I've never felt stigmatized in my profession, nor have I allowed myself to. I don't feel either male or female, I feel I am just me, and I should be able to do whatever I like.

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 like people to be surprised by the turn of events. I don't want things just to be pat and formulaic. If there's some sort of internal combustion in the character or a desire to change the way things are going, that makes for conflict, which is the essence of drama.

I wouldn't want to go back to my 20s; they were pretty angst-laden times.

It's a wonderful profession, and it opens lots of doors, and I think it's quite right that people can accuse actors and actresses of being dilettante, but you learn on every job, whatever it is, the process moves you on in some way, and yeah, I want to expand my knowledge of our existence, I suppose.

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.