Christoph Waltz talks 'Water for Elephants'

Christoph Waltz makes a charming villain -- his Oscar-winning Colonel Hans Landa of the SS in "Inglorious Basterds," his Russian mobster Bloodnofsky in "The Green Hornet," his upcoming Cardinal Richelieu in "The Three Musketeers," and his latest, circus owner August Rosenbluth in "Water for Elephants". You wouldn't expect an actor like him to be willingly typecast himself, so what's the method behind his madness? Waltz gives some insight on the steps he takes.

Q: Why do you take on what could be unlikeable characters so often?

A: It doesn't really come from a preference, of liking the character or disliking a character. That self-indulgent aspect of "I don't feel like it," "I love it," "I hate it." You go for the result. Otherwise, we would never give anybody a chance, if we act on our opinions. You might have a reason for being disagreeable in our first encounter, for a reason that has nothing to do with what concerns us. But if I take that as a reason to dislike you for the rest of our lives, it's unfortunate. So we go for the invested interest in finding out more. I try to wake up and invest my facilities to find out what it is and what's behind it. Otherwise, you have a cardboard with a printed picture. I turn it around and see what's on the side. It can be as flat as it chooses to be, and if you're not satisfied with flatness, then you're looking for the third dimension.

Q: So how do you do that?

You don't take bits and pieces and act by numbers and put into one prefabbed situation. It's based on actorly and authorly considerations. I go with what is in the script, because if I go with a novel, that's the author's work, not mine. It would have felt silly to not read the book this is based on, when it's the basis for everything, and it's inspiring to read everything, but the film is a translation into a different medium to make it dramatic.

Q: Do you need to know that world to play someone from another era?

A: Comics aren't in my world. Microsurgery is not in my world. But is that a deficit, or is that an advantage? When I do Shakespeare, I don't question the world that's created there. I'm not a cultural anthropologist, I'm an actor. I learn my lines and I show up on time. There's no mystery behind it, and I do what's necessary. What is necessary, that's the tricky question. I don't usually want to be as big as a ringmaster. I want to be small and precise. It's a big effort for me to be big. But it's a ringmaster's work to do that, so there I find my field of interest. That is the ringmaster's work, and that I could do. So I'm not really trying to be a ringmaster. I'm trying to be an actor.

Q: What was it like working with the animals?

A: All these animals are trained, as are we. And we always had that mediator between us, the trainer. Without that, we couldn't have done anything -- the lion would have taken care of that in a split second. We were dependent on the trainers, and so it was a fabulous cooperation going on. I wouldn't say I worked with an elephant, but that I worked next to one. And it's a good thing to keep a certain distance from the animals, and to befriend the trainer, and the animals did what they were told, and I did what I was told. I thought it was a good idea to do exactly what he told me to do and refrain from any other endeavors.