A Quote by Denis Villeneuve

When I use violence in a movie, it's just to express the power, the impact of it. — © Denis Villeneuve
When I use violence in a movie, it's just to express the power, the impact of it.
We are convinced that non-violence is more powerful than violence. We are convinced that non-violence supports you if you have a just and moral cause...If you use violence, you have to sell part of yourself for that violence. Then you are no longer a master of your own struggle.
When we use the word domestic [terrorism], we discount its actual impact as political terrorism, which is, of course, political violence meant to impact an audience outside of the immediate victims.
I hope they can see that as a consumer, if they express themselves, they may make an impact and leverage their impact on the brands, and the brands can leverage their buying power on tens of thousands of polluters - suppliers - in China.
Some people draw a comforting distinction between force and violence. I refuse to cloud the issue by such word-play. The power which establishes a state is violence; the power which maintains it is violence; the power which eventually overthrows it is violence. Call an elephant a rabbit only if it gives you comfort to feel that you are about to be trampled to death by a rabbit.
I've always had a philosophy that position doesn't define power. Impact defines power. What impact are you making on people? What impact are you making on business?
Power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power's disappearance.
My approach to violence is that if it's pertinent, if that's the kind of movie you're making, then it has a purposeI think there's a natural system in your own head about how much violence the scene warrants. It's not an intellectual process, it's an instinctive process. I like to think it's not violence for the sake of violence and in this particular film, it's actually violence for the annihilation of violence.
The difference between this film [Your highness] and Pineapple Express was pretty much in the logistics of the technical ambition of the movie, and the size and scope of the movie. Pineapple Express was a great success, and that was something that we wanted to capitalize on, but we wanted this movie to be bigger, more adventuresome, bring a bigger audience to the movie, and challenge ourselves to do something new.
I never felt any attraction towards violence. I never tried to express myself through violence. Violence is a language.
When you are in a live-action movie, you have so many more options to express yourself. You can use your body and your gestures and facial expressions. When you are doing an animated movie, you really only have your voice.
In each of us, there lies a divine connection to a power more powerful than hate or violence. Today is the day to attune to that power and use it on behalf of peace on earth.
A theme that has always interested me is how women express anger, how women express violence. That is very much part of who women are, and it's so unaddressed. A vast amount of literature deals with cycles of violence about men, antiheroes. Women lack that vocabulary.
I've been on the wrong end of violence, and I've done violence myself... I refuse to glorify violence in my movie and television roles.
The violence for me is never meant to be entertaining. It's meant to hurt the characters and I'm trying to show the impact it is having on the people involved with it. If there is cathartic violence at the end, then it costs the protagonist something. It's not just a blaze-of-glory moment.
The power which establishes a state is violence; the power which maintains it is violence; the power which eventually overthrows it is violence.
When people access the use of force for the threat of violence they have, by definition, a new political power. An unwanted political power.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!