Every role is physical to a certain extent, but as a viewer, I don't respond well to actors doing more than they need to tell a story.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I'm not a booky actor, I don't go away and do loads of reading up on a part, generally. I'm more interested in what the people we're portraying do physically, and looking at their sentence construction.
As an actor, one's role is very much to respond and react to the situation within the context of the character and his world.
Actors usually respond to minor aspects of their own character or things that even feel disparate from themselves.
As an actor, you always want to feel like what you're doing is making a difference to the story.
I think that acting involves doing your job so well that you are able to help the viewer identify with the character.
If you write interesting roles, you get interesting people to play them. If you write roles that are full of nuance and contradiction and have interesting dialog, actors are drawn to that.
I think there's something to be said for being physical in acting.
Actors want to act. I think a lot of times what happens is that they're expected to bring it all. Probably because I'm a writer, I'm not telling them what to do. I just provide them with as much as I can.
Nothing else is as fulfilling as playing a part in which you are able to have a significant say in the creative process all the way through. How many actors get to do that? It's extremely rare.
I think at a certain point actors need to start taking responsibility for the kinds of stories they want to tell.