Why can't I ever play a nice, normal, salt-of-the-earth type? Is there something I should know? It's fun to play villains and character roles, of course - but I'm sure it's also fun to be a really big star and play the lead in everything, where all you have to do is show up and not blink.
Now, there doesn't have to necessarily be a white man in the lead role. That's the way forward. That's diversity. It's cool if an Indian is playing the lead role in a Hollywood project, and we should be proud of this.
I'm always open to not necessarily to do leading roles because I want to do roles that are the best, character role. And sometimes, it's not going to be a leading role. It's going to be a smaller, supporting role. So really, I'm open to doing anything.
Oviya' as a story is intriguing and exciting to work for. The character I play as part of the show, even if it is just for five episodes, it is a crucial role that changes the course of the show.
I don't want to be a nobody in a film. It's okay if it is not a lead character, but it should be a central character and it should make an impact.
I don't think I want to play title roles. I don't want to be the face on the poster. I don't want that pressure of having the success riding on my shoulders. I just want to play the most interesting parts. I actually think it's incredibly rare to get an interesting female character that is the lead in a film. Usually the character parts are so much more interesting to play.
I turned down the lead role in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, because that idiot Oliver Stone didn't think the character should play the alto sax.
It's better to play negative lead roles than portray just any other character on the show.
I have laid a very basic ground rule for myself. I should be a favourite with the audience, they should love me, my role, my acting, appreciate my talent. I don't want to repeat any of my roles, ever.
I don't want to play the lead and look like a hero. I am open to do character roles; what is the harm in it?
My only criteria while selecting roles is that it should be a lead part in an interesting story where the character has depth and layers.
In the 1980s, there was no category to stick me in. 'He sounds too smart' is what I was hearing. I realized that I had to become a member of the school of what I call 'ugly acting.' Which meant I wanted to do what Dustin Hoffman did very successfully: to play character roles, but lead character roles.
I am eagerly waiting to play the lead role in a romantic show! I have such a strong role in 'Balika Vadhu,' but none of the guys in the show romance me on screen.
Playing character roles gives me the freedom to try out different roles, including negative ones or elderly ones. When one is playing the lead role, clearly there are limitations and responsibilities.
What we have to ask is this: what can we morally expect of and allow to people whom we deploy to fulfill this or that social role :police officer, school teacher, physician? This may sometimes lead to difficult social decisions - e.g. should police be permitted to illegally import drugs as part of a sting operation? In the end, I think "common - that is, critical - morality" should determine the limits of the police role.
Action roles - or any role - should go to the best guy for the job. People obsess about nationality. Hollywood and America might be the hub for pop culture and cinema for the Western world, but that shouldn't suggest that all the roles should go to young American men.