I think one of the things that will really surprise people about 'See No Evil 2' is the fact that its so beautifully shot. It's really a pretty movie.
My films have a lot of historical context; I'm a huge fan of ruins. You see a lot of ruin work in my movies, I like ruins.
Nowadays you don't get to see composition in a movie because nobody ever keeps the camera still long enough to see it. Actors don't have the thrill and the power of working with space.
The art of moviemaking seems to get thrown away. The cinematography is gone, and the look of everything becomes of little importance. You lose the memorable images; everything looks like it's been shot at night with a security camera.
I find that movies tend to fix the aesthetics of a story in people's minds.
For horror movies, color is reassuring because, at least in older films, it adds to the fakey-ness.
Most movies are too brightly lit. I think that may come from a lot of directors having watched too much TV.
I think it's absurd to believe that movies should look like paintings and say something like serious books say something.
I've tried to make 'Strictly Ballroom' impossible to date. It does feel a bit '80s but I consciously made sure there was no technology in the movie that could date it.
A film is a great deal about what you see, and the silhouette of a character tells you a lot. I'd love to go into film costume.
On the clothes front, I have a designer who sits with the director for each film to chalk out a look for me based on the script.
The movies I like watching the most are these sort of cinema verite, handheld films where you really get gritty with people. But I also have this strange affinity for old Rock Hudson/Doris Day movies and things that sort of pop out where you see the frames, where you have these 2D animation moments and split-screens and things like that.
I love all the movies by director John Hughes. I also love John Landis's movies.
A movie tends to box you in, at least as far as the aesthetics. You have an incredibly kinetic experience, which is the joy of cinema.
Studio movies are looking more like independent movies and independent movies are looking more like studio movies, and I think cinema is better now because of it.
tasteful and colossal are - in movies, at least - basically antipathetic.
Well, I'm really interested in the idea of making genre films, but movies have a much more personal undercurrent to them and that look beautiful, and that's sort of the films I'm kind of interested in making.
Cinema is always evolving.
We do like digital projection. We like shooting on film, finishing digitally, and projection digitally. That's what I like best. It's still a movie. It's not someone's camcorder and it got projected. That's mean, I know.
One of the problems I have with a lot of movies these days is that everything is too well lit. In the world of digital creations there is a tendency to show too much.
I personally found 'Avatar' - the blue people, to me, looked like painted art from the seventies. It didn't have the realism as, say, the robotic machines.
I used this line to demonstrate how important colors are in movies: It's not a caprice.
What I am really curious about is the visuals of cinema... the form.
You never know how stylish a movie is going to be and I think this movie has a great sense of style. The way that it is shot and our costumes and everything, it was just terrific.
Costumes say a lot about a character. When it came to 'Palo Alto,' it was important for me that the kids didn't look perfect. In most teen movies today, all of the clothes are expensive. I remember wearing a lot of dirty vintage clothes.
