Does 'Shooting Fish' have less artistic merit than a play like 'Angels In America,' which I did? Well, probably. But it's good for something.

We are breaking new ground in the territory of dumb with 'Shooting Fish.' Dumb, but in good taste. Silly, but not ridiculous.

I think I'm kind of attracted to the material more than the medium. I'm not opposed to doing a television show, though. I actually think there are a couple of good ones. And there is some terrible theater. Film is a very different kind of acting.

With a play, there's more of a definable arc because of the nature of theater: You know, there's no editing, so there's something more natural about the arc a character follows in a play. I think theater is more an actor's medium, whereas film is more a director's medium, because that's who controls the final feel of the film.

When you have that connection to say, 'I'm going to play for something bigger than myself,' man, you have a chance to do something good.

This rapid and unanimous verdict confirms, once again, that this claim never had any merit.