Throughout my career I've played a lot of parts that might've been played by a man. They're human roles rather than specifically men or women. I've never been as hooked into that as a lot of women are, you know, like, 'There aren't enough roles for women.' There aren't necessarily a lot of good roles for anybody.
Honestly, I'm willing to experiment with far more variety in roles than I'm given. But ultimately, it's the producer's decision. But, I've done a variety of roles - the evil don, the evil husband... I've done villainous roles, supporting roles, etc.
The majority of the roles I've played are women who have been either impoverished or subjugated in some way. So while I've been fortunate enough to have success because these roles exist, they are stereotypical roles.
I'm not getting into rooms for cis roles. I started my career auditioning for those roles, and then I went to play trans roles. And now, I feel boxed in.
We must know our own roles. We should also know the roles that others play, and the rules such roles follow. In this manner, social harmony is maintained. It is when we overstep our roles, or act without knowing them, that social anarchy ensues.
As far as the lack of hits goes, I think perhaps it's because I've played a lot of different roles and have not created a persona that the public can latch on to. I have played everything from psychopathic killers to romantic leading men, and in picking such diverse roles I have avoided typecasting.
I've been very lucky with the roles that I've played in that they were wonderful roles for women. They're incredible, flawed characters that I really gravitate toward. I just never want anybody to be able to put me in a box.
I have so far played a variety of roles and enjoyed all of them. But I am biased towards positive roles because I love staying peaceful and bringing smiles on people's faces.
Challenges are what inspire me. I therefore accept whatever comes my way, be it supporting roles or character roles.
If you just look at the number of roles for women versus the number of roles for men in any given film, there are always far more roles for men. That's always been true. When I went to college, I went to Julliard. At that time - and I don't know if this is still true - they always selected fewer women than men for the program, because there were so few roles for women in plays. That was sort of acknowledgment for me of the fact that writers write more roles for men than they do for women.
I try not to blame the public, because the public - men, especially - have seen not great portrayals of women in supporting roles, because they're not given the lead roles a lot of the time. Especially in comedy, they're relegated to the adversary, which is like "the mean girlfriend."
I've seen an increasing willingness to hire Canadians for lead roles that shoot up here. When I started, they would always just fly in L.A. people to do the lead roles.
Ive seen an increasing willingness to hire Canadians for lead roles that shoot up here. When I started, they would always just fly in L.A. people to do the lead roles.
I'm an actor and I am looking for roles where I can continue to evolve, and things that are challenging. I gravitate to the roles, not necessarily television or film. It's just the fact that, for me, the most interesting roles have been in television.
I have never thought about creating an image for myself in Bollywood. I am an actor and just want to experiment with roles. I am ready to do all type of roles.
At one stage of my film career, between 2007 and 2010, I had taken up many projects where I played the role of a police officer. Later, I deliberately took a decision to not do any police roles. Since then I've been growing my hair and beard so that I'm not roped in for any such roles.