I loved being in Bombay. It was a pretty thrilling place to walk around and explore.

I don't pretend to be anything but an actor and a writer.

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.

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.

I never played Freddy as real. In the true bible of Wes Craven's outline for the films, Freddy only manifests himself in dreams. And a lot goes into a dream, not the least of which is imagination. So Freddy is secondhand information. Freddy is an urban legend that's been handed down to these teenagers over the years.

The writer must be a participant in the scene... like a film director who writes his own scripts, does his own camera work, and somehow manages to film himself in action, as the protagonist or at least the main character.

As for Aamir Khan, he keeps raising the standard with every film. For an artist like me or a newcomer like me, we can only look up to that and dream, 'When will that be us someday?' There's so much to learn from him. He is the encyclopedia of acting.

I enjoy theater just for the sheer excitement of it and the immediate response that you get, and how every night the audience is a little bit different; but then, it's expensive to work in N.Y., and stage work is limited, so you're just doing it for the art.