A filmmaker has almost the same freedom as a novelist has when he buys himself some paper.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I've always considered myself a filmmaker who writes stuff for himself to do.
If a film is very clever and well-written, that's what gives you freedom as a director.
A person is a fool to become a writer. His only compensation is absolute freedom.
When you're making an independent film what you don't have in time and money you have to make up with creativity and diligence.
Contrary to what many writers imply about the process, nobody forces a writer to sell his work to the film industry.
As a novelist, you have to be free. Books can't be an act of filial duty.
The writer must be a participant in the scene... like a film director who writes his own scripts, does his own camera work, and somehow manages to film himself in action, as the protagonist or at least the main character.
Perfect freedom is reserved for the man who lives by his own work and in that work does what he wants to do.
The writer who can't do his job looks to his editor to do it for him, though he won't dream of sharing his royalties with that editor.
You know, I feel like my job is to write a book. Then filmmakers come and they make a movie. And they're two really different art forms.
No opposing quotes found.