Fred Willard Quotes

How do you say one actor is better than another actor? You can definitely say that in the Olympics if it's the same race and someone wins the race. The only way to really do it and have it be sincere would be if you get all the actors together, and they're all playing the same part, and then you rate which one made you feel the most.

It's for people to judge if my acting is good or bad.

I don't believe in competitions between artists. This is insane. Who has the authority to say someone is better?

Interested listeners have only to hear the recording to find out if those guys, who go to such pains to undervalue my work, are right. All people have to do is listen to realize it is a beautiful record.

To be honest, if people thought my performance in 'The Office' was the same as my performance in 'The Hobbit,' it would tell me everything I needed to know about what they know about acting.

I'm not one who divides music, dance or art into various categories. Either something works, or it doesn't.

As a measure of acting skills, film can be very deceptive.

The acting in 'Downton Abbey' has been consistently excellent across the board.

In an art school it's very hard to tell who is the best.

It's hard to judge literary merit.

I don't consider myself a very good actor. I'm not bad, but there's not a lot of range in characterizations for me.

The difference in being a good soldier and actor is that in the Air Force, you see results, and our worth is defined by numbers. As an actor, your results are based on other people's opinions.

I just think that women make better actors; I just do. I think it's undeniable.

The only question we should ask is, 'Are they good?' I've met great actors, black and white, and I've met bad actors, black and white.

Artistic judgments are silly if expressed as dogmas, at least until we get an "artometer" which can measure objectively how many micro-michelangelos or kilo-homers of genius a given artifact has in it.

Your work may be great and not make its way into the big picture... like Van Gogh... so who's to say what's good and bad?

I think, it is a challenge to get critics or whoever to see past what you wear and makeup and the way you look and just concentrate on the music.

No one has ever told me that I act badly. It is just that most of the films I did didn't click.

The old-fashioned idea that the simple piling up of experiences, one on top of another, can make you an artist, is, of course, so much rubbish. If acting were just a matter of experience, then any busy harlot could make Garbo's Camille pale.

The problem with art is, it's not like the game of golf where you put the ball in the hole. There's no umpire; there's no judge. There are no rules. It's one of its problems. But it's also one of the great things about art. It becomes a question of what lasts.

Nothing touches a work of art so little as criticism.

There are some actors who are my contemporaries who I think of as purebreds and I'm not.

The final evaluation of a play has nothing to do with immediate audience or critical response.

With music, you could stick someone with a musical instrument or even not a musical instrument, get them to showcase their talent, and within 30 seconds you could tell whether they were good or not, but with acting you have to give them the right part.

If the work of art is good enough, it must not be criticized for its theme. I don't think it can be argued.