I believe you shouldn't force the audience's interpretation of a character or a story. The more you explain things, the less intriguing and imaginable they are for viewers. . . . Film to me, in its essence, in its ultimate nature, is silent. Music and dialogue are there to fill what is lacking in the image. But you should be able to tell the story with moving pictures alone. For my next project, though, I'd like to make the kind of film where the characters blabber all the time.

I think I am more of a coward than anybody. It's a very weird feeling. The more I fear violence, the more I'm inclined to depict it in films.

I thought maybe I could become like the next Van Gogh. I bought a sunflower and painted it, and it looked like the work of a 6-year-old.

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.

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

Having total freedom to direct my own movies is more difficult than those I was hired for, where the framework has been already furnished. Unlike with my own work, I don't have to deny or feel embarrassed at the straightforwardness or orthodoxy of the directorial style, because I can say in excuse, "This is how I was asked to direct by those people."

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.