The whole purpose of filmmaking is to entertain the viewers and when it happens, it gives you a high.
The worst thing you can do to a filmmaker is to walk out of his film and go, 'That was a nice movie.' But if you can cause people to walk out and then argue about the film on the sidewalk... I think we're all seeking dissension, and we love to affect an audience.
The way you set up for a sequel is by having a successful film. The focus is on making a successful film, and making a film that travels around the world, and that people enjoy and have fun with, and that people are able to escape with.
I want to make a film that is commercially successful because that means that the larger cinema-going audience around the world like the movie, which is my goal. That's my job, to make films that people respond to.
What's my dilemma here? Am I making entertainment or am I making art? What am I saying? At the end of the day, cinema is entertainment for millions of people, but for me it's expression.
You never do a movie and not want it to work. You accept whatever it is. You have to, but nobody in their right mind would not want the movie to be getting talked about at the end of the year.
I want to make a movie where people are, like, 'Whoa.'
I think cinema should provoke thoughts, sure, but using it as I soapbox I think is the wrong place.
You don't want to make a movie just to make a movie. You better have a point of view.
There's no point in making films unless you intend to show us something special, otherwise just go out and watch a play.
From when I was a young boy, I wanted to be the first person to direct a movie at 100.
