Michael Eklund Quotes

I enjoy playing characters who are struggling, particularly with themselves.

As an actor, to play someone who's at war with himself, that's so interesting.

I'm a sucker for a screwed-up protagonist. We all have issues.

Basically, every character I've ever played, I've based entirely on internal conflict. And I love doing that, because I think it's very human.

The hardest role that I've ever tried to play was Clara Johnson in 'Light in the Piazza' at Lincoln Center. It was the least fun I've ever had, but the most beautiful experience I've ever had. I could not understand her. I could not put my feet in her shoes. I came home every night, and I was depressed.

The best characters to play are the ones who have deep internal conflict.

The more settled I've become, the more problematic my characters have become. There was a period when I wrote sensitive and gentle songs and these came at a time when life was at its most destructive. I think you write about what you need, on some level.

I look for a layered character who has problems and issues - which, by the way, we all do have.

One of the things that makes Hamlet unique among Shakespeare's characters is his courage to face up to the darker elements of his personality.

For an author, the nice characters aren't much fun. What you want are the screwed up characters. You know, the characters that are constantly wondering if what they are doing is the right thing, characters that are not only screwed up but are self-tapping screws. They're doing it for themselves.

I think that 'City of Heavenly Fire' is definitely a book where all the characters are tested to their limits, and they have to make really significant choices about who they are and who they wanna be.

Clearly, I'm drawn to characters with inner conflicts.

I became a better listener than I ever had been as a result of playing Jean Luc Picard because it was one of the things that he does terrifically well.

I do write about people who are complex and are striving with something and can't quite get past their own stuff, which would be a proxy for myself because that's what the deal is with me.

To me, any character that is conflicted inside as well as outside of themselves is always a better role to play.

Character is primary. What happens as far as plot and events is not as intriguing to me as what's happening inside this particular person.

I'm not sure that it's possible to write a novel about people who don't transgress or stumble, people who don't surprise themselves with the things they do, people who can explain all their actions with perfect logical consistency. At least it's not possible for me to write that sort of novel.

I don't mind finding these ugly sides to my personality and exaggerating them because that's something you can write towards.

It's incredibly fun to play someone that you don't like. It exorcises your own demons in a way. It's cathartic. We all have things that we don't like about ourselves, little things. And I get to amplify those things and put them out there. It's fun and it has a cleansing effect.

As a reader, I much prefer to read a book where people embody all kinds of ideas and everybody is making mistakes.

I'm interested in writing that explores all sides of human beings.

At the end of the day, you have to find the humanity in you in each character.

The thing that really interests me is characters facing challenges that are emblematic of the things they are most frightened of about themselves.

I love playing a woman suffering, thinking about the choices that she's made and obviously wanting more. It's classic.

The protagonists that I've played tend to be people who make trouble. Or even if they don't make it, they certainly disrupt things. It's fun to do that in life as well. But I don't think I ever played myself.