A Quote by Prabhu Deva

As an actor, I felt nervous only during the release of my film. When I became a director, the anxious moments started once the editing work began. — © Prabhu Deva
As an actor, I felt nervous only during the release of my film. When I became a director, the anxious moments started once the editing work began.
I definitely had those moments, like any actor, when you get anxious and think, 'When am I going to work again?' But I would feel that way even when I had every offer in the world coming to me. Then I became a father and I felt a little more of the anxiety that came with the responsibility of being a parent.
I felt a little anxious/nervous representing a real person in a Spike Lee film.
I started as an actor, then became a theater director. I loved acting but didn't feel as confident as I needed to be, so I started directing theater; then I played in some movies, and then I felt the need to do my own stuff.
I think a director is hugely responsible for the fate of a film, so if it does well, he should be appreciated. As an actor, I can only perform well or choose to work with a good director in a good film.
When you're in the editing room, as a director, you get the opportunity to look at your work. As a writer, you can rewrite. But as an actor, unless you're watching playback, you really rely on the director to help you.
In the very beginning, women were editors because they were the people in the lab rolling the film before there was editing. Then when people like D. W. Griffith began editing, they needed the women from the lab to come and splice the film together. Cecil B. DeMille's editor was a woman. Then, when it became a more lucrative job, men moved into it.
I am aware that as an actor, I can blame others for the failure of a film, the director, the script, choice of co-stars, timing of the release and so on. But now, as the director, I will have to shoulder all the blame.
I love the variety of films. In theater, you go into a room and the director runs the room, so you all work to his or her method. On film, if an actor or an actress is in for a day or two, the director has to get out of that actor what they need, so they have to change and adapt to that actor's technique.
An actor is only a part of the film, not the whole, and very often, he is moulded by the director. That is why a good director can make so much difference to a film.
Ever since I became an actor, I wanted my film to release on Eid.
With a director it's all about the work; I'd work with a great director over - you know, I'm not the kind of actor who that doesn't go, 'I want to play this role.' It's more like, 'I want to work with this director,' regardless of what the role is because if it's a good director, you'll probably find a good role because it's a decent film. But a mediocre director will always make a mediocre movie.
When I played the lead actor, it was a stressful job right from the starting to the release of the film. I even used to put in money from my pocket for a few films. But once I accepted the negative role, filmmakers started writing different kinds of roles for me.
With film, so much is in the director's hands. Once something is cut together - unless you're in the editing room - you don't really remember what the alternatives are.
I became an actor because it was the only thing I could do. I didn't have any friends, I didn't fit in. But when I started acting everything in my life shifted and I felt happy.
I was not the producer of 'Vaanaprastham' earlier. The first producers backed out when they became doubtful about the monetary benefits. I do not blame them. But as an actor, I wanted to make the film. So, I told Shaji sir that I would produce the film. It was only then we started shooting.
As an actor, we can only do what the director wants. Only the director has a vision of the entire film.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!