In March 2022, I took part in In the Name of Clericalism, a short film shot mainly in Montreal, in English and Italian, directed by Joshua Oliver for Red Jay. I played Father Virginio Rotondi, a Jesuit who moved within Vatican circles.
When a role is also part of an artivist project
The project revisited the Roberto Calvi affair. Calvi, the Italian banker nicknamed “God’s Banker,” died in London in June 1982, and his death remains linked in the public imagination to a complicated network involving Banco Ambrosiano, the Vatican Bank, the Propaganda Due Masonic lodge and organized crime.
In the Name of Clericalism was not interested in treating the story as a simple historical mystery. The film openly positioned itself as an artistic and activist work questioning institutional power, opacity and a lack of accountability.
From my first conversation with Joshua, the nature of the project was clear. I knew I was not joining a piece of fiction designed only to entertain. The film was intended to become one part of a larger action and to carry a deliberate message.
That was precisely what made the experience interesting.
The project belonged to what is often called artivism, a blend of “art” and “activism.” In that kind of practice, artistic creation does not simply depict a social or political issue; the work itself becomes a means of intervention, protest and public awareness.
A film that was meant to leave the screen
On June 18, 2022, forty years after Roberto Calvi’s death, Joshua carried the project into public space with an artivist installation on Blackfriars Bridge in London. A mannequin representing Calvi was suspended from the bridge while fake Vatican Bank cheques were scattered at the site. The location was obviously not chosen at random. Calvi’s body had been found beneath that same bridge in 1982.
Our Montreal shoot was therefore not an isolated film destined simply to appear on a platform or circulate through a few festivals. It was one piece of a public action intended to provoke a response, reactivate a memory and raise questions around events that still carry unresolved areas of uncertainty.
The film, the mannequin, the location and the anniversary date formed a single work. That is where artivism differs from a more conventional socially engaged film. The work does not remain confined to the screen. It enters public space and becomes an action in itself. Our costumes, gestures, faces and voices became instruments in an argument that would travel far beyond the set. That necessarily changes what it means for an actor to participate.
Playing a role is not always the same as signing your name to it
An actor can play a criminal without approving of the crime, a politician without sharing the politician’s beliefs, or a hateful character without defending that character’s worldview. That distinction is fundamental. Part of our job is precisely to enter realities that are not necessarily our own. Playing a character does not automatically mean endorsing them.
When fiction is part of an activist project, however, the line becomes more subtle. The character remains a character, but the work itself is directly advocating an idea. Our presence helps give that idea form, credibility and emotional force. Our face is no longer serving only the story. It becomes part of the argument.
I do not think that should prevent us from accepting projects of this kind. Quite the opposite. Art has always been a way to question institutions, disturb what seemed fixed and force certain conversations into the open. An engaged work can be exciting to perform precisely because it is not trying to be harmless. But we need to understand what we are stepping into.
Working in another language
Performing in Italian added another kind of responsibility. I already knew some Italian and had studied and practised it for a little over a year. I was therefore not approaching the dialogue as a series of sounds to reproduce. That foundation helped me understand the structure of the sentences, their intentions and some of their nuances, even though the work obviously still required a great deal of preparation.
When we work in a language we know less well than our mother tongue, it can be tempting to focus mostly on pronunciation, rhythm and phonetic memorization. But words do not become more neutral simply because they are less familiar to us. We still have to understand what we are saying, why the character is saying it and how those words fit into the broader purpose of the work. A sentence learned only as sound can still travel, be subtitled, be pulled out of context and be heard by thousands of people.
In an artivist project, that responsibility becomes even more important. The words are not serving only the scene; they become part of the public message to which our voice will be attached. In this case, I knew Joshua’s approach and understood the function of the film. Shooting in Italian was not a way to hide the message, but to give cultural and historical coherence to the people being portrayed. The experience still reminded me that an actor should never lend their voice to words they have not taken the time to understand.
What leaves our control after filming
On a conventional set, we already know that an actor’s control ends fairly quickly. We give our performance, then the edit selects takes, changes rhythm, removes certain nuances and sometimes places a reaction in a slightly different context. That is simply part of filmmaking.
An activist work adds another layer. The film can become part of an installation, a campaign tool, a viral post, a media excerpt or the starting point for a public intervention. It can be screened in an environment the actor has never seen and generate interpretations they never imagined. That does not mean the creator is necessarily acting in bad faith. A living work always escapes its makers to some degree.
Still, before accepting a strongly engaged project, it is worth asking a few questions. What message is the work trying to defend? Where will it be presented? What other actions will it be associated with? Could my image be used separately from the film? Am I sufficiently comfortable with the larger approach to accept that my face may remain connected to it years later? Those questions are not signs of distrust. They are simply part of the work that should happen before the camera rolls.
The responsibility does not belong only to the actor
I also do not want to place the entire moral responsibility for a production on the performers. Actors sometimes receive very little information, especially for a short appearance. Scripts evolve, distribution strategies can change, and nobody can predict every reaction a work will provoke.
Producers, directors and the artists carrying the larger project also have a responsibility to explain their intentions clearly. On our side, however, we have the right — and sometimes the responsibility — to inform ourselves. Read the full script when possible. Try to understand the context. Ask questions that go beyond our own scene. Do not assume that our job begins at “Action” and ends at “Cut.” Once the image has been recorded, it can travel without us.
Choosing what we lend our voice to
I remain glad that I took part in In the Name of Clericalism. The project was unusual, bold and very different from the shoots I had experienced up to that point. I knew it was not only a film, but an artivist work intended to continue into public space, and I agreed to participate with that understanding.
More than anything, the experience made me think more deeply about what our presence means inside a work, particularly when art and activism meet. In that context, a performance does not contribute only to a story. It also becomes one of the materials used to build a position.
We often talk about projects as professional opportunities: a day on set, another credit on the résumé, a few scenes for the demo reel. But a performance is not always limited to the time spent in front of the camera. Sometimes it becomes testimony. Sometimes it becomes a symbol. Sometimes it contributes to an accusation, a demand or an attempt to move an institution.
An actor does not need to agree perfectly with every sentence, every historical interpretation or every artistic choice in a project. Demanding complete agreement would probably make our profession impossible. But we should at least be able to recognize the direction in which the work is moving. Lending your face is never completely neutral.
And when a film intends to speak more loudly than most, it is better to know exactly what we are choosing to give a voice to.
Production details
Film: In the Name of Clericalism
Role: Father Virginio Rotondi
Director: Joshua Oliver
Production: Red Jay
Year: 2022
Languages: Italian and English
Main filming location: Montreal
Running time: approximately six minutes
The response to the intervention
The Blackfriars Bridge action quickly attracted attention in British media. That same day, Pressat distributed a release accompanied by images and video. Two days later, London’s Southwark News published a story about the installation, while Dakota Digital also covered the story, explicitly connecting the intervention, the Roberto Calvi affair and our film. Those publications allowed the work to continue beyond its moment in public space and helped preserve Red Jay’s artivist intervention in the media record surrounding the event.
