The first film is everything you want to say and how you want to say it. Lots of directors will do that and do it really well, but the second film is not so easy.

We're all far too afraid of being so arrogant to say "Either you can or you can't."

Obviously, the arrogance of my own nature in regards to other people's work would suggest that I think I'm talented.

In the end, the game is the same. Football is still football. Now, they may play with different formations, they may have a different idea of training, but the game doesn't alter. I don't mind how any performer - indeed, why should I? How arrogant of me if I did? - manages to get to what they have to get to. It doesn't matter how you get there, as long as it isn't going to destroy other people on the way.

The big problem with literature is people tend to take the dialogue from the book, forgetting that everything that surrounds it is literate, therefore not knowing quite how to put that on screen.

I think you can get better in mathematics on a school level, but when you're talking about being a mathematician, I think that's definitely a gift of genes or whatever.

I think it would be very difficult to play somebody if they didn't think they had any virtues or redeeming characteristics.