Scott Eastwood Quotes

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.

There is often a great disparity between a director's personal style and the movies he makes.

I don't really believe in the auteur theory.

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.

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

I like working with directors I respect, who give me freedom but also give me a good base from which to work.

There are no good and bad movies, only good and bad directors

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.

I do believe that there are auteurs, in the sense that there are filmmakers with very strong voices and their voices are communicated on to the screen without a lot of compromise.

The actor is concerned with his own bit of it, but the director's somehow trying to work the whole thing into a much bigger picture. It's like conducting an orchestra.

Other times you can get showy for three minutes, and that's OK with certain films. But that isn't right with an Ang Lee movie, you have to fit right in. You have to understand Ang, respect him and be part of the team and not be in charge of it - he is in charge of it.

John Huston is more of a creative director than most.

My greatest strength as an actor is that I follow my director's brief completely. The film is always the director's visual baby.

The director's very important to me, particularly when the director has a recognizable style.

Some of our favorite films are obviously not written by the person who directed it. And yet a 'Taxi Driver,' or some Nicholas Ray movie, like 'In a Lonely Place,' seems so personal or obsessive or whatever.

Certainly there is a lot of collaboration, but there is also a lot of clarity that has to be had in the vision that you have for the film when you come in as the director. Without that, there's no bullseye to be aiming for.

Directors are the fulcrum of the movie. They guide us well, not merely rein actors in. Whenever we stray, they bring us back on track.

In films, you have to follow the director's vision. Filmmaking is a director's medium. So everything happens as per the script and his vision.

As an actor, we can only do what the director wants. Only the director has a vision of the entire film.

There are directors, and I think this is true of all directors, it would be true if I was a director - If the actor didn't want to do what I was suggesting, I would let him do it his way, and then I would say to him, "Just give me one where you do what the director wants", and that, of course, is the take that's used.

Therefore, when you see the end result, it's difficult to see who's the director, me or them. Ultimately, everything belongs to the actors - we just manage the situation.

As a loyal believer in the Auteur Theory I first felt editing was but the logical consequence of the way in which one shoots. But, what I learned is that it is actually another writing.

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.

Even if I loved the script, the director has to be right because it's all about the filmmaker. It's their vision. They're the ones that go back into the editing room and reassemble the film.

As a director, you have to go in with a really, really, really clear picture of what you want. That's the point of my commentaries. It's so difficult because you're the harshest critic.