It is about time that TV actors were paid as well as film stars.
I love film, but it's funny going to drama school for three years, where you spend most of your time training for theatre, then coming out and just doing films.
'The Fault in Our Stars' is a beautiful film that's really positive. The second half gets sad, but it's always positive.
Nowadays, if a studio assumes that his film is bad, there is always an executive that gets more nervous than usual and thinks that if they change the music, the film will become a masterpiece.
Fundamentally, whether directing in the theatre or a film, you have to be a good storyteller, regardless of the form. The thing I had to work hardest at was thinking in shots.
Occasionally, you'll get a 'District 9,' a film that is politically charged, but there is nothing going on beneath the surface with a lot of horror films. They are not about anything.
I love film and I love sitcoms, and I was one of those kids that would just go to the movies on the weekend and spend my whole weekend watching all of the movies.
I think - I don't know, maybe it's nostalgia. But the choice, losing the choice to be able to use film is going to be - it's gone. It's going to be gone.
I took all my TV experience and what I learned about - by writing and directing and bringing a movie to Sundance - about the realities of the independent film market: 'Transparent' is the marriage of those two situations.
I grew up on Mel Brooks films. That was film to me until I got a little bit older and realised there were other kinds of movies.
I didn't want to do film or commercials or television.
I didn't even realize that I was interested in film until I was in college, and since then, I've had a very uncertain and sort of lost decade.
I'd quite like to try all sorts of different things, whether it be theatre, TV or film.
Having written for film and television, I had little interest in turning 'The Good Father' into a Hollywood thriller. I was writing a novel, and novels demand that the writer goes deeper, both emotionally and thematically.
The filmmakers have a story they want to tell, and they go get the material they need for it. The film either exceeds or fails to meet up to their expectations or it's different.
I think any performing artist can do films, or, as a matter of fact, anybody out there in the street can be a film actor with no experience whatsoever if you've got a good director.
I don't think there is really a favorite, I'm very fond of film making as a whole and as a medium and of course, there are some that I've enjoyed making more than others but I've enjoyed making all of them.
I'll never forget the first screening at the Berlin Film Festival. As soon as the film ended there was an outbreak of booing, which made us look at each other with some surprise.
Film directors don't come to the theatre in Sydney. In London and New York, they do.
I am not a regular at film festivals.
I gradually work myself into a frenzy as the shoot approaches, while we're choosing the costumes or working with the make-up artist. I'm not so much interested in my character as the film itself.
'Bombay Velvet' is my first film in a trilogy about Bombay, before it became a metropolis.
There are some great women's roles in television... so much more interesting than what I was reading in film scripts.
I feel that film is inevitably the medium of the future. It has been for years, decades, but more so now than ever.
I like to work. I enjoy once a year, doing a film.
Cinema is made to film material: the body. By filming the material, the mechanical, the worker, we arrive at the spiritual.
I think about 'The Hurt Locker,' and we made a film about three guys, three different looking guys with three very different energies.
I write, I teach, I direct. I sail around the world for Holland America two months out of every year doing a seminar where we discuss film or theater and do improvisations.
The last person to stand still and repeat himself was Walt Disney. He refused to repeat himself. So to think that he'd be making the same kind of film in the year 2001 that he made in 1941 is absurd.
A kid now can practically record a song or edit a short film on his way to school. I think that will produce, perhaps, more less-interesting things - or you'll have to search more to find the interesting things. But I also think it's exciting.
Sometimes it's great, sometimes it's bad. I think the film could have been a lot better.
I would like to do a nice comedy/drama feature with a good part, but nobody's asked me to do a film. Maybe it's because they don't know what to do with a guy in a dress.
I always envisioned working in film and in theater. Theater and film are not, they're not in any way substitutable. What I love about theater is so different from what I love about film, and I enjoy the craft of both.
Film is abstract, not definite. It is a dream.
You want to keep it in there because you feel like it's yours but to be able to see that sometimes some stuff needs to go and I think it's for the benefit of the film.
Wiseman's films are some of the most pure cinema, and to take a journey in a Wiseman film is like no other. He's been doing it so long, with a body of over 40 films!
