I'm not emotionally excited by the power of cinema's tricks anymore.
You can watch any Hitchcock film and be blown away.
I will always endeavour to bring out the best films.
I'm not limited by genre and it doesn't really matter what the genre is as long as the film is going to be new and have some real artistic integrity.
That's what I always loved about [Federico] Fellini's films: You see the weird joy of the weird filmmaking family and the abstract craziness that goes along with it, and there's something about it that's quite beautiful.
I don't believe in the deplorable notion of realism in the cinema: you can over-reach it, and it becomes as false as convention.
Cinema is a world of imagination.
I had to see if I'm a real filmmaker. I mean, I have proven myself in movies and franchises, but am I an artist? Can I contribute something to a medium that I love so much?
Kurosawa was one of film's true greats. His ability to transform a vision into a powerful work of art is unparalleled.
Laszlo Kovacs was marvelous. He was very much in the same school as Bill Frake, who was, of course, a great cinematographer as well. They had a very similar style and similar sensibility.
I try to make films, not movies. I've never liked the expression 'movie', but it sounds elitist to say that.
Professional cinema image-taking should integrate, serve, interest, and enhance the story. I judge cinematography not just for a story well told but for what the story is.
With 'Anna Karenina,' I just think it's a stunning visual tour de force for a director who is at the top of his game.
As an artist, there's so many categories that you're put into, that there are so many things that I'm about that I've never explored as an artist on film. I don't see myself in so many characters in film.
The beauty of cinema is that it can do some things that novels just can't.
It is not the most brilliant that excel in film, but the most patient!
