My conception of it was that in a normal film you have a story with different movements that program, develop, go a little bit off the trunk, come back, and end.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Maybe because I come from choreography, I've always felt that there's something about action films that made it very natural for me to go that way. It's story through movement.
Before I film a movie, I look at how the character will move and walk.
That's what film can do in a way that TV and other long-form storytelling can't. It gives you this very immersive moment.
When I did that first movie, it was the introduction to all the set-up time and the waiting time that's endemic in motion pictures, and the repetition.
My films usually start with an idea that I get while walking the streets. For example, I got the idea for 'Guard Dog' when I was walking in the park and I saw a dog barking at a bird.
A picture story just doesn't run like a film. It doesn't have 24 frames per second. It doesn't deal with this illusion of movement.
I think all my movies are about transitions to some degree.
There are some sequences in films that I think work filmicly, that stand out to me, but that's much more to do with the staging and the cutting and the mood of the thing as a sequence, the way everything comes together.
On a film, you start to get closer and closer with the people you're working with, and it becomes like this circus act or this travelling family.
Before I started to make films, I didn't give much thought to the way the characters were physically positioned in the story world.
No opposing quotes found.