Whenever the protagonist of the film becomes bigger than the hero of the film, the film is bound to become a hit.
I think the theater work and the on-camera work feed off each other. My theater work has become more simple, and my on-camera work has become more energized or more spontaneous.
As an actor, you only get to work 15 minutes an hour; as a director you're fully immersed. It's incredibly more complex and challenging and I love it. I'm sort of a glutton for work and to direct something that I'm acting in feeds the vein.
'Stomp the Yard' was a great film. It was a great film, great opportunity. It's the reason I live in Atlanta to this day, that film. But as far as acting goes, it wasn't very challenging. I played me.
I have always felt that acting in a film is very challenging in itself. But when it comes to performing live, I think that is more challenging.
Although I feel directing is a lot more challenging, fulfilling and satisfying, it is also far more stressful & consuming. This is why I don't see myself directing one film after another in quick succession.
Any one who wishes to become a good writer should endeavour, before he allows himself to be tempted by the more showy qualities, to be direct, simple, brief, vigorous, and lucid.
I never want to set a belief that a woman has to direct a woman's film, meaning she can't direct a man's film. If only films can be directed by people who are exactly the same as that, it's only gonna limit all of the women more.
I think when you work on a Woody Allen film the actors become a real company, probably more than on any other film.
My hope is that I'm going to continue to make more and more challenging work that's going to come out more and more interesting. I don't know if that will always continue to happen, but every one of my films has definitely been a progression as far as complexity of narrative, character, and plot.
I'd quite like to do a film but I'd also love to do more theatre. I want to keep challenging myself with good roles. It's harder for women because there aren't as many challenging roles.
Historians have become far too precious. Their work has become ever more specialised and, as they steadily lose the context of their studies, they end up knowing more and more about less and less. It's a malaise that has now infected A-levels and GCSEs.
I'm not so in a rush to direct just anything because I'm lucky that I can make a living so far as an actor and not have to worry about that as a director. And so I can be a little more choosy in things I direct.
Either one or the other [analysis or synthesis] may be direct or indirect. The direct procedure is when the point of departure is known-direct synthesis in the elements of geometry. By combining at random simple truths with each other, more complicated ones are deduced from them. This is the method of discovery, the special method of inventions, contrary to popular opinion.
I never planned to become a dancer, but I became one. The same thing happened with acting and direction. I remember I was doing the choreography of a film, and the producer came and offered me to direct the film. It was in Telugu, and that is how it started.
Globally, proving myself working well with Adidas, showing my work could be globally distributed and loved and appreciated and still be challenging. Maybe I'm one of the first people on a larger scale to make more challenging and more unique items.