Hammer spoke with Movieline recently about playing both Winklevoss twins, how his perspective of Zuckerberg has changed since the film's original hype, and why he's fine with you never getting a closer look at his big break playing the world's foremost evangelical preacher.
We're about two months into the post-Social Network era. How has your perception of the film and the characters -- particularly your own -- evolved as weeks elapse and the conversation continues?
It's been really interesting. It's funny, because during the filming process we had to understand and sympathize and empathize with our characters -- and not only not judge our characters, but love and understand the place they're coming from. And that was all our responsibilities. We were all very confident that our characters were wronged in some way by the other characters in the movie. And now that I've seen the project and I'm a little bit distanced from it and I've seen everybody else's unbelievably human and nuanced performances, it makes me question the validity of the Winklevosses' case -- now that I see where Mark Zuckerberg is coming from as Jesse brings him to the screen, not necessarily on paper. Also, where Andrew Garfield is coming from. It's hard to remain singly focused on the fact that we were wronged. It's really interesting watching the other actors' performances. It puts it all in perspective for you.
That's interesting; I never would have characterized David Fincher as a touchy-feely, let's-get-in-touch-with-ourselves kind of filmmaker. Was he? And if so, how does he aid the process?
This is Fincher's attitude, as I understand it: He hires somebody because he truly believes they are the best person for the job. Whether it's the dolly grip, whether it's the camera operator, whether it's the sound engineer, whether it's the actors... He hires us because he thinks we can do the job better than anyone else. So now that he's hired the best person for that specific job, he doesn't want to have to worry about it any more. He doesn't want to sit there with you going, "Oh, my character..." or "David, let's figure this out." He wants you to show up on set having figured all of that out. And then, when you show up on set ready to work, that's when he looks at you and goes, "OK, let's do some work." If he has to then sit there and go through your rehearsal process with you, that's time that you're missing to work with -- in my opinion -- one of the greatest living directors. It's time you're squandering because you didn't show up prepared.
So we all showed up ready: We showed up with our characterizations done. We showed up as our characters. And because he didn't want to mess with all that, it allowed us to do a lot of work with him toward getting that final product. It was really nice -- one of the best experiences I've ever had working with a director. He's so confident, and he's such a good leader, that everyone on set just watches him and goes, "What do you want me to do? OK! I'll do that." If David Fincher says to you, "We need one more take," you're not going to sit there and go, "Actually, David, I feel like we really got it on that one..." You're going to say, "OK, whatever you say, boss! We'll do one more if you think we need it."
But when you get to that point with such a meticulous craftsman as Fincher -- especially playing digitally realized twins -- do you get to feeling less an actor and more of an object?
When I had to go back and do the facial replacement stuff, definitely. It was so technical: "Your eyes have be right here at this moment, and you're your words have to be right there at that moment. On these beats on your earwig, you have to get this line out, and you have to be cut off at this point..." So that aspect of it was infinitely more technical than artistic. But in terms of being on set, Fincher is so great with actors. He's a very tough director, and he gets exactly what he wants. But at the same time, he lets the actors experiment and lets us discover things on our own. He'll shoot 20 takes without even giving direction: "Cut. Do it again. Cut. Do it again. Cut. Do it again." He'll do that 20 times just to see where that takes us. It was very much an artistic process on set. But the effects, that was definitely technical.
I asked Sam Rockwell once about the process of acting opposite oneself, as he did in Moon. He admitted it was a bit crazymaking. Psychologically, how was it for you?
Well, Fincher protected me. He did a smart thing by making sure we shot all of Cameron before we would switch to Tyler. Obviously there were times late at night where we just had to get shots done, and we'd be switching back and forth. But for the most part I was allowed to play Cameron to his entirety, and then switch characters and then assume the role of Tyler. I mean, Sam was incredible in Moon, but that was a lot more distressing sort of thing. I guess it was kind of schizophrenic at times. I'd finish Cameron, we'd switch seats and I'd sit where Tyler was. Then everybody would leave the set and they'd completely lock everything down. They'd put a piece of tape on the wall and say, "There's your brother," and then put a tennis ball on a C-stand somewhere else and go, "There's [former Harvard president and Winklevoss foil] Larry Summers." Then I'd have this earwig in my ear playing audio of myself playing Cameron, and that would sync up perfectly to the other takes. The camera would be on an automated system so there wouldn't even be a focus puller or anybody. I was alone by myself on set; no one would say, "Action," and no one would say, "Cut." I'd basically be sitting in complete silence.
Actually, beforehand I'd say to the sound engineer, "Can you run that take by me one more time?" And then I'm thinking, "OK, well, in between these two lines I have two beats, so I have to get that line out quickly, but between those two lines I have four beats, so I can kind of lollygag through that. And then he cuts me off on my line, but I cut him off on his line..." I'd have to figure out the timing of all this before we started shooting the scene. So I'm just sitting there in dead silence, and then I'd turn and say, "What are you talking about?" It was a really weird technical process, but Fincher's such a leader he was able to get us through it. The first couple days were weird. They were definitely tough. It took some getting used to, like any new process. But that's the fun of being an actor: not necessarily conforming to this new process, but figuring out how it works with you.
What compelled you to want to act in the first place?
The movie Home Alone.
Seriously?
No joke. I was 12 years old, and I saw the movie Home Alone. I went to bed that night, and I had a dream that I was Macaulay Culkin in the house. When I woke up the next morning, I didn't have the feeling like, "Oh, what a fun dream! I was the kid in Home Alone!" I woke up with this overwhelming feeling of, "I'm supposed to be an actor." I sat down with my parents at breakfast the next morning, and I said, "I think I want to be an actor." My mom started laughing at me; we were living in the Cayman Islands at the time, and she said, "What do you want to do? Island community theater? I have a feeling that's not really what you're thinking about." I was like, "I don't even know what that joke means. All I know is I want to be an actor."
I never quite shook it. When we moved to L.A. a few years later, I told my mom I wanted to pursue acting. She took me to one audition, and I loved it. She told me she wouldn't drive me around to auditions or be a stage mom or rob me of my childhood. She said, "When you become an adult and you still want to act, you can do it then." So I became an adult, I still wanted to act, and here I am.
Many people tend to overlook that you earned recognition a couple years ago playing a young Billy Graham. Hollywood's often accused of marginalizing people of faith; do you think that film and your role deserved a wider audience?
No, because I don't think the movie turned out that great, to be honest. I think what [director] Robby Benson and I were trying to do... I probably shouldn't say this on the record, but every day we'd pretty much throw away the script they'd written because it was one of those blatantly obvious pictures of faith as opposed to a beautiful story about a man who came out of obscurity -- who was told his entire life he'd never amount to anything, and all he wanted to do was become a professional baseball player -- and how that man later became essentially the father of modern-day Christendom. I mean, it's really a fascinating, crazy story. And Billy Graham didn't want it. Every step of the way, he was aiming for something else, but he just kind of fell into it. The story itself, to me, was great, and it deserved to be told. It just got turned into a cheesy Christian movie, is the problem. I can't blame it for having a small audience; it had the audience the producers were aiming for, regardless of how much Robby and I wanted to widen the audience.
Do you consider yourself a person of faith? Is that distinction a legitimate problem in Hollywood?
No. I mean, I am definitely a person of faith. I am a spiritual person, for sure. I enjoy that, for me, this physical world isn't everything. I'm convinced there's more out there, and I love that idea. But you know, it doesn't conflict with me at all. At the same time, I'm just a dude. I'm not perfect. I'm not the pope. I don't feel like I have to live a perfect life; I don't feel necessarily that any religion requires you to do so, either. I think just because I'm a person of faith -- or because anybody's a person of faith -- you still have to do what you love. You still have to do what you're passionate about. That's what Winston Churchill said, right? If you find a job you love, then you never have to work another day in your life. So I don't think Hollywood and faith are mutually exclusive in any way.
That's refreshing. Most folks in the industry aren't comfortable addressing faith unless they're satirizing it.
Which I think is fine, too! Satire is a great form of communication, and if the only one you can find... I mean, movies like Religulous are fantastic. I may not agree with everything Bill Maher says, but he still took that chance and made that movie. Good for him.
Having played real-life -- and still living -- people twice now, what's your sense of responsibility to them? How much do you want to know about them? How much do you not want to know?
Obviously with Billy Graham I had more of that responsibility -- not just because I wanted to know what people knew about him, but also because I knew that by playing Billy Graham, I was playing a dude who, realistically, a billion people on this planet have heard or seen. They know how he walks, they know how he talks -- they know his cadence. So I had to be truer to that for that project, whereas for Social Network, the Winklevoss twins do have an Internet presence -- you can find pictures of them rowing boats and stuff. But it's 2010; I could probably find a picture of you rowing a boat. They don't have the digital footprint that a Billy Graham or even a Mark Zuckerberg has. No one know who these twins are. No one know how they walk, no one know how they talk. So I have a little more freedom to bring to life the characters Aaron Sorkin wrote rather than being fettered to the real guys and feeling like I need to do a bad impersonation of them.
How are you handing your own profile growing? Have you found yourself warier of press or media exposure in general since this process started?
I'd say I'm more comfortable. It's like anything else: The more time you have to practice, and the more time doing something, the easier it gets. When I first started the press tour for Social Network -- I mean, I'd done a little press before -- that was really my first dive into the world of publicity and movies. I ended up spending a month with Aaron Sorkin and Jesse Eisenberg flying around the country, speaking at screenings, doing Q&A's and stuff. At first I was a little uncomfortable. You know how it is on the press tour: You get those canned answers you can throw out, you get comfortable, it just becomes fun. You stop taking it so seriously, and it becomes an interesting aspect of our jobs. It's an unavoidable but unique part of the thing we do as actors.
What is next for you?
Matt Carnahan and I are putting together a project called Serpent Girl that he wrote and will be directing. It's this beautiful, fun, little dark crazy comedy that takes place in the world of circuses. It's just something fun that we're trying to put together now, so I'm just excited to move forward with that.
And let's not forget Oscar season. You've got your tuxedo ready, right?
I do! And I'll be riding David Fincher's coattails all the way there.
[Photos: Getty Images]