A Quote by Kristin Scott Thomas

Having a leading man who is actually prettier than you are is quite upsetting. — © Kristin Scott Thomas
Having a leading man who is actually prettier than you are is quite upsetting.
I have a problem with the term 'leading man.' It's so limiting; it involves not upsetting anyone. Obviously, we have anti-heroes now, but if we're talking about the two tropes - character actor and leading man - I would so rather be a character actor. That's why I have a career.
Mandy Rose is basically an exaggerated version of myself. It's all about confidence. She's a bit of a mean girl and 'I'm prettier than you and better than you.' I'm not quite like that in real life.
The quote-unquote 'description' of a leading man was once your tall, handsome man with the build of whatever, almost a trophy to some degree. I think now it's about making a leading man what you want a leading man to be. In this day, you can't deny talent. You look at Jonah Hill, you look at Zach Galifianakis, you look at myself.
I have friends who are leading men, and they're only ever allowed to play leading men of a certain type. But as a character actor, there's a wider variety of projects available. On the big Hollywood films, all they care about is having their lead in place, so it's actually easier for someone like me to slip in. And I'm happy to do so.
It would drive me crazy if I picked roles with the goal of being a leading man. You never know what you're getting into when you sign onto a project, and more times than not, the characters that are close to the leading man are more interesting and more fun to play.
I was a theater man, so I was never in the situation of being a handsome Hollywood leading man, and then having to age.
I'm quite lucky in that at certain angles I look all right, and at others I don't look so good, which enables me to play some leading roles and some stranger, more 'character'-type parts. I wouldn't say I'm the conventional handsome Hollywood leading man.
One of the things about having played a lot of villains is... I don't have the same experience of someone who maybe has been a leading man since they were 22 and therefore looks at certain things in a character to romanticize themselves. I actually very much embrace the bad stuff.
Leading man seems to quite often be an idealized figure.
There's something quite satisfying, quite reassuring about seeing a man having to survive.
I can imagine nothing more wonderful than always wanting to keep a man. It's this NOT wanting to keep them, and yet not quite being able to disentangle one's self, never quite having the ruthlessness to stike at the hands on the gunwale with an oar until they let go - that's the horrible thing.
I am capable of holding the quote-unquote 'title' of leading man. Leading man just means people want to see you and assume that you can hold a film, carry a movie.
I've never had any delusions about being a leading man, and it's not sour grapes to say that in the best films that I've always enjoyed, the cliched leading man type isn't a part of the picture.
Acting is one element in a film. Directing is sort of the painter using all of those elements - sound and music and camera and putting it all together. And that can be fun and exciting. If you fail, it's incredibly upsetting - much more upsetting than when you're an actor. But when you succeed it's incredibly, incredibly exciting, so I like the risk of it all.
The having of the ideas is quite otherworldly. And then the making of the art itself is quite scientific. It's a combination. L Doing figurative work or taking pictures, and looking at how light actually reflects and refracts on bodies, or how your perception of something changes based on distance. But I think the getting of the ideas, and having that space to just have the ideas, is otherworldly, and requires a clear mind.
Although I can be a leading man, you wouldn't look at me and go, 'He's a leading man.'
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!