At the Festival Séries Asie, we had the chance to talk to Théo Fernandez actor, entrepreneur, co-founder of the Anyone drama school, and co-founder of the talent agency Radar. An actor since the age of eight, he has navigated a versatile career spanning mainstream blockbusters like Les Tuche and acclaimed generational genre series such as Stalk. Beyond his screen presence, Fernandez is actively building solutions to make acting and casting more accessible and transparent. Here, he breaks down the realities of agent representation, the impact of streaming on talent discovery, his personal viewing habits, and his philosophical take on what it truly means to practice the craft of acting.
How do you direct and orchestrate the artistic trajectory of an actor who navigates between highly popular cinema roles (like in Les Tuche) and more generational or genre series (like Stalk)?
I co-founded the agency Radar with Benjamin Lemaile, and the core idea was to address several shortcomings we identified in the industry. Today, an agent has many responsibilities—finding auditions, managing contracts, and advising talent through a privileged relationship to guide their career choices. With Radar, we deliberately built a structure focused less on traditional career counseling and more on directing our time toward finding auditions and executing contracts efficiently.
For me, this wasn’t a classic transition from actor to agent—like a traditional career shift where I would have spent years as an agent’s assistant. It was much more about identifying an industry problem and solving it through technological solutions and software programming, combined with plenty of hard work. Ultimately, I feel like I developed a tech solution rather than underwent a career path change.
What are the determining factors when selecting projects intended for series festivals, and what influence does casting have on defining the narrative color of a production?
Festival selection is perhaps a question better suited for programmers or directors like Mariem, as we don’t curate the festival films ourselves. However, regarding the overall importance of casting in general—it changes everything. I’ve always felt that casting is sometimes the element people pay the least attention to, simply because it’s less understood.
Everyone knows how to define good cinematography or set design. A tremendous amount of attention is poured into visuals and production design. But casting gets overlooked because people assume that as long as actors know how to act, it will be fine. In reality, the difference between an actor who merely knows how to act and an actor who truly embodies a character changes everything.
Unfortunately, for certain types of programming, production companies have realized that audiences aren’t always focused on performance precision—they primarily care about the story line. Depending on the format, viewers have varying expectations regarding acting depth, which directly influences how much attention the production team allocates to casting.
In what ways does the rise of new streaming platforms in France and Europe redefine the discovery of new talent and actor support strategies?
It is definitely a new landscape. Regarding career support strategies, as I mentioned, our agency focuses less on career advice and more on business development—bringing in castings. But what is fantastic about the rise of streaming platforms is how production is expanding vertically. You have traditional cinema, streaming platforms, and tomorrow there will be more vertical content on social media. This creates significantly more projects because the barrier to entry has lowered.
Where you previously needed thousands of euros to make a first short film and millions for a feature, today there are far more productions and cost-effective ways to make projects. Consequently, there are more actors and many more opportunities. The dilemma for actors following a traditional path is managing all these opportunities without jumping on every offer, as some might not align with long-term career goals. For newcomers, however, it’s a huge boon—there are more auditions and more projects to work on. I find that exciting; more opportunities are always positive. A project itself doesn’t inherently dictate whether it’s a good career move—the audience ultimately decides. My belief is that when you deliver a strong performance, even in a weak project, industry professionals notice, leading to future opportunities.
Placing yourself in the shoes of a simple spectator rather than an actor: what would your ideal media library look like? And conversely, what type of story or format do you categorically refuse to watch?
To keep it simple: no horror movies. I actually love them, but never when I’m alone! So if it’s my personal library for solo viewing, there wouldn’t be any horror films because they genuinely scare me now.
On the other hand, I love animation. Running an acting school and an agency has made me hyper-aware of acting techniques, so whenever there’s a minor flaw or forced performance in live-action, it immediately takes me out of the story. With animation, mistakes don’t seem to exist—or if they do, they are instantly forgiven through the medium. So my ideal library would feature a lot of animation.
I would also stock it with unconventional “UFO” films that step off the beaten track, alongside iconic films I haven’t seen yet so I could constantly discover new things. As for what I refuse to watch—aside from solo horror—I struggle with musical comedies. I have a hard time understanding when characters randomly burst into song mid-scene!
: In terms of character construction and work pace, what are the respective constraints and freedoms you find in cinema compared to the series format? Is there a medium that requires greater risk-taking?
Risk-taking largely depends on the preparation time an actor is given before and during shooting. Generally, feature films offer more time—though exceptions always exist. The budget, format, and schedule in cinema are structured to give actors time, allowing for multiple takes. Traditionally, cinema shoots around three usable minutes of footage per day. In television, the target is much higher per day, meaning the pace is drastically faster.
With fewer takes in television, there’s less room to experiment or try different approaches. Actors then face a strategic choice: either deliver a safe, textbook performance that gets the job done, or take a risk and try something bold, risking the crew telling you there’s no time.
My strategy is to always attempt new things, have fun, and showcase what made you want to become an actor in the first place. It’s a shame to stick to textbook acting. While cinema gives you room to collaborate deeply with the director, in TV—where production demands speed—you shouldn’t turn off your brain. It’s easy to think “I don’t have time, so I’ll just do what’s requested,” but that’s the fastest way to be forgotten. It’s always better to enjoy the process and take creative risks.
If there were a cult work from the past that you would like to see reinterpreted today, what would that project be and what role would you play in it? Which actors or creators shape your vision of the profession?
That’s a very interesting question. If I had to pick a classic, I’d say The Godfather. I would love to play Michael Corleone (Al Pacino’s role). Of course, that only works if no one had ever seen The Godfather before, because any comparison to Al Pacino would certainly not be in my favor! But if Al Pacino hadn’t existed, I would have loved to take on that role.
I actually watched The Godfather quite late. I expected a standard, fast-paced action movie about the Italian mafia. But while it follows those tropes, it relies heavily on pacing, silence, and subtle glances. When I watched the first film, I felt like I had traveled to Italy rather than just watched a crime film. I love that atmosphere and how it makes you feel.
Regarding actors who shape my vision of the profession—it’s complex because everyone defines the job differently. But I strongly agree with Louis Garrel, who noted that while the term “acting profession” is rigidly defined for some, it is intrinsically vague when you dig deeper. A traditional profession implies regularity, stability, job security, and objective standards that apply to everyone. He points out that theater acting can truly be called a formal craft—there are specific vocal and physical techniques, strict requirements, and a clear checklist. You can’t perform theater with an untuned voice or your back to the audience.
Screen acting, however, is far more ambiguous. Someone with a unique personality can excel in a film even if they are difficult to direct or have no formal background—some non-actors win prestigious awards simply by being themselves on camera. Furthermore, as Garrel says, even if you shoot one feature film a year, that’s maybe three months of shooting. What do you do for the remaining nine months? Is it a traditional job in that sense? I share that perspective deeply.
Elisa Cutullè