A Quote by Abhimanyu Singh

Personally, I believe that playing the lead antagonist is always better than a character artiste, whose weightage isn't much. — © Abhimanyu Singh
Personally, I believe that playing the lead antagonist is always better than a character artiste, whose weightage isn't much.
I always give weightage to performance more than the length of my character. That has always been my criteria for signing a film.
I feel I have been playing all primary characters. And if your character forms a connect with the audience, it doesn't matter if you are playing only the main solo lead or a second lead.
I believe it is customary to get one's washing over first in baths and bask afterwards; personally, I bask first. I have discovered that the first few minutes are the best and not to be wasted-- my brain always seethes with ideas and life suddenly looks much better than did.
When you're playing a character, I think it's always better not to judge that character.
Well, you put a little piece of yourself into every character that you do. Even if you're playing some psychotic person, which of course I'm not, some part of you is in that character and it's hopefully believable. I always come back to the fact that my own instinct is better than something I build in my mind.
I always had a struggle, which I still do, when you're playing a character and it's not necessarily your morals or your values. You're playing a character, but the way the media will sometimes ask you if these are your opinions, you know - they make you responsible for that, and I take issue with it because I don't believe in censorship.
In fashion, it’s always better to be an interesting person than a beautiful one. Character is much more fascinating than pure good looks.
Sometimes when you're playing a very intense character, a disturbed character, you find other layers. That's much more interesting to me, rather than just playing 'intense.' I find it too boring.
I think managing shortened my playing career, but I was a better manager when I was playing, when I could lead like a platoon sergeant in the field rather than as a general sitting back on his duff in a command post.
I personally feel I still have so much to learn as a writer; each novel is better than the one before, just because I'm getting better at it.
I wouldn't want to play a character that knew everything and knew where to go. It is much more interesting playing a character that is vulnerable trying to be strong. It makes for better TV.
Playing a character in a video game is different to other performances because your character can't lead the audience of players in one direction.
"This is why alchemy exists," the boy said. "So that everyone will search for his treasure, find it, and then want to be better than he was in his former life. Lead will play its role until the world has no further need for lead; and then lead will have to turn itself into gold. That's what alchemists do. They show that, when we strive to become better than we are, everything around us becomes better, too."
I like looking at the characters. Seeing them always brings up some voice or attitude. I am much more visual, and that works so much better than having someone tell me what the character is all about.
From the get-go, I was wise enough to say, 'Well, I'm playing rhythm 'cause Angus could really soar with the leads.' I used to mess around a little bit with lead at the time but not much; Angus, he was just so much better; he just went for it, and it was brilliant. My place was sitting with rhythm, and I love rhythm. I've always loved it.
It's better to play negative lead roles than portray just any other character on the show.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!