After 'Game of Thrones,' having a character like that, that's like the pinnacle of your career.
If somebody is in a story, they need to be there for a reason, and not just to set up somebody else's story.
In both 'Tigerman' and my first book, 'The Gone-Away World,' there are characters who never really get names. They're too fundamentally who they are to be bound by a name, so I couldn't give them one.
There is no point in doing a lengthy role if there is no importance in it.
Jake Green isn't just Jake Green. Jake represents all of us. The colour green is the central column of the spectrum and the name Jake has all sorts of numerical values. All things come back to him within the film's world of cons and games.
Human judgment is notoriously fallible and perhaps seldom more so than in facile decisions that a character has no adaptive significance because we do not know the use of it.
That's why the role that I have on 'Grey's Anatomy' is important to me, because it's a human being. He doesn't have to wear race on his sleeve; he doesn't even have to talk about it. We just lead by our actions.
I don't care about the length of anything I play, as long as it's a good character.
I almost should have a shirt made: 'Jill Soloway has changed my life...' Not only changed my life with the opportunity to play Maura, but the opportunity and the responsibility of playing Maura.
The truth is, everything ultimately comes down to the relationship between the reader and the writer and the characters. Does or does not a character address moral being in a universal and important way? If it does, then it's literature.
For me, it's about the impact that the role has in the film overall. Less or more screen time, whether I get to romance the hero, is not the yardstick I go by. If my part is strong enough, then why not?
Characters who are on screen from start to finish are not necessarily the ones who have the greatest impact.
'Happy Valley' is an extraordinary piece and it was not necessarily about Catherine but her part in the narrative.
I don't play long parts. They must be short parts, but they've got to be parts that mean something, that matter, where people will notice when I'm on the screen, and people will remember the character after they've seen the film.
Become major, Paul. Live like a hero. That's what the classics teach us. Be a main character. Otherwise what is life for?
I think every character is important in every film - be it small, primary, or lead - because they are adding something to the story, taking it forward.
I look for what responsibility the character has in telling the story. If you remove the role from the story, can you still tell the story properly? And if the answer is no, then I'm interested.
For me, the score is one of the main characters of a film.
The reader is going to imprint on the characters he sees first. He is going to expect to see these people often, to have them figure largely into the story, possibly to care about them. Usually, this will be the protagonist.
It is not a lead part, but you could definitely say that 'Devdas' wouldn't move forward if it wasn't for me.
Normally death scenes are good, if you have a significant death scene and it means something it's like the audience has an attachment to you being killed that's a good thing.
Jake from 'Two and a Half Men' means nothing. He is a non-existent character.
I love the supporting characters because you get to do more, to be totally honest. It's been sort of a theme with me. In Son of No One, I think I might have seven lines in the entire movie because everything is happening to my character.
First and foremost, stepping into something like a Marvel project is insane. I mean, my character is from 1968, and she's the second female X-Men ever. It's exciting, but it's also a great amount of pressure to do right by the character.
To be honest, I don't think of any of my characters as minor characters - they're all the main characters in a story that I don't necessarily get to tell.
