It often disturbs me, when I see a film set in a historical time, that the people are too modern.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
This is the age of insincerity. The movies had the misfortune to come along in the twentieth century, and because they appeal to the masses there can be no sincerity in them.
I would loathe to work on modern films.
Most filmmakers aren't very interested in history. They worry constantly that people will be bored.
The fact that I made a special movie with an old-fashioned style - even if it's a mix between with modern and old-fashioned things - must mean I feel both ways about change. In a way I'm resisting, but in a way adapting myself to the times.
You know, I find it very strange when movies that I made that were just excoriated - I mean that I was just vilified for - are now looked at as classics.
Ever since my youth it has disturbed me that of the literary works that survived their own epoch, so many dealt with historical rather than contemporary subjects.
I feel that film is inevitably the medium of the future. It has been for years, decades, but more so now than ever.
I believe that movies are fast becoming antique and dinosauric as a medium. Film is a medium for the over-40s and television has gone the same way. If you're going to look towards the new generation, then of course you're going to have to be a lot more random, spontaneous, irreverent and provocative with your programming.
Cultural concepts are one of the most fascinating things about historical fiction. There's always a temptation, I think, among some historical writers to shade things toward the modern point of view. You know, they won't show someone doing something that would have been perfectly normal for the time but that is considered reprehensible today.
One of the things I like about doing historical films is drawing the line between now and then.