As an actor, you have to believe in the point of view of a director; as a director, you have to be able to express what your point of view is and invite everybody to join you on that journey. So it's always about opening up.
The film The Conquest will be seen on many different levels and the American point of view is always more technical. The French are less technical - it's 'I like it, or I don't like it.' I hope that this film can have a life in the U.S. - it's the grand country of cinema. I grew up with Hollywood movies, so for a French director to have a film distributed in the U.S. is a real opportunity.
A film is a film and it has to be good to be inspired. That's number one. It can be Italian, French, German, American. It's moving images in front of you and with a strong director who injects his point of view and artistry.
I went from silent films to watching French new wave cinema. I became entrapped by it all. That's when I knew I wanted to do film. The moment you start looking at film from a critique point of view - there's a difference between watching a film as an audience and with a critical point of view.
I have this exercise where I force myself to look out from the flower's point of view at these great walloping humans coming down the path, and try, just try and feel it from their point of view because it's a different world to them, a fascinating hard one.
As soon as anybody puts anything on film, it automatically has a point of view, and it's somebody else's point of view, and it's impossible for it to be yours.
If I was asked to do a film that was just trying to sell a political point of view or religious point of view, I wouldn't do that because that's a bad script.
When I approach villains, unless it's a drama, I'm a comedian, so I approach most things from a comedic point of view.
I've always been a big proponent of point of view in cinema. Not necessarily that the point of view has to be subjective, but that in all great films the point of view has been taken into account and established.
My films are very rooted in specific people's point of view. Some film-makers give a more global point of view, like God looking down at the characters.
The character is important, of course, but I like when there's intelligence in a movie. I like when it's, how do you say, sensible. So for me a film is very subjective, and it's a point of view. I like to be brought into a world of a director.
First and foremost I have to look at the film from an audience point of view. Yes, one has to see the story from an actor's point of view as well so that you can showcase performance as well. However before that, I need to ensure hits.
I think you're always subjective because you always have a point of view, but I'm always sort of curious about what is the point of view I don't agree with. There is a truth in that because there always is.
[T]he more clamour we make about 'the women's point of view', the more we rub it into people that the women's point of view is different, and frankly I do not think it is -- at least in my job. The line I always want to take is, that there is the 'point of view' of the reasonably enlightened human brain, and that this is the aspect of the matter which I am best fitted to uphold.
I think to many people the term 'activist film' implies a film with a single point of view - something designed to provoke outrage and urge action on a particular issue - sort of the film equivalent of a rally. 'If a Tree Falls' is not that kind of film.
I take a biocentric point of view. I look at things from the point of view of the Earth and the laws of ecology. As opposed to the anthropocentric point of view, where everything revolves around humanity.