There are definitely reasons to do certain things, but I like to stick to good director, good actor, good script.
For me, a director is a director immaterial of the gender. At the end of the day, the audience is only interested in watching a good film.
David Boreanaz is actually a very good director and he directed one of our episodes. Excellent director, knew exactly what he wanted. We never had long days with David. He was great, he knew exactly what he wanted and he's a fantastic director.
As for the Canadians - good actors and good directors are sometimes taken by the American market, you know, if they're good enough.
Because I've made a film with such an amazing director as Tarantino, I'm much more conscious of working with good directors from now on, so that's what's important to me. I don't really care about making a big movie - I just want to make good ones.
Yeah, I've worked with a couple of female directors, now, and I think that they're amazing. As good or better than guy directors.
If the script is good, the cast and director good, I'll go anywhere.
A good script and a good brief from the director is enough to let me know what is expected of me.
I think the most important thing for an actor is reading the script and trying to figure out if you can play that character well. The last thing on my mind is if the director made good movies previously. It's not my job to know if that director's las...
I'm just trying to find a good project. Work with a good director, someone I really admire. Find a good role.
You have to write a good score that you feel good about. At least, you're supposed to. But, if the director hates it, it ain't going to be in the movie!
I understood that I was not the best director in the world nor the worst director in the world. I realized that there is a very mysterious element to what works and what doesn't work in the theater. And it's good to know that from the beginning.
I think every director has a different take, some are good, some are bad. The directors you get on best with sometimes don't make the best films, so who's to say who is right.
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'm a good actor in that sense for directors because I always do what they say.
Judd Apatow is pretty good, both as a producer and as a director.
A lot of actors aren't particularly good directors. And they're not particularly good with other actors. That's kind of a fallacy.
It's fun to do something funny and have the director laughing. It makes you feel good.
