Any adaptation - and I've done three in my career. I did 'Sweeney Todd' and 'Hugo' and 'Coriolanus.' It's important to find what makes it a movie as opposed to just a film presentation of a stage play.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
The kinds of films that I'm used to doing are independent films. They're very small character-driven pieces, and there isn't as much spectacle involved.
I try to work on a film that my audiences would appreciate and enjoy their time in a theatre.
I have done all of the genres, and the dramatic role is my favorite.
I haven't done as many films as I would have liked. A lot of my contemporaries have done more. I don't have 'I will be a movie star' emblazoned on anything, but I'd like do a bit more screen stuff and then when the time is right come back to theatre. When it is good, theatre takes a lot of beating both to watch and perform.
I want the chance to play very different characters, and I've always wanted to do more films.
The best adaptations are the ones that really excavate the material. The movies that work are the ones in which somebody very smart figured out how to take all the thematic material, all the character material, all the filigree, all the beautiful writing and put it into a story.
When I was in school, and even after, I did a lot of classic plays, and I guess it sort of extended into film.
I've done classical theaters. I played Hamlet myself and Romeo.
I go by the role pretty much. And I think the only genre I haven't gotten to do but I'd love to is a western, but no one has ever asked me to do that. Unfortunately they are very few and far between these days, but that is one type of film I'd love to do.
Had I not done Shakespeare, Pinter, Moliere and things such as 'Godspell' - I played Judas in a hugely successful production before I did 'Elm Street' - I'd probably be on a psychiatrist's couch saying: 'Freddy ruined me.' But I'd already done 13 movies and years of non-stop theatre.