So the Lincoln movie gets trashed because Connecticut voted for the amendment - not to mention how the people in Connecticut feel - but there's a lot of that. And I think it precedes from a fundamental misunderstanding of cinema. They are entertainment. And I'd like to say that entertainment isn't a synonym for disposable or mindless or stupid. Hamlet? Pretty entertaining from where I come from.

Actors will change their face, will change their hair, will change their voice, will disappear into the role. A movie star doesn't disappear.

I wrote an article not so long ago that was published in the Los Angeles Times, and I think I titled it "Movies vs. History." But I think they had another title for it. I got sort of sick and tired of seeing movies that got picked apart by people because they had taken dramatic or poetic license and I said "These people don't understand the distinctions."

First of all, I should preface this by the observation that artists are not the best judges of what they've done and the word definitive does not belong, in my opinion, in any conversation about art. When somebody says it's the "definitive" something, I'm always recoiling.

There are moments in one's life where you look back and you say, 'Well, I wish I had done this differently.

In fact, we've entered a world which is arguably much more dangerous than [being] eyeball to eyeball with the USSR.

Art doesn't just happen by accident. It is about pulling out new tricks and trying new things.