Yash Chopra Quotes

For so many filmmakers, cinema is a means to an end.

You can't make a film for your personal satisfaction. That is why I detest the cinema of people like Mani Kaul.

I found it very difficult to explain to someone why you did a film. It's not like having a conversation.

I think ultimately if you have a very high expectation of your audience and you know exactly what it is you're trying to express through the medium of film, there will always be an audience for you.

I don't make movies because I think audiences will want to go see them.

I just make films that attract me.

But I don't think as film-makers it is our responsibility that every time we make a film we should be saying something. If you are entertaining people, that's more than enough.

I think my films are always quite self-reflexive and always question 'why am I doing this, is this the right way to do it, what is cinema for, does it have a purpose?'

I wouldn't take a directing job if I didn't think it was enriching life.

The more I make films, the more I feel less inclined to talk about them and just let people watch them. I feel that the pictures are telling the story, and I can't really add anything except just talking about the technicalities of what happened on the day.

When I make a movie, I have both a specific and vague, amorphous dream idea of what the movie is going to be. Of course, I don't actually know what it's going to be, but I'm still striving to get to some place with it.

All movies are pure process. A commercial movie isn't less process than an art movie. You can't make your decisions about a film on the basis of, 'Is it important enough? Is it serious enough?' It's either alive or it's not for me. If it's alive, I want to do it.

I think most artists would be happy to have bigger audiences rather than smaller ones. It doesn't mean that they are going to change their work in order necessarily to get it, but they're happy if they do get it.

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

Regardless of the medium, be it television or feature or documentary, I'm not gonna distinguish and worry about my particular canon, whatever that means.

I want my movies to be audience experiences. As much as I like Michael Haneke, I'm not going to make a Haneke film. That's just not in my DNA.

I strive to make movies I would enjoy.

When I got to filmmaking, the most democratic of environments where anybody could say anything, those were the best environments, but what you don't want to assume is that you know what the audience is thinking.

I don't want to make a movie till I have an idea I have to make. I don't want to make a movie just to make a movie.

As a director, you never think about how an audience would respond. You can think about that, but you will never change what you're going to do.

As a filmmaker, you want people to understand and get what you do, and it's a lot to ask for.

I just want to go on making movies, and some of them will be completely meaningless, except, of course, to me.

I don't want to do a history lesson. I don't think cinema should be about that. Cinema should be about emotions.

You can't expect to connect with everybody, and that's all right. The more I make films, I'm learning that you don't have to make films for everybody. A film can be made for a smaller group of people than that, and it still warrants an existence.

This politics is bound to be reflected in the work of a serious filmmaker. When I make a film, I try to tell a human story to the best of my ability. I do not set out either to preach messages or purely to entertain.