Quote

I think, as directors, they may recognize, more than the rest of the body of filmmakers, exactly what you do as a director, because I think sometimes the conception is if the camera isn't swinging around, and it's not pyrotechnic or worthily melodramatic, then the direction is uninvolved.

There are times when you work with directors on set, and things are a bit rudderless, and those can be good directors.

With movies, so much of it is, 'Who is the human being that is going to be directing it?' Because it is their medium. In a way, you are serving the director, and when it is someone that you feel you can have a lot of confidence in, it can make a big difference.

A lot of directors prefer the solitude of the editing process, but I revel in the craziness of what a film set is.

The director is the only person on the set who has seen the film. Your job as a director is to show up every day and know where everything will fit into the film.

I find it kind of weird that directors want to put themselves in their films.

I have to say that whatever decisions I make, I really do think that movie making is a director's medium. They are the people that ultimately shape the film, and a director can take great material and turn it into garbage if they are not capable of making a good movie.

It doesn't matter who's directing, or who's doing the movie; there are a ton of things that can go wrong, and they do all the time. So you just have to figure out how to get through it, and then how the director finally puts it together, and then see what the audience takes from it. That's the most important thing to me.

One of the best things about directing movies, as opposed to merely writing them, is that there's no confusion about who's to blame: you are.