The reason I prefer working with established actors and stars is because they are more popular, and the film reaches out to more people and do well in terms of numbers, too.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Stardom is only a by-product of acting. I don't think being a movie star is a good enough reason for existing.
Ultimately, making movies, if you don't have a big star, it's hard to do. Or if it's not a star director.
I think it's easy for directors to stay fresh more than actors, especially once an actor becomes a star. It's hard for Russell Crowe to walk down a street or take a subway. I can fly coach.
I've worked with Hollywood stars, but the reason most of the Hollywood stars I've worked with are Hollywood stars is that they're excellent actors, so I've been very lucky.
The point of being a movie star is that people cast you in a role. Actors tie themselves in knots trying to get out of that.
It's nice that established and emerging stars agree to appear in ambitious low-budget films. Such pro-bono work gives the movie a higher profile and the actors a potentially more distinguished resume.
It is all about marketing; that is where the real craft comes in. The best actors do not necessarily become the biggest stars. And vice versa.
I had a big problem working with stars, because they are too expensive and have too many demands. Their names help you raise the money to make the movie, but then they demand close-ups. They change things. You end up doing things at their service instead of servicing the film.
If you work with big stars, then they become the lead actors. It's not that I don't want to do films with big stars, but I would rather do the films where I get the title roles.
To me the only real star of the movie is the writer. And I work with writers very closely, from outline to first draft and on to the seventh draft, whatever it takes. Then my job is to support the director to make the best movie we can. Some producers try to go past them, but my job is to support them.