It is a gratification to me to know that I am ignorant of art... Because people who understand art find nothing in pictures but blemishes.
You have to appreciate the finer points of your work; criticise, too, if needed. I am also my own worst and most honest critic. I can say things which nobody will ever dare say. Even the best of friends will stop at a point, whereas I can go beyond.
A writer is a spectator, looking at everything with a highly critical eye.
When I see myself on screen, I am always looking at the bad bits and finding fault in something or the other.
I don't know if proud is the right word, but I am somebody who does not, on the whole, have the highest regard for my own stuff in that when I look all I get to see are the flaws.
I'm a perfectionist, and I very rarely satisfy myself when I come in and watch the film the next day.
It's very hard to watch comedy for me, when I'm doing a comedy show, because I either watch a show and I love it, and I'm jealous, or I watch a show and I see all the problems with it, and I'm angry that I watched it.
We are neither worse nor better than those who eye us critically.
Every good poet includes a critic, but the reverse is not true.
An eye critically nice can only be formed by observing well-colored pictures with attention.
I don't watch anything I'm in. I'm too critical.
Any time you start judging with an overly critical eye rather than letting things just be, and following what you think is right, it's complicated to find balance.
The habit of looking for beauty in everything makes us notice the shortcomings of things, our sense, hungry for complete satisfaction, misses the perfection it demands.
You see someone on the street, and essentially what you notice about them is the flaw.
What I have is a malevolent curiosity. That's what drives my need to write and what probably leads me to look at things a little askew. I do tend to take a different perspective from most people.
Oh, my gosh, I've never seen a film unless, you know, if I have to go and do ADR, loop-loop. But I don't watch after. I'm too critical.
I'm usually a fairly harsh critic. It depends. I tend to really not watch my work, because I just feel uncomfortable, and I can be highly critical.
Try to read your own work as a stranger would read it, or even better, as an enemy would.
When you're editing, you want to be the perfect appreciator, not another writer.
It is hard to watch myself. I'm hypercritical, and it's difficult to watch a performance when I may end up being at odds with it - wishing I'd done something differently or that they had edited it a certain way.
Journalism is a voyeuristic vocation that attracts to its employment many people who are often naturally shy and insatiably curious, and each day they are assigned to view the world with a critical eye and a detached sense of intimacy.
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.
I'm inspired by looking at art, by looking at precedent. Looking is what you have to do if you want to make things, so you develop a critical eye.
Fortunately, I've never had to be too critical of my own work, because the world is critical enough.
I'm always in the theater seeing everything, good or bad.
