Project Scale Quotes

What's interesting as a director, and even studio executives don't understand this, is that if you're directing a $200 million movie with six million people, it's the same as directing a $25,000 movie with three people. The director's job is, "You stand there and do that," or "This is the shot I want." The logistics change, but the job remains the same. And I enjoy the job.

I have zero strategy for my career - like, zero. I could get as much satisfaction about doing a $20,000 shot film the same way I could do a $100 million film with a bunch of effects.

I can't say that I wouldn't prefer to make small films, basically because I think they are probably more interesting in terms of the material. But every now and again, it's quite good to do a big one.

When you make an album, you have a team of musicians you work with; when you're a director and you're creating a motion picture, it's a much bigger animal.

You don't always just have to do an indie movie to feel like you're controlling it with a few people that you really have connected with, creatively. You can do it on a bigger scale.

I think people are willing to take more of a risk on an indie film, about character, etc...but at the same time, when I work on projects that are substantially bigger, in a way they do feel small. Even though the catering is way better and we actually have someone shooting with real film.... The budgets are bigger but the story still feels small, like an indie film.

A budget is not an issue. I mean a budget is used if you need more weeks or more time or more elements, but the creative process is exactly the same. In some instances you become more of a boss when you are doing a small movie. So that is not so relevant. The only thing is that the bigger a movie is in terms of budget, is that there are more people giving opinions.

After 'Where The Wild Things Are,' which was this big, long five-year project, I spent a year making small things.

I'm not this big Hollywood mainstream actress, but who cares? I think I just have a certain sensibility for smaller projects. I like intimate things. I think I do well in that kind of environment. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to do bigger projects. I feel everyone has their own journey.

It was incredibly daunting for me to go from 'Son Of Rambow' to 'Narnia' because of the natural jump that there is that is dictated by budget, and the number of people working on it. Even though a lot more people saw 'Son Of Rambow' than we expected, a lot more people were always going to go and see 'Narnia'.

I usually take up short films when I am not tied up with feature films. Short films are easier to work on... because it doesn't take much of your time. The number of shoot days are lesser as compared to feature films.

Companies come to us because they think we can quickly turn around things in 3 or 5 months and that's really our sweet spot. When you're a large company, you need projects that are several hundred million worth.

I think with the smaller-scale projects, the burden for success falls more squarely on the shoulders of the actors and the director and the script.

Sometimes I feel like doing smaller budget stuff. When I did 'Young Adam', for instance, I'd come out of 'Black Hawk Down' and 'The Island', and I really wanted to be on a small film set. I wanted to be on something intimate and small again, and then 'Young Adam' cropped up in a pile of scripts I was sent.

On 'Paranormal Activity,' it worked to my advantage not to have much of a crew, but on a bigger movie, where you have to work with a larger group of people who basically become your second family for a few months, it can be a great experience. Even though all of my projects are small scale compared to most Hollywood productions.

Am I doing the movie because I'm really excited about it and want to do it, or am I doing it because it seems like it's a big budget or something like that? It would still have to be the right thing, because my lifestyle's really cheap and I'm able to exist doing smaller movies, so if I'm able to do that, I'm happy to do that. But if something bigger came along that seems really cool, then that would be great.

With 'The Crazies,' we had a lot of room to play and manipulate and change things. When you get something bigger, you have less control in that sense unless you're one of the three stars.

Small projects need much more help than great.

I never really think much about the size of a production because I think as an actor, once you're in it, it's all the same. I never ever pick projects based on their size.

Everyone is a little bit more close-knit and you rely on people a little bit more. The bigger the budget gets, the more everyone toes the line in their department.

It's not like what I do, how I write, changes depending on the nature of the project. I give each story my all, regardless of if there are a few thousand people reading it or a few hundred thousand.

Working for with someone who has no idea what they wanted... it would just be so all over the place, especially with something on this scale. You have to know what you want with this.

In terms of form, all the projects interest me equally, although there are obviously large differences according to the scale and process of each project.

The world of entertainment is built for big money. It's not built for small-scale projects that sustain themselves.

A lot of times, I relied on connections through my agency, just for financing and things like that. Even when I'm looking for a million and a half dollars to do a small film, there can always be hold-ups, because it's a large amount of money for some people, and it's a small amount of money for other people. In any case, it's significant enough to where you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get it to happen. Sometimes, the people who are helping you can drop the ball. And, of course, the reason agents want you to do bigger projects is that they make a bigger cut.