A Quote by Jessica Rothe

I would love to play a sociopath or, like, an unreliable narrator. — © Jessica Rothe
I would love to play a sociopath or, like, an unreliable narrator.
I think every narrator is an unreliable narrator. In its classic definition - an unreliable narrator is one who reveals something they don't know themselves to be revealing. We all do that.
I very much like the idea of the unreliable narrator. Shaping my fictions as monologues - by introducing the "I" - allows me to be as unreliable as I like.
I know I love a novel with an unreliable narrator, and I think many readers do as well.
The unreliable narrator is an odd concept. The way I see it, we're all unreliable narrators of our lives who usually have absolute trust in our self-told stories. Any truth is, after all, just a matter of perspective.
If someone tells you that George Bush is not the 43rd president of the United States, they might be engaged in wishful thinking, or denial, but if they make that claim, it's either true or false! And you can assess that, regardless of whether there's an omniscient narrator, or an unreliable narrator, or it's shot in vérité, or it's manipulated, it's agitprop, whatever! It makes no difference! It's a style!
There's something uniquely exhilarating about puzzling together the truth at the hands of an unreliable narrator.
I think every first-person narrator in a novel should be compromised. I prefer that word to unreliable.
I think every first-person narrator in a novel should be compromised. I prefer that word to 'unreliable.'
So much about Trump is... mysterious and slippery. Everything in his business record, you had to ask him for the details. He made himself the only source. He would either not tell you, or he was often an unreliable narrator about his own life.
I would love to play a fun character. Like, I would love to be in 'A Long Day's Journey Into Night.' I love that play. I'd play Edmond or Jamie. I don't care which.
Being sociopath is not what most people would consider to be winning. Most of us have some kind of positive goal in mind when we think of winning. A sociopath thinks in terms of successfully manipulating someone into doing something that he or she would not have done otherwise. That can be a small thing or a tremendous thing, but the point for the sociopath is to win, to make sure that this person does what they're trying to coerce him or her into doing. It can be as disgusting and as simple as making a child cry. Or it can be as complex as making your wife feel bad about herself.
When someone walks in and you say "a six-foot-tall man," you miss the opportunity to describe what a six-foot-tall man would look like to your narrator, because how the narrator describes a six-foot-tall man says more about the narrator than about the man.
Sociopath is a word that has sort of become shorthand for psychopath and there's a distinct difference, it's interesting if you look it up. Sociopath if you look at the medical definition, the profile of a sociopath is that they are supremely intelligent people that are also pathological liars, they have no moral structure and there is one more, they have no compassion or empathy for other people.
'Pi' was one of my favorite films growing up because I thought it employed paranoia and voice-over, and also because it used this unreliable narrator in a very fascinating way.
'Friends With Benefits': it feels like a two-hander to me, but it is a big movie, and this is the first straightforward male I've been able to play. I would describe my character in 'The Social Network' as a kind of sociopath. I would describe my character in 'Bad Teacher' as... just a weirdo. But this is a male's male.
How do you prevent a little sociopath from becoming a big, full-blown sociopath? Sit on him.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!