I guess because I pay so much attention to the physical part of the character, I don't look upon it as like Charlize Theron up there. I don't think of them as like Charlize Theron films.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think Charlize Theron is just as good when she is looking really pretty in a movie as when she gains 10 pounds and puts on a nose. I applaud her - good for her that she doesn't care. But she's just as good, whether she's pretty or not.
I studied classics, and I find it mystifying that we had Medea and Electra and Antigone and all these amazing characters, and they don't really exist in cinema now. The only person who's really doing it, and he gets loads of criticism for it, is Lars Von Trier.
The Greeks already understood that there was more interest in portraying an unusual character than a usual character - that is the purpose of films and theatre.
I think I try to look at all my films and break them down because, at the end of the day, it's about creating characters that you like.
Before I started to make films, I didn't give much thought to the way the characters were physically positioned in the story world.
I don't tend to picture my characters as actors and actresses.
I thought Charlize Theron was awesome in 'Mad Max,' and that was a very masculine kind of hero.
Well, the thing about great fictional characters from literature, and the reason that they're constantly turned into characters in movies, is that they completely speak to what makes people human.
Most filmmakers' entire body of knowledge is of other movies. When they describe things, they describe them in relation to other movies. That's why we have so many cyclical movies that look like other movies. But I'm not cynical. I even go to some of those movies.
They're all based on factual characters. Well, a good amount of them. That's why I was attracted to this genre anyways, because these characters are so large and cartoonish, they're like caricatures, I just felt that there had to be a film made about them.