Quote

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.

Work is good when people are responsible, and in low-budget movies a lot of the actors don't want to be there. They're there to build a resume.

The issue often with films is how it works with money and trying to get a visible movie star presence in the film.

As an actor, the ambition is to play interesting characters. And in the indie genre world, the budgets are low. That allows me, as an actor, not to have a financial value behind my name, to justify me being in these bigger parts for these types of movies.

I had a big problem working with stars, because they are too expensive and have too many demands. Their names help you raise the money to make the movie, but then they demand close-ups. They change things. You end up doing things at their service instead of servicing the film.

We have filmmakers who make films with some kind of responsibility and take cinema seriously like Shyam Benegal, Govind Nihalani, Prakash Jha. But now these people also take stars... Without stars they cannot work.

If you work with big stars, then they become the lead actors. It's not that I don't want to do films with big stars, but I would rather do the films where I get the title roles.

Stardom is only a by-product of acting. I don't think being a movie star is a good enough reason for existing.

Everyone knows in the industry that when these great roles come up, every two years, there's a huge number of people up for them. I'm not one of those top five females that can personally finance any film.

As I got older, with my work, I became aware of the responsibility of film, and I feel one of the best ways I can apply myself as an actor, is to go beyond movie stardom and celebrity.