Some of our competitors believe (digital cinema) is ready for prime time. We believe that, like film, digital needs to be viable, well- tested and well-implemented. We're focused on getting the products where they need to be.

Ultimately, digital cinema needs to be reliable. Film is perceived as being very reliable. It might be out of focus, but people won't demand their money back. Digital is a different medium. It's either there on the screen or it's not.

In my experience there are billions of dollars available for pieces of shit. As soon as the material distinguishes itself by something interesting, financing becomes a problem.

When less than everything has been said about a subject, you can still think on further. The alternative is for the audience to be presented with a final deduction (...) no effort on their part.
What can it mean to them when they have not shared with the author the misery and joy of bringing an image into being?

Directing, I realize, on film is far more personal, you know. Cinema really is a director's medium. This is a very personal film.

A major figure in contemporary cinema, he is a major film producer, movie actor and frequent visitor.