I haven't got anything against films that are about the minutia of relationships or customs, but I love extremes.
I think that the process of making a film is an underrated factor in how that film turns out.
I'm somebody who is very, very proud to have been a part of the British film industry all my life and to have kind of been involved with a very important piece of British film history.
My favorite phrase, that a friend of mine who worked on the Potter films and was a lot older than me would use in front of me, and I picked up from him many great phrases - the English have a lot of great idioms for sweating. I don't know why that is. But that's what we do. I feel like it's particularly our country; probably everywhere has a lot of idioms for sweating. He always said, "I'm sweating like a glassblower's asshole," which I always found an incredibly strange and yet vivid image.
Normally I sit there in the films really hating watching myself. Loving watching the films, hating watching myself.
Films exhaust me, they do, and I often want nothing more to do with them, but I'm continually surprised at the resurgence of the impulse to come back and do it all over again.
I just think that the collective experience of going to see a film is something you can't recreate.
Consequently, their school [film-school ] was the school of life, and it was very much reflected in their work.
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.
My interest in music tends toward being orchestral music. And the repertoire of music that exists is, to me, far more emotive than what is standardly used in movie scores. That isn't always. I think there've been some excellent movie scores by excellent directors. But for the most part, watching a film, one of today's movies, I think that the emotional undertone of movie scores is pretty poor.
My inspiration can come from anything - films, the street, paparazzi pictures.
I'm hoping that word-of-mouth on the film - people seeing it and liking it - that that will drive more people to the theaters, because I haven't seen the billboards or the posters or anything.
The audience has to understand that if the film is going to have any meaning for them. If they are going to empathize with the characters, they have to visualize the process of concentration involved in making every move.
To work effectively in a film, you have to repeat and work consistently. Basically, you shoot a big master then you do close-ups. You're supposed to be in the same moment, the same 30-second moment, for a day.
I can honestly say I've never chosen a film because where it's shot is convenient.
Film really is a collaborative art.
Quentin Tarantino asked me to work with him but there is no way I am going to do that while Matthew Vaughn is working in film.
It's funny: half my films were flops, half did well. It would be terrible if I'd had only success.
I've seen many films and read lots of thrillers - and I'm always disappointed that I can guess the story before the other viewers.
There's always a level where you think you can improve and do better. Certainly at the beginning... I did four years of straight theater without ever having a part in a movie, and I remember being far more nervous on a film set than I was on the stage. It took a while for that to become less so.
I did loads of student films and fringe theatre. I worked for free a lot.
I used to be a die-hard defender of physical film, which I still am. I love shooting on physical film and I think it's great.
I like L.A., but I think whats changed is that the kinds of films I do, the mid-range dramatic film, has become an endangered species.
The money is better in films and television. But in terms of acting, theatre is more rewarding.
I never thought I'd get [a 'Pitch Perfect 2'] audition because the film was just so massive.
