I love Sam Mendes. He's a fantastic director.
Some directors have just one way of working; you either have to adhere to it or you don't.
My sole inspiration is a telephone call from a director.
You want the film to be critically successful - you certainly want the film to be financially successful so that you can. . . well, because that's how movies like this are made, you know, they need to make money. But as a director, you can only make the movie that you want to make.
[Hillary Clinton'] transition director being Ken Salazar, I think, indicates that she will continue to be a friend to fracking. It's not possible to solve the climate crisis while we continue to expand fracking.
I think that I just need to work with great directors and actors, people who are better than me, so that I am challenged.
There are a lot of directors who make big money and do big things and then move out of the 'hood
If I get lucky and I can choose, I would always choose a really good story and screenplay, even if I don't know the director. If there's a good screenplay, there's a chance that something good is going to happen.
I think TV is much more the writer's medium and film is about the director and their vision and how you can collaborate with them and see that through to the end. They are so different
All the films are hits before you turn the camera on. It's only in the execution that they fail. I've been less than happy with the way a couple of films were edited, but it's a director's prerogative and you gotta go with it.
The best films are because of nobody but the director.
For any director with a little lucidity, masterpieces are films that come to you by accident.
I can't imagine any director directing a screenplay of mine, because the great directors all have very personal styles, and the ones that don't are not very interesting directors.
In the re-creation of combat situations, and this is coming from a director who's never been in one, being mindful of what these veterans have actually gone through, you find that the biggest concern is that you don't look at war as a geopolitical endeavor.
I think one of the things you have to be aware of as an actor is that if you come on the set and see the director standing there mouthing all the words while a scene is going on, that's usually a very bad sign because it means the director has already shot the scene in his head. He knows exactly the rhythm and the nuances that he wants delivered in the line and you're not going to dissuade him.
To have a director that loves his actors is something that you can see in the film and in the fruits of that labor. You can see that translated in the film. When you watch this movie, you can see a director who loves his actors, and it shines through the movie, in my eyes.
I imagine as an axiom you could say that the better the play, the less "creativity" the director need exert.
Interestingly, my first director's cut was an hour and forty-one minutes. Then, the studio actually wanted to add more to the story, so we went all the way up to an hour and forty-seven minutes. After that, I made some additional cuts and now we are where we are.
Actually, I met a lot of directors and most of them have that fantasy to make a silent movie because for directors it's the purest way to tell a story. It's about creating images that tell a story and you don't need dialogue for that.
An actor and a [theatre] director are both what I would call interpreters of work. We interpret a work, just as a musician will interpret a composer's work, we interpret the work of a playwright. We are servants of the theatre and I've always believed that. We must serve what has been written, that's what we're there for.