Photo by nicogenin
Did you realise you probably know Johnny Depp’s films better than he does?
That’s if we can take this interview at face value, where he claims not to have seen his latest movie Public Enemies.
Incredulous, the interviewer asks him why not. Here’s Johnny’s answer:
I’ve always kind of tried to avoid them as much as possible… I just prefer the experience. I like the experience, I like the process, I like doing the work. But then, you know if I’ve got to see myself – I don’t like to see the thing become the product, I suppose. Once they say “You’re wrapped” on the film, it really is none of your business. The director is going to take that performance or whatever options you gave him and the editor, and they’re going to do with it what they want.
From the outside, this might sound hard to believe. After all, for anyone who has dreamt of being a film star, surely watching the end product of your labours, seeing yourself up there on the big screen, is central to the fantasy?
Not for Johnny.
According to him, the exciting part is doing the work, immersing himself in the character and putting everything into his performance. After that, the film is “none of his business” – it belongs to the director.
Johnny is interested in the process, not the product.
Those of us who are actively involved in creative work will know in our hearts what he’s talking about. The minute you take your eye off the ball, forget the work in front of you and start daydreaming about money, fame and other rewards, you’re risking mediocrity.
And as we saw in my e-book about motivation and creativity, there’s a lot of research evidence to back up Johnny’s position. Harvard Business School Professor Theresa Amabile has demonstrated through her research that intrinsic motivation is strongly linked to creative excellence:
People will be most creative when they feel motivated primarily the the interest, satisfaction, and challenge of the work itself – not by external pressures.
(Theresa Amabile, ‘How to Kill Creativity’, Harvard Business Review, September – October 1998)
Extrinsic motivations such as money, fame and critical acclaim constitute rewards for creative work. While it’s nice to enjoy these things after the fact, Amabile’s research shows that focusing on them too much is a creativity killer.
Does Johnny Take It Too Far?
Johnny’s solution to the problem of creative motivation is brutally simple – he focuses exclusively on intrinsic motivation, and does his best to ignore the external rewards. I’m sure he remembers to collect his pay cheque, but by avoiding watching the movie, he minimises his investment in his screen persona and the finished artefact.
Now, many people might say this is a bit extreme, and it wouldn’t do Johnny any harm to watch his films at the cinema, and have the DVDs on heavy rotation at home. But then many people haven’t achieved a fraction of what Johnny has, creatively. So it sounds like his approach works just fine for him.
You could also argue that Johnny is in the fortunate position of having someone else to worry about marketing and shipping the ‘product’. I’m sure there are plenty of people reading this who would love to be able to focus on their creative process all day long, and hand over the messy business of business to someone else.
But listening to Johnny’s interview, and watching mesmerising performances such as Joe Pistone in Donnie Brascoe and the debauched Earl of Rochester in The Libertine, it’s hard to escape the thought that his uncompromising attitude has been critical to his success.
While millions dream of being a famous actor, Johnny Depp concentrates on acting.
Is it a coincidence that he’s the one who made it?
What Do You Think?
What do you make of Johnny Depp’s claim that he avoids watching his own films?
When working on a creative project, do you find the potential rewards motivating or a distraction?
Do you think it’s a good idea for an artist to focus on the creative work, to the exclusion of everything else?
About the Author: Mark McGuinness is a poet and creative coach.
View Comments (47)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next »I must disagree. He is not saying that at all. A painter works alone. A film is made by a multitude of people.
Depp is controlling his acting - and that's as far as he can go. He is not trying to control the director for example.
Similarly in any project - if you advise on a comms strategy you don't try to fix the company's finances.
Just my 2 cents :-)
@ Sofia - I was responding to Emil's analogy. Like all analogies, it's not a perfect fit.
I totally get it. I have performed on professional stages throughout my life. Well meaning, good people take videos of the entire product (the whole show). Of more than 50 different productions, with literally thousands of performances I have never once sat down to see those videos.
Why? Because I did my thing, I got the payoff, if I was funny the audience laughed, if I was good the audience applauded. I didn’t need to go back later and relive the glory moments.
That always seemed so … so … so, arrogant. It felt like I was patting myself on the back - especially if I were to be viewing those videos with other people. “Hey, look at what I did, wasn’t I good?”
Understand that the reward of creation isn’t always the final product as a whole. An actor only does a piece of the whole creation – his characters scenes. They get their joy of creation from their part. They may enjoy watching other people’s creations, but you must understand that their part of the creation is only their part.
We’re talking about two different things here. One is the particular actor’s scenes and the other is the entire film, or the entire production.
I would finish my part of the performance and would go back stage and change costumes, read the paper, take a nap, etc., but I would rarely sit in the wings as an audience member and watch the other performers performances.
You see, one is the position of creator (actor) and the other is the position of spectator (audience member, art gallery patron, book reader) or in other words the one who enjoys the creator’s creation.
Johnny Depp enjoys creation more than he enjoys being an audience member of his own creations. What is so hard to understand about that?
Michelangelo painted many ceilings in many different buildings. If he derived more joy from being a patron of his own work he would have probably not painted ceilings in different buildings – he would have painted them in a building in which he had constant access to so he could experience the joy of being a constant patron of his own creations.
If every creator created to admire and derive the joy of the finished product I suspect that we’d not have many art galleries, museums, concerts, or films made for public consumption, so to speak; because the creators would horde their creations for their own selfish gratification.
That simply is not the case. Many artists’ paintings hang on walls that the artist never sees. Many performers never see their productions in their entirety. Many creators never see their completed creations as a whole.
They get their joy by creating. They get their payoff, in the doing. The joy is in the journey and not the destination. Sure they take great pride in creating amazing creations. But they are fulfilled in the doing, not the done.
There’s a lesson in this. I hope more people can learn it and become great creators. And, let’s not forget that we also need great patrons too. What a wonderfully codependent relationship! Each serves the other, and each receives their joy. I have been both, but rarely have I been both at the same time.
I wonder how many Bloggers go back and admire their archived posts? And if they do, do they give them the same satisfaction/joy that they felt in the original creation of those posts? I suspect not. Because most of the joy of creation is in the creating of the creation, and not in the creation itself.
Here’s another thing to think about: I paint watercolors and several of my paintings are on walls that I have never seen. That gives me great satisfaction to know that something I created is giving pleasure to others. I suspect without an audience/patrons I wouldn’t paint, or perform, or write as much as I do.
I suspect Johnny Depp wouldn’t make as many films as he does if he didn’t have an admiring audience. He is an audience of one. From his own words he doesn’t get much satisfaction in being an audience of one. He derives his pleasure from knowing his performance will be viewed by a huge audience.
So what I mean by that is sometimes creators also derive their joy from the knowing that their audience/patrons who partake of their creation will enjoy what they have created.
Those are my thoughts on the subject. Thanks for a great post.
And all this time I thought the secret to Johnny Depp's success was his hot hot looks.
I loved this article. I do agree that the process and enjoying the process is better than the end result. He does know what it takes to be a good actor!
@ Michael - Thanks, I like your distinction between creator and spectator. Maybe the director would be more likely to watch the whole performance/film, as s/he would have more of an investment in the whole thing than the actor with his solitary part?
@ CharleeMary - Well, I guess his looks haven't exactly been a hindrance. ;-)
I doubt he hasnt watched his own films what i think he means is that its not his point of interest.
Maybe we can allow him a little poetic licence. ;-)
I like everything Johnny Depp has been in.He is one of my favorite male actors.A lot of his movie characters are believeable,as in the way he portrays them.I can believe he is Captian Jack Sparrow,or Icabod Crane,or any of his other characters.So yea,I can believe that it's more important to him to put his energy into making the movie,than trying to see the end result.He is just one cool M.F.
I have also read somewhere that he stays in character the whole time,even when he's not being filmed in a scene.That he is the character until filming is completed.Maybe that's why he is such a good actor.He becomes the character
hees probably just self conscious. he is human you know