Every film has an origin. It is made under certain circumstances, and that is a very important point that should be kept in mind during a review.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
Ultimately, with every film I'd done before, there was a reference. They have their own uniqueness, but there was always a precedent.
I didn't realize there are generations who do not know about the origins of film.
An often-repeated assertion in the body of film criticism I have written is the assertion that movies do not just mirror the culture of any given time; they also create it.
I think in Europe, movies are made like a commodity and then sold as art.
People have to identify with their own stories, with their own lives, so a movie belongs to a country and to a culture. Sometimes we can share, but it's very rare.
Quality isn't about where the money came from or which company gets to put their name on the thing. What matters is who made the movie and why they made it.
With a movie you're creating from the beginning this particular work, let's not call it work of art, because very few movies are works of art, let's just call them bits of popular culture, whatever they are, sometimes very rarely by accident a movie becomes a work of art.
When movies first came out, maybe they were in black and white and there wasn't any sound and people were saying the theater is still the place to be. But now movies and theater have found their own place in the world. They are each legitimate art forms.
My early films were very European based. It was 'As It Is In Heaven,' 'Together,' they were great international successes, but then I did, I think, 60 movies or something.
I think it is a mistake to identify a movie according to its language, as if movies were literature.
No opposing quotes found.