Most actors, unless they're big movie stars and can carve out huge chunks of time to focus on one movie that takes six months - the rest of us have to jump around to make ends meet.
Whether it be in a small movie or a big movie, I would always be attracted to this role.
After I do a big movie I get offered big movies. But I always do the weirdest indie.
I think I'm pretty committed to staying. I'm not committed to not doing big movies, but I am committed to continuing to make smaller movies, not for the sake of making smaller movies, but because I think it's really invigorating to just go work with people and know that it might be awful.
I'm not a big movie-goer. I just feel like I'm watching work.
It's always useful to be in big movies for one's career.
When you don't have much money, you get creative. There's so much money that gets wasted on big movie sets. But when you don't have much money, you improvise.
One of the things that sets Oliver Stone apart though is he is commercial. He is mainstream. He makes big movies and he is one of the last guys that can make big movies that actually have something to say, that you know challenge the audience in a way while entertaining them.
Why should you have to atone for making big movies?
