A Quote by Jaideep Ahlawat

As soon as the director says action, an actor has to do the same work no matter if the screen is small or big. — © Jaideep Ahlawat
As soon as the director says action, an actor has to do the same work no matter if the screen is small or big.
It does not mean that in the process of a small screen, I do small acting, or if I do a big screen project, I do big acting. For the actor, it does not matter.
If you give an actor a green screen, the shot may work, but that green screen will not inspire you on the set as a director or as an actor.
An actor puts himself in the hands of a director. And the director's first responsibility, obviously, is to tell the story, but the smallest thing that's not true reads on the screen. So if a director sees that an actor is not believable, he needs to help him become believable.
You're always learning as an actor... anything you do is a learning experience. It's the same whether you're doing film or TV, you have to do the part to the best of your ability, no matter how big or small the role. It's as simple as that, really. But every bit of work you do is a learning experience - which is the same, I guess, for people in whatever job they do. But with acting, it's also fun to be able to explore different characters and emotions.
I'm in a constant conflict about having to make a movie for the big and the small screen at the same time, stylistically. So I just basically make it for the large screen.
The weird thing is that, with actors, filmmakers and directors, it doesn't really matter if it's Robert Downey Jr., who's one of the biggest stars in the world, when you start to work, he's a hardworking actor. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter who's a big star and who's an unknown actor from wherever. It's all about the work you do.
I feel whatever an actor does on screen is something the actor 'does,' and what the director can do is to tell, talk or instruct. So, all the credit for an actor's performance goes to the actor alone.
I just realized that I need to be a director - for two reasons. One, directors were already my heroes at this point. I wanted to; when I wanted to be an actor I wanted to work with this director. Not work with this actor, I wanted to work for this director.
I am an actor who gets into a role only when the director says 'action' and gets out of it with 'cut.'
I don't see a difference between the big screen and the small one. We are entertainers, and the medium doesn't matter.
Whatever I do, no matter it's for television, web or the big screen - it should satisfy me as an actor.
I remember when I worked with Fassbinder in Germany, actors wrote letters to him. But you see, a director wants to discover you himself. He doesn't want the actor to say, 'oh, I'd love to work with you' - the actor says that to other people, too.
When you get confidence from your director, as an actor, it is all a matter of how your director says, 'This is how much I can get out of you.'
The truth is, an actor's performance is the result of work by a lot more people than just the actor. When you see that character portrayed up on screen, there is the work certainly of the actor, but there's the work of the editor, there's the work of what the camera was doing. What the music was doing, all of the above.
Animation translates well to a small screen. When you look at Walt Disney or Chuck Jones - you know, Bugs Bunny - there really isn't any difference if you watch on a very big screen or a computer screen.
I feel good cinema, be it big or small, with small actor or big actor, it always works.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!