The reason why a filmmaker will invest in a male actor is because he will be able to sustain footfalls in the theatre till he turns 50.
Basically, movies come down to economics, and they're always too expensive. From a producer's point of view, an actor is either going to make him money or save him money.
Actors don't have real value.
I want to prove that actors are good, not just at working in front of the camera.
As great as Ed is, the wisdom out here is that he can't carry a movie. They'll pay him $3 million to be the second banana in Julia Roberts things. But they won't put up $3 million for an Ed Harris movie.
In Bollywood, the film's stakes are as high as the actor. In Hollywood, they are way above, and the day we realise this in our industry, we will start appreciating actors.
I'm a recognisable actor, but I'm not a bankable actor.
Studios are used to have an investment in you, an actual, literal investment in an actor. You paid them some money, you had a contract with them and you were almost like a commodity.
