I'm not going to get into the writer's skills or what he was trying to portray because that's not fair. I can only say what I felt was trying to be portrayed there.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
As a writer, it's a great narrative tool to have that character who is slightly detached but at the same time observant of his reality, because I think that's pretty much what being a writer is - being there, watching and internalizing.
I don't think of the characters as being good or bad because that doesn't help me as a writer.
I really think that as good of a job as you do as a writer, you're absolutely indebted to the actors that have to deliver that material.
It's bad writing, however naturalistic it's written, that's where you have to do your best acting.
So I sat down with him and portrayed more the side of the character he needed to see. Which is what I do when I go in for an interview for a part I like. As much as you think you're dealing with creative people, they see you for what your image is out there.
I think everything's fair in art and how you perceive a character.
The play is one of the very few pieces of great dramatic and comic writing that I have read in a long, long time. I was drawn to it because of the power of the writing, which gives me the actor a chance to explore many facets of myself.
I wanted to portray very, very dark subject matter and a deceptively complex story in the brightest colours and simplest lines possible to leave the readers reeling.
I know when I go and see a writer, the first thing I think to myself is, 'Are they the character in the book?' You just can't help it; it's the way people are.
I think the writing skills of actors are sometimes underestimated.
No opposing quotes found.