Emma Singh, a British model with has achieved enormous success in both the modelling and acting arena. She recently won Miss London.
Our journalist Anu Mayer spoke to her in London…

CC: You not only model, but starred in a music video and in a set to release Hindi film, which did you enjoy the most?
Emma Singh: I enjoy all three, whether that’s for a film, a music video or for a magazine, you end up meeting so many different people and I love that because I’m a really sociable person so I love all three. I don’t know which one I like the most as all are completely different and I like to have variety in my life so I can’t choose one and say I will stick to that. I’m always open to something new; however I think it’s important to do one thing and to do that well rather than doing loads of little things at a relatively good standard than an excellent standard. At the moment I’m enjoying everything I do.

CC: How did you prepare for Miss London?
ES: I don’t think I prepared – it just suddenly came around. I’m not the sort of person that is confident enough to suddenly wake up one day and say I’m going to enter Miss London. My friend Rupy, who is the casting director for Miss Great Britain she said to me “I really think you’re good enough and I think you should enter”. It was only an online application so it didn’t take a lot of courage, I did it and before I knew it, it was the Miss London heat and I had to walk in front of these judges and answer questions. It was my first ever pageant so I was really scared so I didn’t do a whole lot of preparation because I was so nervous. It was a really long day with rehearsals so they prepared us while we were there and told us what style of walk they like and what kind of questions they will ask.

CC: So how did it feel to actually win?
ES: I was not expecting to win it at all, I thought I’m here and I’m going to enjoy it. To win, I was just completely shocked. We were all standing in a line and the woman announcing it said ‘this is the first ever time a person has one two titles’ so I thought well this is definitely not me then. The main title was Miss London and the other title I won was Miss Photogenic. Although it was a huge shock I am really proud of myself and honoured to represent London because I was born and brought up on London so I’m a London girl. I was pleased because I’ve always worked for loads of different charities and fundraised and I thought that having such a big title would allow me to fundraise more and make a bigger difference to charity than I could have done as a normal everyday girl. I have a title now. I’ve worked for various charities, I’m a drug councillor and I’ve worked for homeless charities, citizen’s advice bureau but part of me has always thought it’s one thing to work for a charity but if I can make a substantial amount I know will help more.

CC: On your website you say you feel fortunate enough to be exposed to different cultures. Do you feel being from a mixed race background has contributed towards your success?
ES: I’ve always seen everyone as equal regardless of what race they are because obviously I am from two completely different races, that’s the outlook I’ve always had in life. So people generally tend to warm to me because I see everybody as the same and the reason I’ve had that outlook is because I have had a very good upbringing. My parents have always taught me important values. There are so many different cultures in this world but I’ve always been open to new ideas.

CC: What work are you currently pursuing in the industry? What do you want to do in the future? Would you take up a job in the degree you have studied?
ES: At the moment I’ve just finished uni and done my last exams. I studied Sociology at Brunel University. I’m going to try the whole modelling for about a year. While I was at uni I did a lot of charity work and also have training as a drug and alcohol councillor so if I wanted I always have that to fall back on but my heart is in this industry to go into modelling. I believe in destiny so I’m waiting to see what comes along, I did a shoot with Asiana magazine, I did another video and had a small role in a film with Dev Patel and Judie Dench so I’m getting myself out there as much as I can so I can get more and more experience until I figure out what it is I want to do the most.

CC: What advice can you give to those wanting to make it in the industry?
ES: To basically just work hard. My family have always taught me the importance of that and I’ve seen through them and so many other people if you want to achieve something easily you have to work hard. Once you have figured out what you want to do stay determined, work hard and you will get where you want to.

Interview by Anu Mayer @ ConstantCasting.
Article by Malcolm Jeremiah.

Directed by: Duncan Jones
Screenwriter: Ben Ripley
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga, Jeffrey Wright
Mins: 94 mins
Release date: 1st April 2011

Where to begin with Source Code?

At the end?

Why not? It would be apt for a film about quantum physics and time travel.

Essentially Source Code is a good film that doesn’t really stand up when scrutinised in great depth.

Starring everyone’s favourite anti-A-lister Jake Gyllenhaal, it tries hard to be a modern day Quantum Leap and succeeds kinda. Where Source Code goes wrong is that it’s lacking something and much like all the technical jargon preached about in the film, it’s very unclear as what is missing. But something is missing. Maybe heart. Maybe soul. Maybe just a few pages of good script.

Now let’s not get things confused, this is not a bad film. By no stretch of the imagination is this film bad. It’s actually rather good. Made by Duncan Jones, son of David Bowie, but importantly the director of the cult classic Moon. That film was an instant classic. Sparse, elegant and beautiful. It made hardly any sense also. But because of the sparseness of it, its lack of strand actually added to its brilliance. This film is big-budget, loud, roaring, kicking and screaming – thus the nonsensical plot cannot be excused.

Where this film really excels is in the performance of the ever-brilliant Vera Farmiga, who continues to give consistent and great performances. Her portrayal of conflicted Captain Colleen Goodwin is as perfect as a performance could get. Understated but powerful. Which is rare to see in a ‘blockbuster’. Jeffrey Wright, another consistent performer, puts in a good performance. Maybe a little too showy if we’re being honest. Gyllenhaal, for me, is yet to give a performance in his career that stands out and shouts: ‘I’m a great actor’ – he seems to drift through films unnoticed. Which is a criticism and a compliment rolled into one. He understands characters perfectly and gets them across well. But  he sinks into them too literally and they don’t become central pieces. Which is a problem for this film, because the central character is so important to this film. The way that Bourne is the cornerstone of the Bourne films and Matt Damon seemed to execute perfectly. Gyllenhaal’s ability to blend into a character makes him an excellent supporting actor (Brothers, Brokeback Mountain) but not such a good leading actor (Jarhead, Rendition & Prince of Persia).

However, as I mentioned, this isn’t a bad film. Just disappointing. After the mercurial Moon there were high hopes for this film. It ends up being just good instead of great. The premise itself is clever. The execution from Jones isn’t the best. His experience may have something to do with this. A more experienced campaigner in this field would have nailed it. A David Fincher or James Cameron.

So what’s this film about? (Told you I’d review it backwards!)

Gyllenhaal is Captain Colter Stevens, an accomplished army helicopter pilot, who keeps waking up in the body of a teacher on a train headed for Chicago. He has no memory of how he got there. His job is to stop the train from exploding. There is a bomb on the train and he needs to establish who put it there as there may be another in Chicago about to go off. So he is continually transported back into the body of the teacher 8 minutes before the explosion to investigate where the bomb came from. Accompanying him on the train is what seems to be a random girl, Christina Warren, played by Michelle Monaghan.  I say ‘random girl’ in reference to Monaghan’s character. However she is far from random. I debated in my head whether it was poor writing or bad acting that made her character hinder the film (as it does) – I am still debating. But what I am very clear in my mind about is that Monaghan’s performance in this film is shallow. It’s a small role really. Underwritten, yes, but underplayed dramatically by Monaghan. Who’s constant smiling and expansion of her pupils seems to be her idea of happiness, sadness and surprise. It’s a performance devoid of true honesty and turns this film into something of a rom-com rather than sci-fi. Not good from Monaghan. Of whom I am also still waiting for a good performance in her ever-expanding list of film.

So to conclude, everyone involved in this film could do and could have done better. Apart from the evergreen Farmiga. She is excused from any criticism. Source Code plays like a sci-fi film that knows it has a good concept but doesn’t know how to deal with its wealth of budget, script or A-list cast. Watch it expecting little and you’ll be pleasantly surprised. Watch it expecting something great and you’ll surely be let down.

3 out of 5

Review by Malcolm Jeremiah

As the dust settles on yet another Oscar ceremony, the same looming question remains from every award show before it.

Did they pick the right winners?

The Oscars is undoubtedly the biggest award show in the world. Bigger than the Brits, The Grammys, The BAFTAs or The Golden Globes.

For most, winning an Oscar is a kiss of death on a blooming career.

Just ask Cuba Gooding Jnr. Where’s he now?

As a general oversight of the winners, it seems like the Brits conquered. But another question looming is…where did this silly patriotism in Oscar winning come from?

Film are universal.

They should not be considered British or American or anything but good and bad. Art should not be broken down into country, state or creed.

However, such as it is, this year the ‘Brits’ dominated. Even claiming the win of Christian Bale as Best Supporting Actor. Even though he has not lived in the UK since he did Empire of the Sun back in 1987.

Can we claim Christian? Yeah, why not!

The Kings Speech romped away with the Best Picture award. Controversial? Not so much. Deserved? Not so much.

The Social Network actually was a better film for many different reasons.

Colin Firth won best actor. He was truly above good as The Prince Albert/King George IV. His performance the year before in the film A Single Man was on par with this performance. Maybe marginally better. Jeff Bridges pipped him last year. This year he pipped Bridges. Such are the way Oscar Politics work.

Natalie Portman won the best actress award – in the most deserved Oscar win for years. The visibly pregnant Portman took her award with much grace. Her performance in Black Swan was on par with Robert De Niro in Raging Bull. Chewing up scenes with relative ease. The film itself didn’t win much else.

As I mentioned before in my review of The Fighter, Christian Bale puts in the best on screen male performance since Daniel Day-Lewis started in There Will Be Blood. His Oscar was more than worthy.

Melissa Leo, of The Fighter as well, took the Best Supporting Actress award. Her efforts deemed rangier than that of her co-star Amy Adams.

The Best Director category was probably the most competitive. You had David Fincher (The Social Network), Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech), Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan), Joel & Ethan Coen (True Grit), David O.Russell (The Fighter).

The Winner was Tom Hooper. Undoubtedly this was the most debateable winner. Fincher done a great job with The Social Network, nothing flashy or showy like his earlier work. Far more composed. Daren Aronofsky also did some noble directing. But for me, David O Russell managed to balance technical brilliance with fab storytelling and should have won this award. Or the evergreen Joel & Ethan Coen.

Other winners included Inception for its amazing soundtrack by Hans Zimmer. The punchy documentary Inside Job about the recent world financial crisis and the last of the Toy Story series for Best Animation.

All in all there The Oscars winners were predictable but creditable.

The true winner of this year’s Oscars was films not so much The Brits.

Winners:

Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale (The Fighter)

Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo (The Fighter)

Best Actor: Colin Firth (The King’s Speech)

Best Actress: Natalie Portman (Black Swan)

Best Director: Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech)

Best Picture: The King’s Speech

Best Animated Feature Film: Toy Story 3

Best Cinematography: Wally Pfister (Inception)

Best Documentary Feature: Charles Ferguson and Audrey Marrs (Inside Job)

Best Adapted Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network)

Best Original Screenplay: David Seidler (The King’s Speech)

Article by Marcus Flemmings.

Directed by: David O. Russell
Screenwriter: Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson
Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo
Mins: 115 mins
Release date: 2nd February 2011

Did someone say Oscar-season?

Oh yes, I hear the pitter-patter of Hollywood producers’ feet running to the bank to cash in on the pre-Oscar hype.

Those sounds I’m hearing are familiar – they come around about every Nov-Feb and have done since the beginning of film time. Occasionally they get it wrong (Avatar), but when they get it right it’s so very sweet. This is one instance where they have got it on point.

The Fighter, directed by David O. Russell, director of I Heart Huckerbees and Three Kings is a notoriously difficult director to work with. But no one has ever doubted his ability. This film showcases it perfect. He won’t win best director though.

Mark Wahlberg is understated and underrated in this film also. Playing the lead true-life character of Mickey Ward, a failed boxer whose real fight is with his family – his controlling mother portrayed magnificently by Melissa Leo and his brother, Dicky Eklund, a former decorated boxer. A performance which we’ll come back to.

This true story about the boxer Mickey Ward is simply engrossing. From the first scene to the last scene. Partly filmed like a documentary, partly filmed like a HBO boxing match, fully filmed with brilliance. This film is David O Russell’s best film.

Furthmore this is probably the best performance that Amy Adams, who plays Wahlberg’s love interest, will ever put in. It’s strong but vulnerable. Oscar-worthy. However Leo’s performance may have eclipsed hers slightly. Both are nominated for Best Supporting Actress.

Ultimately though, it’s Christian Bale who steals the show. Every second he’s on screen it’s electric. It’s an absolutely tremendous performance. The best on-screen performance by an actor since Daniel Day-Lewis chewed up every scene in There Will be Blood 4 years ago. The weight he’s lost to play the role is spectatlur within itself. But has been done by him before (The Machinist). That’s merely a gimmick . His performance itself is erratic, subtle, fragile, strong all in the same breath.

If you watch this film purely for his performance you won’t be disappointed.

4 out of 5

Review by Marcus Flemmings.

Directed by: Tom Hooper
Screenwriter: David Seidler
Starring: Colin Firth, Geoffrey Rush, Helena Bonham-Carter, Guy Pearce, Michael Gambon, Timothy Spall
Mins: 118 mins
Release date: 7th January 2011

The King’s Speech is the latest offering from director Tom Hooper, who’s last film The Damned United was both excellent and understated. This film picks up where that film left off. Inspiring great performances from its stellar cast and retelling a piece of history that was seemingly forgotten.

Not an acting inch is left untouched by Rush, Bonham-Carter and more importantly, the magnificent Firth. He narrowly missed out on the best Oscar award last year for his performance in A Single Man. This year he seems a shoe-in for the nod.

The film itself is put together excellently by Hooper. Who certainly knows how to string together a compelling story without the use of technical tricks or mind-blowing cinematography. Not to to say the film doesn’t look gorgeous. It does. But he concentrates wholly on bringing out the story itself.

The film is about The Prince Albert/King George IV (Firth) who had an awful stutter at the same time that being a royal meant being media savvy. After an initial appalling public performance at Wembley stadium in 1925 whilst trying to deliver a speech, his wife Queen Elizabeth (Bonham-Carter) becomes proactive in her attempt to cure him of his stutter. Her quest leads her to eccentric Australian failed actor Lionel Logue (Rush). His methods appear to be unorthodox. Much to the annoyance of the King. But after his father King George V (Gambon) passes away and his brother Prince/King Edward (the always brilliant Guy Pearce) abdicates after a brief spell as king due to romantic complications, Albert is made King and is forced to finally cure his stutter. Which eventually leads to the reintroduction of Logue and the rest is history, quite literally.

This film is wonderfully paced and well told. It’s not groundbreaking by any sense of your imagination. Neither is it likely to be remembered as one of the greatest films ever made. However in this age of 3D films, too many superhero movies and remakes of films made only a decade ago, it’s a gem.

4 out of 5

Review by Malcolm Jeremiah.

Directed by: Darren Aronofsky
Screenwriter: Mark Heyman, Andres Heinz, John McLaughlin
Starring: Natalie Portman, Vincent Cassel, Mila Kunis, Winona Ryder
Mins: 108 mins
Release date: 21st January 2011

Black Swan has been hyped up continuously for the past 2 months. People suggesting lead actress Natalie Portman is a shoe-in for the Best Actress gong at the Oscars. Won’t those people feel ‘oh so special’ when she sheds an obligatory tear as she receives the golden statue.

Because she will.

Deserved? Absolutely.

For this, much like Robert De Niro in Raging Bull, is a sheer de tour force of screen acting.

For her to be able to take her body to the levels she has to do in this film is magnificent. Not to mention her flawless acting which she won’t better. Her character, a ballet dancer who has dream-like aspirations of being the lead dancer in a production of Swan Lake, goes through every single emotion available to a human being. Starting the film as a timid, softly-spoken girl (white swan) and ending it as a confident, savage woman (black swan).

This film is directed by Darren Aronofsky, director of the masterpiece Requiem For A Dream and the good (but overrated) The Wrestler. Aronofsky is a ‘mature’ director nowadays. For me, this is a not a good thing. His directorial style has over the years become alot more Oscar-safe. Telling stories without breaking the essence of it with a clever visual trick (or ten). If this is mature filmmaking, it is to be appreciated for what it is. But early Aronofsky was more fun. More daring.

However, I digress; Black Swan is a psychological drama that steps into the territory of horror more than once. Portman’s character, Nina Sayers, has such a desire to achieve and become great that she becomes the very character she struggles so hard to portray initially – The Black Swan.

As far as being a ‘complete’ film, Black Swan struggles to keep a pace of its own ideas. Essentially the film is a metaphor for the actual ballet Swan Lake, it achieves this perfectly. Unfortunately, the unconvincing characters that Mila Kunis and Vincent Cassel play hinder the film dramatically. It means that we greeted to Portman’s character in literally every scene playing against some really two dimensional characters who you feel nothing for.

When you tear away the only layer to this film, Natalie Portman, there’s really nothing left. There’s no darker nuisances or sub plots like in The Social Network. There’s no humour and there’s a real lack of any connection between any characters and humanity.

Which is why this film won’t get the Best Film nod at the Oscars, but Portman definitely will win Best Actress and she thoroughly deserves it.

My underlining feeling about the film is I wish Aronofsky never matured.

3 out of 5

Review by Marcus Flemmings.

Directed by: Paul Haggis
Screenwriter: Paul Haggis, Fred Cavayé
Starring: Russell Crowe, Elizabeth Banks, Liam Neeson
Mins: 122 mins
Release date: 5th January 2011

This film has to be great doesn’t it?

Is it?

Well it would be but for the fact that it’s a remake of a film that was made only 3 years ago. Which kind of taints the overall impact the film has (post-viewing). However as a stand-alone thriller, this is first-rate. Crowe puts in a magnificent performance. His character is a laid back, sarcastic dreamer. It’s an understated performance but powerful at the same time.

The film is about a teacher called John Brennan (Crowe) whose wife Lara (Elizabeth Banks) gets accused of murder and imprisoned for life. John believes that his wife is innocent and begins to crack. Being so sure of her innocence he decides he needs to break her out in an elaborate ploy that involves drug dealers, escaped ex-convicts and tricks learnt from YouTube.

Russell Crowe is an extraordinary actor. No matter what his personal life may bring to our attention via the worldwide press, his acting credentials can never be questioned. Each of his performances are unique and he has an uncanny ability to tap into the core of the characters he portrays. Another actor who also surprisingly excels in this film is Elizabeth Banks. Ordinarily Banks plays more comedic roles. In this film she perfectly hits each emotional mark with ease. Whether it be joy, grief or confusion. She is on point. I attribute both performances to the brilliance of Haggis. His ability to cajole excellent performances out his actors was very much evident in Crash. It continues with his film. Whilst this film will win no Oscars, much less be nominated, it is a joy to watch and keeps you on the edge of your seat. Without ever being corny or clichéd.

The film as a piece of work is not ground-breaking at all. The character breaks out of jail genre has been done hundreds of times. What sets this apart are the random characters that Haggis pops in and out of the story that wield the whole story together providing twists and turns that you’ll enjoy watching for the first time. It’s a great little popcorn movie.

3 out of 5

Review by Malcom Jeremiah.

Directed by: Paul Weitz
Screenwriter: John Hamburg, Larry Stuckey
Starring: Robert De Niro, Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Blythe Danner, Dustin Hoffman, Barbara Streisand, Harvey Keitel, Jessica Alba
Mins: 98 mins
Release date: 22nd December 2011

Back in 2000 when Meet The Parents first introduced itself to our watchful eyes we all laughed in synch. Robert De Niro, finally proving himself to as agile at comedy as he (or was some say) at dramatic roles. Ben Stiller, at that point, was seemingly the funniest man on Earth, rolling in the adulation of films like There’s Something About Mary and Mystery Men. A whole decade on and everything’s changed – De Niro’s comedy, almost phoned-in performances are tiresome and Stiller has long since been replaced by a younger (or rather funnier) pack of actors; Will Ferrell, Paul Rudd, Steve Carrell (maybe) & Seth Rogen (maybe).

With the above prologue in mind you can tell where this review is going.

Little Fockers tells the story of ex-CIA agent Jack Brynes (De Niro) and Gaylord “Greg” Focker (Stiller) fragile in-law relationship. Greg being married to Jack’s daughter. You know the score, we’ve been here twice before – Meet the Parents and Meet The Fookers. The former being an excellent comedy. The latter not so much.

In this particular episode we see Greg and his wife now have twins and with Jack worried about his health, after a minor heart attack, he enlists Greg as the heir to his throne as the king of the Bryne family…comedy ensues (kinda).

The immediate problem with this film is that all the jokes and possible twists/introduction were all played out in Meet the Fockers. Meet The Parents was a very simple formula; man meets woman’s parents – who’s dad happens to be a relentless psycho of a man hell-bent and breaking them up. It didn’t need any bells or whistles. It was naturally funny. The sequel, unsure of its self, was more slapstick. Introducing Greg’s family, the Fockers (Dustin Hoffman & Barbara Streisand), to the audience. The edgy and dark comedy of the original was replaced with basic fart jokes and Laurel & Hardy-esque humour. Effectively, the original and sequel used up all the jokes. This film struggles. It struggles big time. Not mustering a proper laugh until 20-30 minutes into the story.

The introduction of the two kids is pointless and adds nothing to the proceedings. It’s sad to see a legend like De Niro dancing on the grave of his career. After the debacle of Analyse This and Analyse That, this is a new career low.

We can only pray that he hooks up with Scorsese again for the first time since Goodfellas (1990) and Cape Fear (1991) to salvage his reputation from the shipwreck that is his past 19 years of films.

Little Fockers is disappointing. Let’s hope this is the last of this series.

2 out of 5

Review by Marcus Flemmings.

2011 will mark the introduction of one of Britian’s most promising actors, Jing Lusi. She is the lead actress in new blockbuster The Malay Chronicles and then she is due to appear in a central role in British film Jack Falls.

Our reporter Nayha Ahmad spoke to her about acting, life and her advice for budding actors.

CC. Jing, thanks for speaking with us – Malay Chronicles what is it about?

Jing Lusi. The storyline is based around a warrior who is quite legendary in Malaysia. He founded the country. I play the princess. Which is kind of a dream role. When you’re younger you dream about playing the princess and now I’m older I’m getting paid to play one. Pretty cool.

CC. Must be a big film for Malaysia?

JL. Yeah, it’s a massive film. It’s Malaysia’s way of launching themselves into the international Film market. To compete with China, Japan and Hong Kong. It’s been sold to 40 countries worldwide so it’s going be huge when it’s released in 2011.

CC. Tell about your role in British Film Jack Falls?

JL. I play Jack’s best friend Carly and a barmaid. They have a close relationship. He stays at her house and then everything goes wrong there. She’s pretty feisty. I had to work behind a bar and I no idea what I was doing. Which was funny!

CC. What advice would you give you to someone wants to be an actor like you?

JL. I would say never give up really. Because you never know where it’s gonna go. It’s not like other professions where there is almost guaranteed work at the end of training. I did a law degree before this.

CC. You have a law degree? So brains and beauty?

JL. (Laughs) Well yeah but I don’t use much of the brains nowadays!

Interview by Nayha Ahmad.
Article by Malcolm Jeremiah.

Watch the interview now:

The Actors Centre was created by actors, for actors. For over 30 years they have provided ongoing training of the highest quality, giving actors the opportunity to enhance every aspect of their craft. Famous actors such as Ewan McGregor and Helena Bonham-Carter have walked through their doors.

Our reporter Nayha Ahmad caught up with their Creative Projects Manager, Caroline Byrne…

CC. Caroline, what is the actors centre?

Caroline Byrne. The Actors Centre was set up 32 years ago as a place where actors can keep warmed up and in tune with their craft. They come here to top up their skills between jobs and auditions. They have to make sure they’re on top on their game. The idea behind the Actors Centre is that professional actors are not always working but they need to make sure they’re on top of their game. So we provide classes in anything that will help the actor.

CC. Have you had any famous faces here?

CB. Typically we get jobbing actors – without naming all names – we’ve had Ewan Mcgregor, Helena Bonham-Carter & Jaime Murray (Dexter) amongst a few. Plus a huge list of actors who are out there getting their hands dirty, as to speak.

CC. Are you a drama school?

CB. No, we’re not a drama school. You go to drama school and get your basic knowledge there. We’re the place you come to after drama school.

CC. What advice would you give you to someone wanting to get into acting?

CB. The advice I would give is go and see as much theatre as possible. See what’s happening in the business and also take weekly classes that your local drama centre/community classes. There’s also a web called Get Into Theatre that is very useful.

CC. Casting is a very big element of an actor’s life. What advice would you give for when attending castings?

CB. Preparation is a very big key. If you are asked to prepare a monologue it’s essential you choose a monologue that is relevant to the casting you are attending. Also make sure you’ve learnt the lines and you’re on time. If you know who the director/casting director is get to know their work so that you’re fully knowledgeable about them.

CC. What is the life of a model/actress like?

You have to go and attend a number of castings.  However I’ve been lucky enough to get the jobs through word of mouth or people calling me. Makeup artists call me, magazine editors or fashion editors will call me directly.

Interview by Nayha Ahmad.
Article by Malcolm Jeremiah.

Watch the interview now: