meaning through context

[hela]

Dear Casiopea,

Many weeks ago, an internaut wrote to you about a quote of an actor who was being interviewed. The internaut was aking about the expression "a vat of fish to fry" and he quoted:

“I'm not difficult at all. I'm an extremely easy, nice actor to work with and it was extremely nice for me to do this small British film. Really, I have a vat of fish to fry..., and I find Richard Curtis ungrateful for his remarks."


My question, however, is about the "FOR me". According to the context, could he have said "FROM me" instead?


If ever this internaut recognises himself, could he please answer my question too? (if ever he still remembers the quote, of course...)


Thank you in advance for your reply.
All the best,
Hela

[Casiopea]

. . . and it was extremely nice for me to do this small British film.

from expresses origin; e.g., This book is for you (Source) from me (Origin).

[hela]

Dear Casiopea,

According to the context, what I understand from what the actor said that he was kind enough to do this film because he could not have done it. As if he were too big an actor to do such a little film and yet, he did. The tone is rather condescending, isn't it?

Is THIS what FOR means in this sentence or have I misunderstood the whole meaning?

Thanks a lot,
Hela

[Francois]

According to the context, what I understand from what the actor said that he was kind enough to do this film because he could not have done it. As if he were too big an actor to do such a little film and yet, he did. The tone is rather condescending, isn't it?

You're right.
The "It is <adj> for <noun> to do <action>" construct is fairly common, and "from" would not fit here.
Another similar construct is "it is <adj> of <noun> (to do <action>)".
Eg.
I know you don't care about my problems, but it is nice of you to pretend that you do.

FRC

[hela]

Thanks François for you answer.

If you don't mind I'll send you my translation on the French-English page, and tell me if I understood everythihg well.

All the best,
Hela

[Francois]

No problem.

FRC

Originally Posted by hela

According to the context, what I understand from what the actor said that he was kind enough to do this film because he could not have done it. As if he were too big an actor to do such a little film and yet, he did. The tone is rather condescending, isn't it?

that certainly is one interpretation, but I am not certain

1. if that's what he meant, it would be more usual to use 'of' instead of 'for'
2. it's possible he could simply be saying that he enjoyed doing a small film, ie without the pressures and demands of a large production budget

[Casiopea]

“I'm not difficult at all. I'm an extremely easy, nice actor to work with and it was extremely nice for me to do this small British film. Really, I have a vat of fish to fry..., and I find Richard Curtis ungrateful for his remarks."

for implies that he benefit(t)ed from the role.

It [doing this film] was extremely beneficial for me. I learned more about the craft of acting, as well as about myself as an actor. He's trying to be humble.

[Francois]

Why does he say that he has other fish to fry then? It doesn't add up IMHO.

FRC

[Marylin]

Originally Posted by Francois

Why does he say that he has other fish to fry then? It doesn't add up IMHO.

FRC

He didn't say he has "other" fish to fry. He said he had a vat of fish to fry.
In my opinion he is obviously ticked off about Richard's comments ("ungrateful remarks") that came in at the wrong time when he was really busy putting the film together...he had a lot on his shoulders, plenty of things to deal with...or as he says "a vat of fish to fry". I suppose he could say "I had a vat of bigger fish to fry meaning "I have more important things to deal with right now than Richard's comments" and that IMHO would mean exactly the same thing.