I mean that I value vision, and dread being struck stone blind.
The only genre I have any problem with is musicals, but that's just my own tastes it's nothing to do with the films.
If you judge everything by how photographically real it looks, then you're missing out on a lot of what art is about and what communication is. There are ambiguities in life, and that should be reflected in art, cinema, and storytelling, I think.
I think CGI is interesting, but it's too expensive and limiting in terms of what you can do shot-by-shot.
If I'd been offered 'Spider-Man,' I probably would have done it. I don't think it's bad to go and do those things.
It's part of developing the whole state of how cinema is; everyone is looking out and engaged rather than it being just a financial thing or sitting back, waiting for scripts to turn up.
The reality of any location in Britain being used in a TV program of a film is that something bad is going to happen! That's the nature of drama. Most of the things that get made or basically grisly detective shows about murders, accidents or medical dramas.
I don't really think of myself as quirky; I have sort of an unusual sense of humor.
Society is about masks and hiding and pretending to be something that you're not and not opening up, and in acting, you do all of those things, but it also shows the performers in a very raw state. They have to literally upset themselves to get to that position sometimes. You don't need a load of people judging you or not being interested in what you're doing or being an ass on set because it ruins it.
Nothing has changed since I began. My eye has permitted no change. I am going to keep things like this.
Whatever Lincoln's racial views, which are not totally modern and egalitarian in many ways, he believes blacks should have this natural right to improve their condition in life and slavery denies that to them.