want to have a stab at that, it's been attempted 200,000 times’.
I also missed the theatre. It reignited a flame I had when I was younger; Especially the long rehearsal process beforehand, and seeing the play evolve day by day. It's nostalgic.
AB: I suppose, with Shakespeare, you connect to all the actors who’ve played these roles before. There’s also the physical connection between the actors and the audience in the theatre, which I imagine makes it a cathartic experience in itself. How does that compare to film, where the audience is not only invisible but potentially also global?
RF: It's different. There's communication when I’m on stage. Even when I go to watch plays, there’s a conversation happening. The conversation with film comes, if there is one at all, a year and a half later when it's ready to be seen at a festival. By that point, I’ve already moved on from the role. It's more immediate in theatre.
With theatre, I’m really just performing to people in one city or neighbourhood. People will respond completely differently. When doing ‘Hamlet’ a couple of months ago, some audiences laughed at different bits, or were completely quiet. With film, I don’t really get that chance. I guess my audience is my director. A one-person audience.
The paradox of film is that the actors perform to a single person, yet they must also appeal to a global audience. The bridge between actor and viewer is one that is refracted through the lens of the production process. It’s more detached, and becoming even more so through the dominance of online streaming, which allows a single film to be seen by millions all over the world. Finding that connection to so many diverse viewers is a skill. However, while this does bring challenges, it also means that film is more cross-cultural. ‘The Falconer’ was the first international film to be filmed entirely in Oman. Through the skillful portrayal of character and culture, actors are able to bridge the gap between cultures. Countries like Oman can be exposed to Western audiences who may know nothing about them, and Omani people are able to access much-needed representation. This accessibility doesn’t come from bland documentaries: it comes from the human connections portrayed by actors.
I think that’s the aim of theatre, when something so clearly make-believe starts to feel tangible and concrete. It’s a brief suspension from the real.
AB: Film is even further globalised by on-demand streaming. With big budgets from companies such as Netflix, it’s also increasingly versatile. How can theatre keep up?
RF: I think it's doing what it needs to do; it’s keeping fresh, it’s constantly pushing out new exciting texts, and re-imaginations of old texts. And for an audience member, theatre does offer something different.
I think it has something to do with the fact that it's impermanent, which is becoming increasingly rare. The fact that it's fleeting; the fact that you can’t just rewind and repeat is really special. When you go to a play you’re amongst other audience members and even the actors: the connection between actors and audience is mutual. Something happens in the air around everyone, but then it disappears. The curtain closes, the lights come up and it’s gone. You can go back and watch it the very next day but it won’t be the same – the audience will be different and the actors will behave differently, but that’s what makes it so special.
When I go to the theatre and I see actors going through something, it’s infinitely more tangible. I think that’s the aim of theatre, when something so clearly make-believe starts to feel tangible and concrete. It’s a brief suspension from the real.
It’s with anything that feels new, different, and even slightly jarring, you’ll want to see it. It’s when something stops evolving that it begins to get boring.
AB: Finally: we’ve discussed a lot the difference between film and theatre: what direction do you see your acting taking in the future?
RF: I’ll see where it takes me. Performing on stage definitely made me feel like that’s something I want to be a significant part of my career. A combination of stage and screen is how I’d love to approach my career if I get lucky enough to juggle both. But really, anything I can get my hands on.
Fennessy’s passion for his craft is easy to see, especially when it comes to theatre. His emphasis on observation, creative experimentation, and understanding of a role proves that acting is as creative as any other art. Fennessy creates human connections, in many forms, and fosters engagement in both new narratives such as ‘The Falconer’, and old texts like ‘Hamlet’. He’s an exciting new actor to watch: ‘Promise’ premiered in July this year, and there are doubtlessly more stellar performances to come.
Connect with Rupert Fennessy on: Instagram
.jpeg)
