Whenever I'm asked about independent cinema, I think of what Fidel Castro said during the Cold War about the league of non-aligned nations. He said that really, there were only two non-aligned nations: the U.S. and the USSR. The rest of us have to be aligned somewhere. I say similarly, in a way, Paramount, Sony, and Warner Bros. are the only true independents, because they're the only ones who can do whatever they want and have distribution for their films built in.

I like voice-over in films, and most of my films have been voice-over films.

As the years go by and I make more films, I am increasingly interested in capturing place as a vivid backdrop for my films.

Independent means one thing to me: It means that regardless of the source of financing, the director's voice is extremely present. It's such a pretentious term, but it's auteurist cinema. Director-driven, personal, auteurist... Whatever word you want. It's where you feel the director, not a machine, at work. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. It matters how much freedom the director has to work with his or her team. That's how I personally define independent movies.

Somewhat dramatic things happen, and you don't even always notice them — that's what life is.

I'm attracted to short screenplays. Nobody really wants a film to be over two hours, or at least I don't.

What science-fiction premises do is it gives you a "what-if" prism to look at the contemporary world with a wack on the side of the head.