A Quote by Amrita Rao

There was a time when the industry would typecast actors. It still continues to an extent on the celluloid but with the digital medium coming to the fore, the actors are finding equal status with the stars.
Otherwise [digital revolution] hasn't changed my way of filmmaking, I'm not nostalgic in postulating we should still make films on celluloid. I love celluloid but I don't need to continue on celluloid.
In India, big stars like Akshay Kumar or Salman Khan do comedy and serious films and we call them great actors. But when it comes to actors of my stature, people rush to typecast me as a comedian without giving a look to all my work.
There are some actors that are great stars and storytellers, but not necessarily good actors. I'm talking about some - not all - of the people you see in action flms or blockbusters. They're film stars, though not necessarily great actors. And there are those who are great actors, but not necessarily big film stars. Jim Sturgess is both. He's quite obviously a star, the audience likes him, he's a great storyteller and he turned out to be one of the greatest actors I've worked with as well.
It was the fashion of the time, still is, to feel that all actors are neurotic, or they would not be actors.
I don't have a problem with big name actors coming into animation. It actually has been done for years and we are after all actors, it is just a different medium that requires a different technique.
As for Bollywood, actors are no longer typecast there and I'm happy to be in that phase where the industry is evolving for the better.
I would like to see fewer actors modeling, or if they're going to model to the extent that they are modeling, then I think that models should be actors.
Honestly, in retrospect, when I referred to the actors from 'Prince' as non-actors or non-professionals, it was actually a great disservice to them. The fact is that they are all actors and should be viewed that way by the industry. It was our casting process that was non-professional.
Coming from documentaries, my biggest challenge was to understand actors' psychologies. American actors take it all very seriously; British actors don't enter into all this methody way of doing things.
Not taboo - it's just that straight actors still risk their careers commercially and economically. They have to please the crowd - they're movie stars; their image is their industry. It goes beyond acting.
I connect much more with theatre actors than with cinema actors - insofar as you can speak of 'cinema actors' in Mexico, because there isn't a big film industry.
People are very uncomfortable when you call actors artists because there are a lot of actors out there that aren't artists - there are a lot of actors that are hired for very specific reasons that are shallow and have to do with sexual currency and what the industry thinks sells. Real actors are artists, they're expressionists.
I don't really understand why we are paid less than the male actors, because we put equal efforts, and recent past has shown that actresses can deliver a hit film. We deserve better pay, equal to what actors get.
Using film was so much easier than the digital technology of today. But digital is still at the beginning of what it can be and they'll be fixing all those problems. It's just too complicated - negatives, tinting, flashing - it's a whole new system that takes a lot of time. Of course, it's not as physical. Even the editing. You used to feed a piece of celluloid into an editor. [Digital] is not expensive and that is an advantage, but I must say that I don't love it.
A lot of actors seem to dislike typecasting these days. The funny thing is, that's a fairly recent development. It used to be that actors wanted to be typecast so audiences could remember them and identify with them.
The problem for me is not that Schwarzenegger is governor, but the extent to which even politicians who are not actors are functioning like actors.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!