I know there are different kinds of actors, but I tend to have less effective relationships with actors who have a very private process - who really need to do lots of internal work, so that I become merely a witness until they're ready to share.

I understood that I was not the best director in the world nor the worst director in the world. I realized that there is a very mysterious element to what works and what doesn't work in the theater. And it's good to know that from the beginning.

I think, as written, 'Assassins' simply acknowledges the very human need to be acknowledged. As director, I've got to put aside any particular biases or prejudices that, as a moral human being, this is not an appropriate or acceptable way to get what you want.

I was always rather outspoken. I worried about what people thought of me but there really wasn't room for a lot of self-doubt.

I think actors are brave souls that have to use parts of themselves that I'm just not comfortable doing anymore.

I don't see the script as just a springboard for my interpretation. You do your best to serve the vision writers have - not by removing yourself from the equation, but by trying to filter what they intended through your artistry.

I like to hire the kind of people that I would want to be on stage with.

If I hadn't gone into the theater, I would be a painter.

Theater isn't there to provide answers. Only possibilities. I just ask the questions. But I believe hope comes from the fact that there is a potential for redemption. At the core, that's what matters in the theater I'm attracted to. Do we dare to hope? Do we allow ourselves to hope?