Paul Greengrass Quotes

I always try to approach a film from the point of view of the director.

Every director works differently but one thing's important: they must have a vision. If they don't have a vision I don't care how they work.

When you look at a movie, you look at a director's thought process.

I don't think film is the writer's medium, and so I was interested to see what a director would do with it.

I always wanted to direct. I always saw myself as a director.

I always wanted to direct. Directing is a lot more of a commitment though, a lot more time. I like directors who do very few takes, they know what they want.

Great directors can understand the staging in such a way that can make a scene come alive. Others have a certain way of pacing the scene.

I always used to associate good directors as being ones who are totally extreme and have an answer for everything and there are no loose ends.

The work of a director can be summed up in two very simple words. Why and How.

Movies are certainly a director's medium, so getting the opportunity to work with really good directors is everything to me.

Many people who have watched 'Pieta' have said my filmmaking has become more objective.

When you direct a movie, you're basically looking at a story, the way you want to look at it. You bring that director's vision, and I'm totally open for that.

Stephen Daldry would be a director that I would love to work with as well as Peter Jackson, Tim Burton, and I'm very lucky to have worked with Isabel Coixet, who is also one of my favourite directors.

Peter Chelsom and Edgar Wright are totally different directors and worlds apart, but both really accomplished directors who are certain of how they want to make a film.

All these directors, and I would include the Coen brothers and Quentin, have a very unique vision of what they want. They listen to ideas and make people feel like everyone is making the film.

With a film, you try to keep your vision in it. I think with 'The American' and 'Control' I managed to do that.

Although filmmaking is collaborative and involves trust, ultimately it is the director who holds the whole picture together in their head.

There are only so many movies you can direct. And yet there are movies that I want to make sure make it to the screen in as honest a way as possible.

What I think happens, and that you have to acknowledge though, is that a director uses a book as a launching pad for his own work and that's always very flattering.

All directors make films in individual ways. But the classical kind of view of filmmaking is that you have a script, and it's very linear. There's a script, then you're going to shoot the script, and then you cut that, and then that's the end of the film. And that's never really been how I've seen it.

The reason I took on directing a film myself was because, no matter how skilful a director was or how much I liked the film, there'd always be beats where I'd go, 'Oh... well, that's skilful, in a way, but it doesn't get the flavour I'd intended in the script.'

I have always believed that when a film is being made, it has to be the director's vision.

Spike Lee is a master of tone, so basically, if he wants to do something, he should do it, and Imma listen.

Every director has his own syntax, his own grammar, his own words.

Often people going into directing want to learn as much as they possibly can about "technique." And I say the hell with that.