A Quote by Parineeti Chopra

There's nothing new about women playing pivotal parts or title roles in films. Women in strong characters have always been accepted. It has been this way for years.
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.
I'm so sick of hearing how there's no strong roles for women. I don't care about strong roles. I just want to see women who are characters! A nun, a serial killer, a housewife, as long as there's some depth there.
If you see films which have been successful over the last 10 years, the women in them have been in their 20s. 'The Dirty Picture' and 'English Vinglish' are two I can think of. But there are very few good roles for women in their 30s.
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 come from gender-balanced workplaces. I started off working in medicine, and when I went through med school, it's 50/50 men and women. And when I started working as a doctor, it's 50/50 men and women. So I've always been very accustomed to women occupying pivotal roles in the professional environment.
It's not that I only want to make films about women, but from my experience, I have been very interested in the women who play these characters.
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.
If you read a lot of Chinese literature, there has always been very strong women figures - warriors, swordswomen - who defended honor and loyalty with the men. So, it's not new to our culture - it's always been very much a part of it. It's good that now the Western audience would have a different image of the Chinese women.
I never wrote just straight women's roles. I liked the strong characters. I don't mean women who have masculine qualities about them, but something that has some intestinal fortitude, some guts to it.
There's always been a shortage of roles for three-dimensional women, no matter what age. If you look at the statistics on women in film, be they behind the camera or in front of the camera, and it's pretty nauseous-making. It always has been.
For years, it's driven me crazy that women don't have better roles, especially in comedies. I know so many funny women but I always felt... misogynist streak is too strong a term - but a dismissiveness.
Women have always been strong; women have been capable and able and amazing at life.
I think that's the kind of women that people are interested in. They're interested in strong women characters who are stronger than the male characters sometimes, in some ways. That's what's interesting and attractive about women.
I've been misunderstood when it comes to women. I've got a big heart and a little brain. But I love women being women; there's something about their skin. I do love strong, independent women, but they are definitely complicated.
I've always been fascinated by young women who come to New York. The characters in 'Lipstick Jungle' were once young women who came to New York and we see their early experiences through flashbacks.
Women are blessed with energy - a power which is unique. I have been very fortunate to have played strong women and explored their strengths through my films.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!