I think that when you're making a story... that's based on somebody, the filmmaker has his duty to do his research.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Sometimes a character is really based on research that you do. Other times it's just based on your imagination or perhaps your conversation with the director. Or sometimes all of the above. It depends on the movie and character.
But I can say what interests me about documentary is the fact that you don't know how the story ends at the onset - that you are investigating, with a camera, and the story emerges as you go along.
There's got to be something you want to tell and that's the engine which spurs all of the work you have to do in order to create the story, but you have to love some sort of nugget of what you're telling to be a filmmaker.
I think film, to me, as a director, is about telling a story.
If you want to tell stories, be a writer, not a filmmaker.
It's tricky to ask a filmmaker to explain his own work; usually we're the least qualified to make sense of what we've done, unfortunately, because of the tunnel vision required to create anything over four years.
The research period of a film is the most exciting part of the process, and filming is sometimes a letdown because when you're dealing with biopic material, the real thing is always much more intricate than the story told in the film.
I think, as a filmmaker, it's important to be honest with yourself at all times in terms of what's working and what's not.
It's not a film-maker's job to explain his technique, but to tell his story the best way he can.
The thing is, as a film director, you're essentially alone: You have to tell a story primarily through pictures, and only you know the film you see in your head.