Parvathy Quotes

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.

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

My responsibility is to make a film and find my dramatic language; I don't have any political or social responsibility.

I like to think of film-making not just as an act of personal self-aggrandisement but rather as an act of public service.

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 don't want to make a film to make a film.

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.

It could be sci-fi, love story, historical drama what counts for me is the fact that they're made by great directors with a great point of view who bring the audience to be elevated and at the same time entertained. That's what cinema is.

'The Lobster,' at some point, was my most accessible film. Then I made 'The Killing of a Sacred Deer,' which turned out to be not as accessible as 'The Lobster.' It was the film I wanted to make and the story I wanted to tell.

I think Van Sant is the most important American director we have. He takes the most risks. He's just pure to me.

Critics think we try to make bad films. They think we want to spend five months of our lives making something bad. We always go out with the best of intentions, whether it's fluffy comedy or a drama.

Good directors don't answer questions with their work. They generate debate and create discussion.

You know as a director what you want, but the film is smarter than you, the film says no, the film says there's something more here.

I'm not the kind of director who aims to send a message out.

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

I'm not making films just to be bold.

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.

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.

It's only the filmmaker. The script is really, really second. And there's a huge gap between filmmaker and script for me. I almost don't care about the story that they're telling; I really only care about who wants to tell it.

You can be a smarty-pants director, but that won't matter if the movie doesn't work emotionally as well as intellectually.

For me, with me, making a film is always about humanity.

Anyone who thinks Peter Jackson would fall for market forces around him rather than artistic integrity doesn't know the guy or the body of his work.

As a filmmaker, you have to understand the essence of the book and tell the story you want to see on the screen, and hopefully please yourself - because you can't possibly please everyone.

A lot of directors don't know what they want to do. Every director I've seen that was a good director that I've admired knew exactly what he wanted to do. They didn't sit there and think about it.

Going forward, I would love to work with directors like Rian Johnson and Joss Whedon; people like that who are doing big films but do have really independent voices. That's kind of what I want to focus on, is always working with people with at least an independent point of view, even if it's not an independent film.