The thing about art for me is that you can go on theorising your work forever, because it's open to interpretation.

I think my way of showing violence is unique from that of other filmmakers, in that when I show it, it hurts. It happens unexpectedly and looks painful. That's how it is in real life, and that's how it should be expressed. I don't glamorize it, nor do I depict it without necessity or inevitability.

Humour is like violence. They both come to you unexpectedly, and the more unpredictable they both are, the better it gets.

Being a TV comedian, actor, writer, columnist, and all that is quite helpful to me in acquiring wide varieties of knowledge, which is crucial for filmmaking.

I always come to conclusions very fast. Well, that is one way of thinking, and the other way would be that I lack the necessary perseverance to stick to one thing that really fits me. I don't know if it's a good thing or bad thing.

Comparing filmmaking to a plastic model, shooting is the process where you mold and color each piece, and editing is where you build a finished whole from the pieces you molded and colored. Obviously, the latter is the most enjoyable part in the making of plastic models, so editing is the process in filmmaking I enjoy the most. But at the same time, editing can be a painstaking task, too.

I hate seeing people getting hurt or hurting other people. I hate seeing blood. I am very intolerant of physical pain. I find violence horrifying, so much so that I can't help being intrigued by it.