I can work in films as long as the story doesn’t have a realistic nature. If I’m working with an allegory, a fantasy, it can be developed in synthetic terms.

Most of the movies I saw growing up were viewed as totally disposable, fine for quick consumption, but they have survived 50 years and are still growing.

I locate that special problem in a character and then try to understand it. That’s the genesis of all my work.

What’s better, a poetic intuition or an intellectual work? I think they complement each other.

Book reviews have never helped me. Most of them erred in their interpretations and their work has been a waste of time.

If a spectator with a philosophical mind, somebody accustomed to reading books, gets the same kind of information in a movie, he might not fully understand it.

I didn’t choose literature. Literature chose me. There was no decision on my side.

My only fantasy about writing was that in my old days, after directing many masterpieces, I would write my memoirs.

I only understand realism.

Whenever I write, I’m always thinking of the reader.

Contrary to what Kafka does, I always like to refer all of my fictions to the level of reality, He, on the other hand, leaves them at an imaginary level.

If it’s great stuff, the people who consume it are nourished. It’s a positive force.