I love directing Shakespeare on film. It’s fantastic that the actors would do exactly the same thing and be true to their part.

I’m not going to spend two years on a film or four years on an opera if I don’t feel like I can put my own self into it. That doesn’t mean it has to be about myself.

Directing is much more psychological-it’s a lot like being a general. And you have to be organized. While you’re making a film, you have between two and 500 people asking you a billion questions.

It’s people who are repressed and cannot express their fears that are dangerous.

We have often been attracted to the story of the other, the outcast. And he and I just loved working together, so it just kept happening, and our relationship is completely bound up with our work. We enjoy each other’s art.

What I don’t have in theater is editing.

One of the reasons why I love to do Shakespeare is that this great artist was able to talk to a wide variety of audiences. He could do the bawdy plays and the humor and the clowns-as you know, because you’re a wonderful Stephano-that speaks to the populace, the masses, the groundlings, whatever.

I’ve had male executives say that my lead character was unlikable because she slept with a lot of guys.

You know, I went to Oberlin. At that time, grades were – you elected to have them or not. It was all of that era where grades were out the window. But I did very well in school. I didn’t really study the arts; I practiced the arts.

One of the reasons I love to jump back and forth between mediums is that film does allow me to be more literal. I can go to the real place. I can go to the Coliseum, and I don’t have to fake it.