Actor Pavel Trubiner spoke in an interview with aif.ru about his enduring attraction to playing negative characters in films. He explained that these roles hold a special fascination because they offer a wider spectrum of emotions and behaviors to explore.
“Of course it’s more interesting to play a negative role; it has more aspects. And with negative characters, you can be more rowdy – in a good way. A negative hero can be good at some moments and bad at other moments,” Trubiner said. He emphasized that the complexity of such figures invites an actor to reveal contrasts that keep the audience engaged and guessing. The ability to flip from menace to vulnerability creates a dynamic tension that many performers crave in their craft.
The artist also believes that questions about which characters are easier to portray miss a crucial point. In his view, every character presents its own set of challenges. If an actor claims a particular role was effortless, Trubiner suspects either a reluctance to admit effort or a lack of genuine immersion in the part. He argues that true artistry requires a performer to invest something personal into each role, regardless of its length or visibility on screen.
“Humans have emotions; they cry, they laugh, and if an actor conveys these emotions correctly, if the tears are sincere and the laughter feels real, this demands a definite mental and psychological effort. Only through that effort will the audience believe what they see,” the artist explained. His words point to a discipline that goes beyond technique, touching on the inner life an actor must reveal to make a character believable and relatable.
Trubiner has built a reputation for approaching characters with a serious, almost methodical mindset. He believes that negative roles, when performed with intent and nuance, can reveal much about a story’s moral center and the human condition. The process involves careful study of a character’s history, triggers, and the social context that shapes their choices. By examining these elements, an actor can render a portrayal that feels living and precise rather than driven by theatrical bravado.
In conversations about film and acting, Trubiner often returns to the idea that acting is a form of honesty on screen. He sees his contribution as something that should resonate with viewers on a personal level, inviting them to re-evaluate what they might expect from a villain or a troubled antihero. This approach, he notes, requires patience, discipline, and a willingness to accept the uncomfortable truths a character may reveal about society and about people themselves.
While some performances may lean toward spectacle, Trubiner’s method aims for a balance between intensity and restraint. He favors characters who reveal their humanity gradually, allowing audiences to discover their flaws as the narrative unfolds. In his view, this measured pace often yields a more powerful and memorable impact than constant dramatic pressure.
Ultimately, Trubiner frames acting as a shared journey with the audience. He believes the screen becomes a space where viewers can witness moral ambiguity up close, question their own responses, and leave with something to think about long after the credits roll. That, he suggests, is the true measure of a compelling performance and a sign of an artist who treats each role as a chance to contribute honestly to the storytelling process.
When asked about future projects, Trubiner speaks with guarded optimism. He acknowledges the unpredictable nature of the industry while underscoring his commitment to roles that challenge him and invite audiences to engage more deeply with what they see on screen.