Rachel McAdams Quotes

Sometimes people are like, 'Do you want to play strong women?' I don't have to play strong women in order to feel like a strong woman myself, but I do feel it's important to play characters that are complex and interesting and believable.

I like playing interesting, complicated women.

Even while I'm really interested in playing female characters that are varied and interesting and dynamic, I'm not of the mind that you always want to play strong female characters. I think I just want to play characters that are interesting, and not all people are 'strong.'

There's no need for a female character that does things like a male character; that's not what makes interesting female characters in my view.

I'm interested in playing lots of different complex women.

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.

I don't categorize characters into one syllable. These are fully-rounded characters that I don't judge; I just play them.

I take the sexy girl parts and try to give them something else and make them a character.

I try to write parts for women that are as complicated and interesting as women actually are.

As a writer, as much as I try, I can't stop writing female characters. They have so much more to offer; they have to wear so many different hats. There's so much wonderful gray matter in a female's life that it just makes for a stronger character.

To me idealized characters are so boring to play, especially having grown up in the classical theater. That's a great experience, but as a woman, especially, you've played a lot of idealized characters. So when you've got someone who has weaknesses as well as strengths, that's interesting.

Female characters in literature are full. They're messy: they've got runny noses and burp and belch. Unfortunately, in film, female characters don't often have that kind of richness.

When you look at the roles I've done and the roles coming up, they're all strong. I guess I'm more drawn to that than that kind of submissive role females can be categorised as.

I do not think that when I write a female character, I intend to reflect my thoughts on gender equality, but I always make sure that my female character is not decorative, they are human, they are good, bad, complex and close to reality.

It's hard to find female leads that are flawed and interesting and dynamic.

I never played the 'decoration,' I always played the one who suffered. And then I got very lucky in my middle career, when I started playing the hero, which at that point was quite rare for women.

I'm drawn to roles that have real substance, that aren't just the victim or the teenage girl or the girlfriend.

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've always tried to be conscious of how I represent women in my work. They don't have to be good or strong women, but they have to be complex.

A while ago, I did a television adaptation of 'Bleak House,' and the character I played, as far as I was concerned, had no redeeming features whatsoever. I wasn't about to try to find any; I didn't need to.

James Patterson has a way with female characters. He understands women in a way that a lot of male writers don't.

The bad guys are not typical; they are not just bad, they are interesting. They might be good or bad.

Girls in scripts are often pretty but brainless, or geeky and no one likes them, so it's great to find richer roles. Chalk and cheese aspects of people are very interesting to play.

There's a remarkable amount of sexism on TV. When male characters are flawed, they're interesting, deep and complex. But when female characters are flawed, they're just a mess. It's good to put more flawed but interesting female characters out there because it promotes equality.

In other words, the people who populate my books are more than caricatures.