Adam Pearson (London, 1985) speaks from the other side of the zoom and surprises. He surprises because he surprises and surprises with the undeniable clarity with which he unmasks prejudices, strips away commonplaces, and corners foolishness. And all this is exposed with a disarming kindness.
His role in A Different Man, by Aaron Schimberg, after his appearance in that object, more than just a movie, of cult status that is 'Under the Skin' alongside Scarlett Johansson, has made him one of the most surprising actors of the moment. Afflicted with neurofibromatosis, the tortuous geography of his face suddenly seems like a statement of principles, perhaps a manifesto of a new and even better world.
Question. Your character in 'A different man' is, besides being a different man, also a different representation of disability that has nothing to do with what we usually see in movies. Would you say that this was the main motivation for getting involved in the project?
Answer. Definitely. I had already worked with director Aaron Schindberg on his previous film, 'Chained for life', which already offered a different perspective. As he says, cinema often portrays disability with three archetypes: as a victim, as a villain, or as a hero. Rarely is it a character who simply appears as anyone else in the hustle and bustle of life. The idea was to play with those archetypes and dismantle them, bring them to light. As a disabled actor myself, I truly felt different. And, truth be told, it also gave me the opportunity to expand my range of acting. No one had seen anything like what I do in the movie before.
Q. Whether you like it or not, after this film and your work in 'Under the skin' you have become a role model, a figure to follow, imitate, or at least listen to. How do you handle this new leading role in life?
A. Honestly, becoming a role model for anything is quite daunting to me. But it is true that I have accidentally become one. Which is a burden I carry with pleasure. The greatest compliment I can receive for my work is simply the word "Thank you." When we had the first screenings in New York, representatives from various charities were in the audience and they all approached us to say that for the first time they felt heard, represented... For me, that show of gratitude is very valuable.
Q. On the other hand, perhaps it is unfair to hold one person responsible for something that should be the responsibility of everyone, of society as a whole...
A. I don't want to be the judge of anything. But I am aware that as a man in my forties, I must lay down the stairs for the younger guys coming up behind me to climb and have a platform from which their own voice is heard. What I am clear about is that the more voices there are, it will inevitably be better for everyone, disabled or not.
Q. Does being famous make things easier?
A. It is a responsibility, no doubt. Let's say the first requirement is to be honest, with myself and with others. I try to handle it in the best possible way, making everything natural and smooth. It is a burden, but not an unpleasant one. I find it quite frustrating when I see famous people behaving like idiots and saying they wish to go back to their life before when no one knew them. It's ridiculous. If you are so clear about it, just go work in an office and you will go unnoticed. The only thing I do now that I didn't do before is shake a couple of hands, take a selfie with someone occasionally, and sign an autograph here and there. In general, people are nice. On the other hand, the idea of being famous or a celebrity is fascinating to me because, in truth, I am not doing anything extraordinary or out of the ordinary. I am just trying to do the best I can at what I do. The fact that people are drawn to that is a compliment in itself. Also, thanks to my new status, I find myself in rooms with people I have admired since I was a child. It's very strange.
Q. Is there anything of the outgoing Oswald from 'A different man' in the real Adam?
A. Some. Obviously, I don't dress like him. It's too much. But there are similarities. Both of us travel a lot, both of us like karaoke, and both of us are in the world to be ourselves. There are certain parallels, yes. But Oswald is, I dare say, excessively and unnecessarily indifferent to everyone.
Q. How much does it bother you to always have to answer the same questions? That is another attribute of fame.
A. I see it as a necessity. If answering the same questions over and over again can make a better and fairer world possible for people like me, then so be it. If a thousand interviews can make it possible for a child to grow up and have an easier path than mine, rest assured that I will not stop talking.
Q. The film highlights the fact of being different and does so in a world, this one right now, where diversity and its defense seem to be under threat. The term 'woke', originally a trait of civilization and defense of the vulnerable, is now an insult. What do you think of this twist of fate?
A. I find it striking that those who use 'woke' as an insult or derogatorily are unable to define or clarify why. When someone calls me 'woke', my reaction is always to ask, "What do you mean by that?" The response you get is either confusing or terrifying. If caring about social injustice makes you 'woke', what kind of person can not be 'woke'? If supporting the vulnerable or the weak makes you 'woke', then handcuff me and take me to jail because I am guilty. Then, over time, you discover that the term in question is used to end the possibility of dialogue, of conversation. Because if they have to converse, they realize that they are part of the problem and not the solution. I would like to reach a point where we could overcome this and it would not be necessary to define oneself forcibly as 'woke' or as racist. Because, of course, if you are not 'woke', then you are a racist. And I imagine that's not the case. There should be a middle ground where it would be possible to converse without resorting to insults. But all this from the standpoint that I have no interest in questioning what people think, but in changing how they think.
Q. In 'Under the skin', your character was observed and saved by an extraterrestrial. Do we need Martians for a fairer, more inclusive, better society?
A. We are all shaped by our environment. I believe we receive around 8,000 images a day, and those images program us to think, behave, and act in a certain way. We have to force ourselves to reach a point where we question our way of thinking. It's not enough to just think, but it's necessary to ask why we think what we think. And for that, perhaps it is necessary to spend much less time looking at our phones and more time looking at the real world. I think social media, and I don't mind it at all, has a lot to do with how we see, interact, and treat other people in the world. If we left our phones for a few hours a day and simply went out into the world and talked to real people, the world would be a better place.
Q. From your experience, what is the difference between empathy and charity?
A. They are very different. Empathy puts you in an honest position to try to understand another person's way of thinking. And charity is an absolute stance towards others. You can be very charitable towards wrong positions. History is full of examples. We need a world with more empathy and less charity. Again, it's about finding a middle ground and just living life and talking.
Q. Do you regret anything in your life? Do you harbor any resentment towards everything you have experienced?
A. Oh, regret! I try not to have it. I prefer to live with failures rather than regrets. That said, I wish I had been a better teenager: I spent my teenage years angry and rebellious against everything. And now that I'm 40, I look back and see how I behaved at 13, 14... Much of what I did was foolish. But overall, I am very happy with how things are going and how they have gone.