So I used formal techniques to make the film more perceptive emotionally.

I can't see any reason why a film shouldn't be stylized and visually beautiful. I don't think a beautiful set is pretentious.

It was repugnant, but it was the only way to communicate.

My films seem to be better understood and better received by the monthly publications. On television the first reactions are usually unfavorable.

We should all die with a sharp, brusque heart attack. My father was lucky like that. One day he went hunting. He had a good day, he killed a lot of game, he was with his best friends. He said, Ah, I'm still a good hunter. Then he said, I don't feel well, and in 30 seconds it was all over.

For me an unfavorable initial reaction happens fairly often. For some reason the more time that elapses after the film opens, the more favorable the reviews become.

There cannot be any communication except through form. If there is no form, you cannot create emotion in the spectator.

I am never driven. Every film Ive made has been an assignment.

I saw part of The Singing Detective on TV in New York. I said, Something is going on here.

A viewer as opposed to a filmmaker might see a film differently. But I'm extremely comfortable with my style.

When I was 12 I made some little films with my friends. I tried to make gangster films, like Fantomas, but I remember being very disappointed with them. They weren't frightening at all. I'm sure they'd be very funny now.

I never had any special appetite for filmmaking, but you have to make a living and it is miraculous to earn a living working in film.

When I was twelve, the passage from silent film to the talkies had an impact on me-I still watch silent films. I don't think that there is any such thing as an old film you don't say, 'I read an old book by Flaubert,' or 'I saw an old play by Moliere.'