We're still fighting over the same issue - equal pay.

If you only took on roles that had the same qualities, then I suppose it might make a critic feel better, if he can see some kind of bedrock. Perhaps that's the old definition of a star, someone who's always going to come up with the same goods. But it intimates limitation to me and I don't want to think of the job like that.

I would rather do many small roles on TV, stage or film than one blockbuster that made me rich but had no acting.

I don't necessarily wait for that massive leading role. I want to keep the juices flowing.

It's the idea that when you say 'actress', people think of an airy, floaty, no-brain person, which of course you can't be if you are an actor. It is an unfortunate word, which is why, for a time, I hung on to 'actor', because it just seemed more workmanlike, you know, like you say 'woman doctor' not 'doctoress'.

I hope that you walk around the corner and you get very surprised.

In my industry, everybody wants to know everything about you, and its just dumb. I think the only way of maintaining some of that mystique is by not giving away too much about yourself. It has served me well so far. I never want to feel up for grabs.