Filmmaking has always involved pairs: a director coupled with a producer, a director alongside an editor... The notion of couples is not foreign to cinema.
Peter Chelsom and Edgar Wright are totally different directors and worlds apart, but both really accomplished directors who are certain of how they want to make a film.
If it's stage, the two most important artists are the actor and the playwright. If it's film, THE most important person is the director. The director says where the camera goes.
You spend enough time on set as an actor and it's great when a director was at some point an actor or understands acting. They're able to finesse performances out of you that a lot directors can't get.
I've always thought Ed Burns was a profoundly underrated actor. He's a great director, obviously. A great director/writer. But I think he's a stunning actor, too.
But on this show, it's a good question because in the 35 shows that we've done now, I've really made a consistent effort to really shadow the directors because in many ways they have to be more prepared than feature directors.
If I had to choose criteria, for me, it's about first the director. I want to be a part of something that's good and intellectually challenging. After the director it's the character and the story. That's the deal for me.
If you look at the least effective of the 'Twilight' movies, it was when they brought in an action-movie director instead of a director who was really a good storyteller. And you can tell the difference.
There's no such thing as an actor giving positive criticism to a director. The minute you say 'Don't you think it would look nicer...', that director's going to hate your guts. Particularly if it's a good idea.
I'd love to see the rushes but it's just not allowed because directors and also a lot of actors feel that if they see their work, and the director likes what they're doing, the actor might try to correct their mistakes.
I would love to see more women directors because they represent half of the population - and gave birth to the whole world. Without them writing and being directors, the rest of us are not going to know the whole story.
My interpretation of a strong director is someone who knows their story. That's what directors are, they're storytellers because they're directing where your focus is going to be as an audience.
There are plenty of writers who are going to become a director after their next job, but no one will believe you're a director unless you believe it.
People think that the directors direct actors. No. Really, what the director's doing is directing the audience's eye through the film.
I'm not one of these directors, so far, that wants to have a whole separate director's cut of these things. So far they've turned out to be kind of the length that they wanted to be.
T.V. Director: I won an award. John: A likely story. T.V. Director: It's on the wall in my office.
Now, I have big-money offers on three movies, and I have director approval. That's kind of scary,' he says. 'No directors have been attached. That's a lot of pressure on me.
Bollywood directors are like cricketers where in one match you score a century, and in the next match, you are out for a duck! Moreover, very few directors are consistent in Bollywood.
I believe the director is the one that sets the mood and if you have this hysterical director it's a domino effect. I would work for him forever, for nothing. Don't tell my agent that.
I go where the material is, and I feel like I'm looking for really strong directors. That's the key ingredient. There are some directors I would move the sun and earth for, or stop the rotation of the planets, just to work with them.
When we choose a mobile network, do we check whether Airtel or Vodafone belong to a particular caste? No, we simply choose the provider based on the best value or service. Then why do we vote for somebody simply because he belongs to the same caste a...
