I like to take on a different role every time or else I make myself bored.
It makes people nervous for one to step out of one's role.
The oppressed always learned from and copied the oppressor. When the tables were turned, the stage was set for another round of revenge and violence -- roles reversed. And reversed and reversed ad nauseam.
I think that if one's role doesn't correspond to what one says, if one's life doesn't correspond to what one preaches, if one is not true to one's people, someone else will come as a substitute.
Everybody has an opportunity to play a role, a playmaking role, so it makes it harder to coach. It takes a little more time.
The "can do" logic, by its own nature, does not accept limits. And an empire does not have a graceful way to evolve out of this role. History demonstrates this time and again.
In the national security establishment, it is somewhat frowned upon for people to take extremely harsh partisan roles in campaigns.
I happen to be a movie star, but I'm not saying, "Hey, I'm a role model. Imitate me. "
You'd think with all the magazines and the covers and all the sexy stuff I've done, that that's hugely a part of me. But even though I've played those roles and I've dressed up and been on the covers of these things and done this and that, it is all such pretense. So I just thought, "I can't be one of those girls. I wear bib jeans. I don't wear underwear like that. I don't move in the world like that. " You know, I'm more bare-footed Rastafarian, crazy.
It cannot be too greatly emphasized that the most important role in pawn endings is played by the king.
I would like more challenging roles. I definitely would like to something that's more challenging.
To me, all those jobs I did [roles] have been amazing experiences for one reason or another. I got paid and I learned something. I think that's what helped me carry on because I've never really given out that energy of, "oh, I've lost my chance" or missed it in some way.
I think the roles in television are better for women right now. At this point, I don't want to continue doing the same things I've been doing in film because it's very limited.
I've never been turned down for a role because I'm gay. I'm a character actor, and that's probably why. I don't find Hollywood, in my own experience, to be homophobic. . . . But I do think the straight folks will continue to play the straight roles.
I don't get offered many dramatic roles. As soon as my face pops up in a movie, everyone knows I'm the funny guy.
That's why so many people want to play Hamlet: because it's a completely demarked role, and the actor playing it has to be prepared, through the language, to allow the audience to see into who he is.
I think of a piece of music as something that comes alive when it is being performed, and I feel that my role in the transmission of music is to be its best advocate at that moment.
You do sometimes have to work on things where you love the cast and you love the filmmaker, and the role might not be great but it's fun. I'm totally down to do those things, and will continue to do those things, as well, but it at least has to be peppered with roles that are really interesting and that are hard.
I think that many managers we meet do take their roles as leaders very seriously and do a lot for their people. And they try to hone their skills by reading books and attending training. But then again, the number one problem is we get busy. We tend to forget that collectively we can accomplish more than we could ever do alone, and we need our people to feel a part of a positive, productive culture.
Passive fatalism can never be the role of a revolutionary party, like the Social Democracy.