Cinema is interior movement.
Two types of films: those that employ the resources of the theater; those that employ the resources of cinematography
Cinematography: a new way of writing, therefore of feeling.
For me, film-making is combining images and sounds of real things in an order that makes them effective. What I disapprove of is photographing things that are not real. Sets and actors are not real.
Painting taught me to make not beautiful images but necessary ones.
A film is not a spectacle; it is preeminently a style.
[When asked if he could summarize Mouchette as he saw it]: No. It can’t be summarized. If it could, it’d be awful.
In my opinion, it’s clear that music is one element that transforms a film. Let me back up a bit: I believe all the elements: image, sound – and „sound“ includes sound effects, dialogue, and music – should affect and transform each other. Without transformation, it isn’t art. That’s why I consider today’s cinema a reproduction, not a true art, because it’s just a copy of another art: theater. If we want cinema to be a true, independent art, there must be transformation. An image or a sound on its own is nothing. It takes on meaning only in relationship to what transforms it. An image only matters in relation to other images, or a sound to other sound or to the image it accompanies. In my opinion – though I too made this mistake at first – music should’t be used to underscore or emphasize but to transform. Therefore in Mouchette, the music used, sacred music, probably certain wonderful passages from Monteverdi’s Magnificat, will be used during the hunting scene that I added. I wanted to establish a connection between the prey and Mouchette. With sacred music played during the hunting scene, you’ll see an extraordinary transformation of the wild animals through Montiverdi’s Music.