A Quote by Ji Chang-wook

There are many good-looking actors. — © Ji Chang-wook
There are many good-looking actors.
The way I saw it was, if I had the built-in following and the audience, but I also had the skill set of acting, that would shoot me to the top. Because there's so many good actors. There's so many good-looking people. But the X factor now is social media.
More than good co-actors, if you have understanding co-actors, it becomes easier to relate with them. Many actors become insecure and get personal, which is not right.
I don't think Indian actors are good. A couple of them are, like Anupam Kher, but not many are there like him in the industry. There are thousand of actors and actresses in the industry, but you can count on hand how many of them are really good; the rest of them are just pretty faces.
There's so much control, so many executive producers, so many people looking over their shoulder, so many people trying to second-guess the boss. The space for writers and directors and actors to be creative is zilch.
No matter how big a name you are, how many big series you've been in or how good looking you are, in the end, all actors are secondary to the writer.
Basically, I would like to be considered for roles that are well-written. I think that part of the problem that we've had as actors is that they insist on looking at us as Latino actors and not as actors, period.
Whenever I'm looking for actors, I'm always looking for actors who are intelligent and who feel fresh and who feel authentic to the world.
Indian actors, because of the format of our stories, need to be good actors, and be able to perform emotional sequences, do a bit of comedy, dance and singing, action, because all of this forms just one film. In many ways I'd say there are greater demands on Indian actors than there are on Hollywood.
Good actors are always looking for props. They're looking for behavior. It makes it a lot easier. You're not solely dependent of what's coming out of your mouth. You're also less self-conscious, less aware of the camera.
I think good-looking people seldom make good television. And American television studios almost concede before they start: 'Well, it won't be good, but at least it'll be good-looking. We'll have nice-looking girls in tight shirts with F.B.I. badges and fit-looking guys with lots of hair gel vaulting over things.'
I was one of the good-looking, educated actors, and that is like a disadvantage in theatre!
Actors can be many things - vain, venal, self-serving, obnoxious, bullies - but all of the good ones are great storytellers. I wanted to watch what my actors were doing and how they were telling the story.
All actors are looking for that role that's going to define who they are. When it happens, it's a good thing.
An actor is looking for conflict. Conflict is what creates drama. We are taught to avoid trouble [so] actors don't realize they must go looking for it. Plays are written about...the extraordinary, the unusual, the climaxes. The more conflict actors find, the more interesting the performance.
One of the things that I really love about doing a film is working with actors and the whole casting process. I feel I'm not looking for actors. I feel I'm looking for characters. If the characters come from Bollywood, fine. If they come from Indian theater, perfect.
I certainly was not the romantic lead. I couldn't be that, because I was not that good looking. And that is something about Hollywood that I do not like at all. Why can't a woman who is just normally good looking fall in love? I mean, everybody in the movies is so good looking.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!