I think it's easy for directors to stay fresh more than actors, especially once an actor becomes a star. It's hard for Russell Crowe to walk down a street or take a subway. I can fly coach.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
You spend enough time on set as an actor and it's great when a director was at some point an actor or understands acting. They're able to finesse performances out of you that a lot directors can't get.
There's a lot of directors who were actors, so they have the sensibility of an actor, which sometimes helps.
You're not a star until you love yourself. Directors, yeah, they've got to love their own philosophies. But actors have to really love themselves.
I would say that maybe directors who act as well are easier with actors. I'm not saying that all directors have this, but sometimes you'll come across a director who sort of looks at an actor a bit like a kind of untrained horse that's been let out of the stable, like they might buck him.
Whatever it takes, the job of the director is to be the leader and to get your actors where they need to go. That's a philosophy that I have.
I guess once you've been acting for a long time, you glean the great bits of good directors and the bad bits from other directors, and you know the way that you would like to be directed.
Sometimes I think being an actor is like being a dog for a director; it's like they throw a stick, and you want to fetch it and bring it back to them. You want a pat on the head for it.
An actor is only a part of the film, not the whole, and very often, he is moulded by the director. That is why a good director can make so much difference to a film.
Most actors are pretty adaptable because we work with so many directors.
The reason I prefer working with established actors and stars is because they are more popular, and the film reaches out to more people and do well in terms of numbers, too.