Quote

When you're doing characters from famous novels, you have a responsibility as an actor to make it what the writer intended. And then you add and expand from there to create a three-dimensional performance.

I think that two-dimensional film will always be here to stay because it always has its place, but 3D does too.

First, you do a piece of material that begins and ends and has a flow; it's not chopped up as in a film, where in an extreme case you might be doing the last scene of the script the first day that you go to work, and you don't know enough about the character you're playing.

There's this inherent screenplay structure that everyone seems to be stuck on, this three-act thing. It doesn't really interest me. To me, it's kind of like saying, 'Well, when you do a painting, you always need to have sky here, the person here and the ground here.' Well, you don't.

Traditional fiction has a little bit of spatial exploration but is basically a question of time - the question is, what happens next?

For every three scripts that you get through, one will be made, and that doesn't even necessarily mean that they're going to cast you in it.

As far as 3-D goes, I don't know if that will stay very long because things are moving so rapidly.

I've always been thinking in three dimensions, ever since I started working with computer animation in the early '80s.

One of the things you hope you've done as a playwright is create roles that can sustain different interpretations.

There is nothing like being able to develop a three-dimensional character over a long period of time. Sometimes you aren't able to fully portray a character because you only have a couple of scenes to do it in, and you don't get the full life and background of that character.