"Even Hitchcock liked to think of himself as a puppeteer who was manipulating the strings of his audience and making them jump. He liked to think he had that kind of control. I don't think that kind of control is possible beyond a very obvious kind of physical twitch when something jumps out of the corner of a frame. I also think the relationship I have with my audience is a lot more complex than what Hitchcock seemed to want his to be -- although I think he had more going on under the surface as well. But you can't control all of that. Anybody who comes to the cinema is bringing they're whole sexual history, their literary history, their movie literacy, their culture, their language, their religion, whatever they've got. I can't possibly manipulate all of that, nor do I want to. I'm often surprised -- I expect to be surprised -- by my audience's reactions to things."

"The Fly" was, technically, a horror sci-fi film, and this is technically a sci-fi film. But to me that's not a creative category. That's a marketing problem or possibly a critical problem, a journalistic preoccupation. But it doesn't function on a creative level. It doesn't mean anything. Each movie generates its own little biosphere and has its only little ecology and its climate, and you're attune to that more than anything else. So when people say "is there anything you wouldn't show on film?" or "would you draw back?" I say, if I do it's only because of that biosphere. What is appropriate? What works within the ecology of that movie ? So in one movie sex and blood would be very up front, like in "Crash" because it's sort of the subject of the movie. But in another movie, like "The Dead Zone," it would not be appropriate. It would be disproportionate."

Source: SPLICEDONLINE.com

Hosting Provided By HORRORFIND.COM
To find out about advertising on the Horrorfind Network Click Here