A Quote by Daniel Radcliffe

I think being on a film set for such a long time made me a technical actor without realizing it. — © Daniel Radcliffe
I think being on a film set for such a long time made me a technical actor without realizing it.
'Sarfarosh' has made people realize that I can act. This film has made me grow as an actor. There was a general impression among the people that I can only play a bad guy without any dialogues. But this film has given me a break and I have proved myself as an actor.
You have to find it in the moment, and that's one of the challenges of being an actor - especially a film actor - is that you have to maintain these heightened emotions for long periods of time. There's no trick to it. You just have to do.
Some people manage to make that transition from child actor to adult actor seamlessly. But I felt that if I spent my whole life on a film set without taking a few years to do something else, all I would ever know about was film sets.
I went to LA because my parents were there and somebody asked me if I wanted to be in a movie. It was easy, it wasn't easy to do, but I fell into it. I made a living as an actor for a long time, but I didn't think of myself as an actor, I thought I was a writer.
Every aspect of filmmaking has lured me. Although I'm an actor now, one day, I'd like to direct a film. It's not as though I'm all set to take the plunge; I cherish this dream of calling the shots, but only after I groom myself with the right kind of preparation and the technical know-how.
I loved 'Jaws.' I think that is not really a horror film, but it made me afraid of the ocean for a very long time.
I had a weird, empty feeling inside me. Not a bad sort of empty. It was a sort of lack of sensation, like being in pain for a long time and then suddenly realizing that you're not anymore. It was the feeling of having risked everything to be here with a boy and then realizing that he was exactly what I wanted. Being a picture and then finding I was really a puzzle piece, once I found the piece that was supposed to fit beside me.
Stage is the ultimate test; I like watching established screen actors on stage to see if they can really do it. But it's great to have a healthy mixture of the two. Film is so technical: there's something very particular about the relationship between you and the camera. It took a long time for me to get good on film.
In particular, the film 'Excalibur' was definitely one of those films that was instrumental in me realizing that I wanted to become an actor.
Working with Robert, Robert [Elswit] is a storyteller. He's not a cinematographer, he's a storyteller. And to me, that's the graduation I hope to get to in my profession. That I'm not just an actor, I'm a storyteller. And I think that takes a long time in, when you have one job on a movie set. Makeup artists, actor, whatever. To graduate from just that to storyteller.
Once upon a time you were a fish. How do you know? Because I was also a fish. You, too? Sure. A long time ago. Anyway, being a fish, you knew how to swim. You were a great swimmer. A champion swimmer, you were. You loved the water. Why? What do you mean, why? Why did I love the water? Because it was your life! And as we talked, I would have let him go one finger at a time, until, without his realizing, he'd be floating without me. Perhaps that is what it means to be a father-to teach your child to live without you.
Being an actor in TV or movies is different. A film or TV actor, if put in theatre, won't know certain dimensions, while a theatre actor won't know certain things when he comes before the camera. So I think a film actor can learn emoting from this theatre counterpart, while the theatre actor can learn about camera techniques from the film actor.
I lived in America for a long time before I started working as an actor. Some actors show up on set and have never done an American accent before, so they rely on a slew of technical mechanisms. Part of what makes an accent is understanding why people speak that way - you have to understand the culture.
No film is made without the people behind the lens. Of course, most people, even I, tend to look at films in the most simplistic way, and say, "Wow, so-and-so is in this film." We talk about who's in it, as opposed to who got it made. But there are financial and technical aspects which go along with it, that should be addressed and acknowledged, including those minorities who are doing excellent work as well.
'Newton' is a very Indian film. I think, after a long time, people will see an Indian film in its true form. As in the story, the character, it is set in the heartland of India, but it's purely like how there was a time when Hrishikesh Mukherjee used to make sweet Indian films.
I think that any time you are making a film you have to realize that the people you are talking with might be giving you misinformation. Sometimes it is factually incorrect and for that, it's important to me to check it out and not let things find their way into the film without being challenged, either by me, or by another character, or by evidence that you might see on screen.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!