So yeah, a good director will be able to listen and hear everything, but have a confident vision of his own that he can say, 'oh yeah - that's a great point.' And you never know; often you can help far more than you think you can, because there's so much more that he's juggling than an actor.

You either decide to take the easy way out, which means you're only going to disappoint yourself and everybody else, or you take the risk right now of being a fool, which is the only way you'll end up being exhilarated later on when you actually watch the movie.

I have a fear of being boring.

Research can be interesting, but it can be pointless as well. The realities of making a movie often are not conducive with that. I'm not knocking it. I love doing research myself, but I admit it doesn't always add to the performance.

It helps so much being on location. It's like the difference between performing for the rectangle of the camera versus a world being created and then the camera finds things within that. There's a huge difference in that, because what it takes away is performance. You don't feel like performing. You're just kind of doing it. You're existing.

If you're doing your job properly, you take the risk of feeling slightly foolish and delve in and bring out the emotions.

I never applied to any acting schools. I don't know if that's just bad reporting, or - sometimes I just make stuff up.