I was so ordinary, critics couldn't understand it, but looking back, that was the reason for my success. What you see is what you get. People thought, 'I could do that.'
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Some critics are stimulating in that they make you realise how you could do better, and those are valued.
I've always had to prove myself to people growing up. I had to show them that I could do this and I could do that and paying no mind to what the critics said.
The sheer complexity of writing a play always had dazzled me. In an effort to understand it, I became a critic.
I was very into making the Big Artistic Statement - it had to be innovative; it had to be cutting edge. I was desperately keen on being original.
Somehow I wasn't completely crucified by the critics. I don't know how or why, I probably should've been.
There are many critics who have an idealised version of where my strengths lie.
I've been as critically rubbished as acclaimed and the worst thing about that is that it usually plays into your own self-criticism.
The thing I fail to do is fully comprehend what's given back to me by the audience. You would think you would be a performer partly so you could feel all the appreciation or adulation, but I haven't quite managed that yet.
The fact is, for all the critics' talk about me as a realist, I'm making everything up - everything. It is all about imagining with me.
I knew that because of who I am, and the situation I'm in, that I'd attract more critics than your average person, and that was a little intimidating, but I wanted to get out there and pay my dues.