Aishwarya Rajesh Quotes

There's no particular role that comes to mind that I'd like to take on, but for me, it's about playing interesting characters and not just two-dimensional ones.

I am good when there is something central about the character. There is always a human theme I attach myself to. I am really looking for something that is moving or enlightening or something with depth as an actor. I look for these kinds of roles.

I prefer doing strong roles irrespective of duration, and it is almost impossible for me to take up a role that has nothing much to contribute to the script.

It's better to play negative lead roles than portray just any other character on the show.

As actors, we want to choose somebody who has conflicts. I can't be always playing the girl next door. What's the challenge in that?

I think sometimes actors are drawn to good television because you have more time to sell it, you have more time to shape a character, and to tell a story, and that's really appealing.

Well, I think certain roles are chosen for us. The moment I read Pete Campbell I thought: I can do this, this is mine. And in Money, too. The truth is I turn down a lot of projects. If a character doesn't have some kind of internal struggle, it's no good for me.

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.

Playing dysfunctional characters or crazy characters is only fun if they're well written. So I have been lucky enough to be asked to play crazy people who are very well written.

These people I play are not usually wish-fulfillment characters.

I don't like this concept of second role, small role. It is a story, at the end of the day. If I am suitable for a character, I am glad to reflect that through my choice of films.

I am done with the cliched heroine roles. I can't go to work without a challenge. I want to do films that drive me, films in which I am a part of the main plot.

I have not done any film where my role didn't make sense.

As far as films are concerned, I would take up only those roles which are challenging and have some substance in them.

I always try to make my characters people, and yet I always want to entertain.

From a writer's standpoint, each character and story presents its own unique challenges and delights. I'm deeply curious about all of my characters, and I love peeling away their layers to see what's underneath their skin, or secreted deep within their hearts.

I think books with weak or translucent plots can survive if the character being drawn along the path is rich, interesting and multi-faceted. The opposite is not true.

When writing a novel a writer should create living people; people not characters. A character is a caricature.

In a series, you really need to stay open-minded. It's not like a play or a film, where you can create and fully commit to your character's back-story.

The world is full of novels in which characters simply say and do. There are certainly legitimate genres in which this is sufficient. But in real and lasting writing the character is.

I like my characters to be ones I think about long after I've finished reading the script.

And the nice thing about writing a novel is you take your time, you sit with the character sometimes nine years, you look very deeply at a situation, unlike in real life when we just kind of snap something out.

I love it and it is a blessing to be able to have seventy-five to eighty episodes to develop a character and find your voice. You have a similar through voice, and yet you are making different decisions, and so you act differently and you make different choices, as that is what your character would do.

I feel I should never do passive characters. They don't work for me.

I think it's important that a director be able to know his characters inside and out.