When you have a director who has work you can identify from the past, it gives you some reference point as to what their interpretation of the story might be, and how that might jibe, right or wrong, with how you see it. But with a first-time director, you don't really know where you're at.

There's something in human nature, the trying-to-get-on-with-it quality of people, the struggle to maintain or keep the show going can be exhausting. It just seems like that element of trying to move forward while things are breaking down... Obviously, it's always been the backdrop for a lot of great literature and great cinematic characters, but aside from that, I'm just drawn to it because that feels honest to me.

I've never had a clear road map. When things come along, I benefit.

Regardless of the weight of the role, I feel like the job is always kind of the same. Who is this person? What's this guy here, what's he trying to say? And what's the volley with all these other people around him? So I don't feel like that part of it changes. I have not reached the point - if there's a point you reach as an actor where it's, "Oh, I got this figured out, I know how to do this". But I am happy to say that the primary building blocks of where you start, at least, there is a little bit of sameness to that. And that's always nice.

I don't consider a lot of actors that I really admire movie stars.

I've always thought Mexico City was incredibly dynamic.

There's something in human nature, the trying-to-get-on-with-it quality of people, the struggle to maintain or keep the show going can be exhausting.