I'm very pragmatic in that I know there are very few greats in anything. I got lucky just to have gotten two of the real great filmmakers very early on. Better to have had them than to not have had them. I've been really fortunate. That's the key relationship on a movie: the director and the actor. Of course, you can't compare the experiences. When you're in your early 20s, you're a very different person. It was a very exciting time, and my whole world was changing. Now I'm looking back, and hoping I can still offer something. Still do good work.

The great thing about Burgess's work is the dichotomy of making the hero or anti-hero an immoral man. And that's what makes it interesting. Because, you know, you are sucked into kind of like this guy.

I am a professional actor and I don't go about moralizing about what the character does. Otherwise, seriously, why be an actor? You're not making some kind of social statement. That's not what actors do. They may inadvertently do it, but it's because of the script, not the acting.

It's always a fascinating subject - a serial killer let loose on a small community. It always holds, it's always scary.

I never feel I repeat myself. I really go out of my way to amuse myself. I would be bored stiff. If I feel the déjavu when I'm doing something, I stop and rethink and rework it.

An actor cannot be a censor. I'm there to interpret.

The most nurturing of directors can make you feel too comfortable, and you don't really push for that extra whatever.