Urmila Matondkar Quotes

Actors are at the mercy of roles that are offered.

I have no shortage of material or offers, it's just a case of what you select to do. But I think it's realistic that my chances of playing Romeo are now over.

But actors at a certain point take the best of what's available to them.

I have no hesitation in taking up more acting assignments if good roles come.

A newcomer needs to be careful as to what kind of role they choose. If you choose something different, you will end up getting typecast. That's why I chose to play a character my age, to keep my options open for the future.

In the beginning, I would find a character I understood. That was my focus. Not now - but you basically get offered the exact same thing you just did. Which I find hilarious. I did 'The Vow,' and then I had every love story you can imagine thrown at me. And now I'm getting offers for comedies.

I think it's a bigger risk following a part that plays up your looks than it is to try and carve out a career as an actor.

Had I done the movies that were offered to me in my prime, at the height of my career, I would have been alongside the likes of Denzel Washington. But, I chose not to do those movies.

I don't pick my roles by genre; that's kind of silly.

However, I'm at a very comfortable place in my career and celebrity, in that I don't have to audition as extensively as I used to for roles but yet I'm not immediately recognizable.

After that, I was offered lots of lesbian roles, but I didn't want them because I'd already played the best there was.

I get better roles in television. I'm not going to do a lesser role just to be in a feature film.

I'm never offered any sort of roles. I need to audition in a typically lengthy process to receive roles.

I do turn down things that I feel aren't right for me, like when it's some kind of adolescent thing that might typecast me, but I'm not worried about it.

I think early in my career, I didn't choose films that were crappy films, necessarily, but I didn't go out and campaign for smaller, better roles.

I think there's a big misconception out there about actors and the choices they have.

That's all you can do as an actor - take the best thing available.

Actors have far fewer choices than the public thinks they do.

It's funny - sometimes people think we, as actors, have this wide range of choices of the roles we're doing, and in a lot of ways, when you're a younger actor, or just if you want to make a living in the business, you take your opportunities where they come.

Genuinely my big thing and the reason I'm in 'The Miser' is because I always ask myself one simple question when I'm offered anything: Will it get me nearer to being 'Doctor Who' or further away?

The best phase for an actor is when he or she gets to choose what they want to play. Sometimes you do a film because the unit is good, the company is fantastic, and the intention is well placed.

I've never consciously chased a particular kind of a film or role. I choose from what is offered.

As an actor, you do feel very powerless... you are at the whim of the agent who submits you for a project, and then at the audition, you are at the whim of the casting director who will cast you or not.

People approach you for the work they have seen you do. I don't think people see me as a lover boy dancing around, so I haven't received a role of that kind. I'm going to do roles that appeal to me.

If people offer me decent roles in good films, of course I'll take it. But I just didn't like the actor lifestyle. You end up focusing all your energy on trying to get parts you don't even want.