Most adaptations of plays I hate, because they don't envision something as cinema at all, you know?
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I don't write plays for them to be turned into movies.
Cinema reflects culture and there is no harm in adapting technology, but not at the cost of losing your originality.
A lot of actors say that theater's the thing for them. And that's great, and I'm not one to speak with any authority about it because of not having done it properly. For me, movies are what I love.
People are mistaken to view cinema as some sort of gimmick. It's very much ingrained in the ways in which we understand each other.
It's disappointing to see films become pure entertainment, so that it's not an art form.
Mostly, theater becomes blander and blander as everyone wants the same thing they saw before. The good plays are the ones that don't allow you to do that.
Most films are rooted in a book or a comic strip, but I don't go out there saying I want to do adaptations.
The kinds of films that I'm used to doing are independent films. They're very small character-driven pieces, and there isn't as much spectacle involved.
Theater has to resonate in your heart in a way that movies don't.
Adaptations are fun for me because they connect to the idea of filmmaking I had when I was a kid. I would see a movie and think: 'I'm gonna make that movie.'