I think male roles are generally much better written. So for actresses, we're always dealing with trying to inject a role with more truth than the writer possibly had in mind.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
All good actors are actresses. The more like a woman they are, the better they act, because a man's salvation is his femininity. Women have stronger sensibilities than men, which allows them to go a bit deeper when they are on and off the stage.
I think as a young actress, it's very rare that you read something where you're not either 'the girl' or there to serve some romantic purpose in a male dominated cast.
There aren't enough good roles for strong women. I wish we had more female writers. Most of the female characters you see in films today are the 'poor heartbroken girl.'
I love working with male actors, and I think there's a tendency to write really interesting characters that would work solely alongside men where they would be in a man's world and have to deal with that, and it creates a lot of interesting storylines. For me, it's kind of circumstantial, but I definitely enjoy it.
I've been playing with this idea in my mind that the hero's journey that we're all taught as screenwriters may resonate more specifically for male protagonists and maybe even male viewers.
I think that female roles, they can be victims, they can be sympathetic, they can be in pain, they can be in suffering - but they can't be ugly. I think there's so much fear surrounding that, that it makes a film unlikeable, that it won't sell.
Nobody is surprised that women writers accurately represent male characters over and over again, no doubt because everybody knows that women understand men much better than vice-versa.
A lot of male actors are method actors and they become the characters which they both were.
Every time there's a really good story, there's women in it. We may not get as many roles, but the roles we get are really good, I think, for the most part.
The roles for women in theatre are much better than they are in film.