I think that film is still an artform and it doesn't really matter if you're using a digital camera or a film camera.

There is a difference between creating something and just capturing something. And when we were using film, it was not that fast, and it was expensive, so there was incentive to make sure the shot was exactly right before we rolled. With digital, it's fast and its cheap, and it's easy to bypass the rest.

I am actually retired - yes, I am retired. But I like to work. So I'm retired until someone calls me up to work.

You can't just stick with what you know, you have to evolve.

You make a film for a million dollars and then it costs $10 million to sell it. That's the problem at the moment with independent filmmaking: You can make it cheap and then there's no money to market it.

European films had art. And it was easy to make a European film. They didn't come from the studio system, they weren't shot in sound studios, and that's a good thing, because in the studio system those movies would never have had a chance. And since we were coming from Europe, it was natural for us to use that simple style. Small budgets, less equipment, that was just how it was.

Some movies are what I would call murky. Just because it's murky doesn't make it artistic. It makes it hard to see.