I always say it takes as much preparation and thought to do a small part as a leading part. In some ways, leads are easier because you have the luxury of time to discover the character.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
It works better if your lead character is complex and interesting and not perfect.
The leads are often the boring part.
What I discovered is I don't like to repeat lead characters because one of the most pleasurable things in a book to me is learning about the lead.
It would drive me crazy if I picked roles with the goal of being a leading man. You never know what you're getting into when you sign onto a project, and more times than not, the characters that are close to the leading man are more interesting and more fun to play.
Well, a lead is the most important thing about the story.
Often the starting point for characters, for me, is finding a little, most minor detail, and I'll go from there.
To establish yourself as a leading man, you're shooting for the smallest point on the target, and you get a lot of judgment thrown at you. It takes a lot for them to get past everything and just watch your art and what you're doing.
Good roles are hard to come by, and whether they're a few lines or a lead, you snap 'em up when they come along.
Sometimes the leads are equally balanced, like in 'Romeo and Juliet,' but sometimes they're just not.
There are always leading characters. There are always complex characters; there are very rewarding plays with great directors and tremendous playwrights, yeah. I've done a lot of things with theater that I'm very, very proud of.
No opposing quotes found.