I am very interested in what has been called bad taste. I believe the fear of displaying a soi-disant bad taste stops us from venturing into special cultural zones.
I don't have traceable literary models because I haven't had great literary influences in my life.
I've never seen a worse situation than that of young writers in the United States. The publishing business in North America is so commercialized.
I write novels because there is something I don't understand in reality.
Whenever I write, I'm always thinking of the reader.
I believe that people who don't achieve anything in life are isolated and resent those that are successful.
All of my problems are rather complicated - I need an entire novel to deal with them, not a short story or a movie. It's like a personal therapy.
I felt the need to tell stories to understand myself.
Ironically, Latin American countries, in their instability, give writers and intellectuals the hope that they are needed.
The writer needs to react to his or her own internal universe, to his or her own point of view. If he or she doesn't have a personal point of view, it's impossible to be a creator.
My greatest aspiration was always to live in the tropics.
In a country like France, so ancient, their history is full of outstanding people, so they carry a heavy weight on their back. Who could write in French after Proust or Flaubert?
I'm not a best-seller, but through translations, I've accumulated some money.
I do believe that reading can help you understand what you're writing and see what others are doing. But sometimes the desire for more information can act as an inhibitor.
It's essential not to have an ideology, not to be a member of a political party. While the writer can have certain political views, he has to be careful not to have his hands tied.
It's my own personal unconscious that ultimately creates the novel's aesthetic facade.
I think cinema is closer to allegories than to reality. It's closer to our dreams.
I've always wondered why there isn't a great French novel about the German occupation. The nouveau roman authors weren't interested in telling that sort of thing.
I only understand realism.
I began teaching in New York because I needed to stay in the United States and didn't have my immigration papers in order, so working for a university was a way of resolving the issue.
I like the beauty of Faulkner's poetry. But I don't like his themes, not at all.
The essayist has to follow a certain intellectual pattern. The novelist has the advantage of using fantasy, of being subjective.
My stories are very somber, so I think I need the comic ingredient. Besides, life has so much humor.
I don't want to name names, but the least I can say about rock and roll is that I'm suspicious.
I write for somebody who has my own limitations. My reader has a certain difficulty with concentrating, which in my case comes from being a film viewer.
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.
We should try to understand our innermost needs. We shouldn't use irony to reduce their power.
I am only interested in bad taste if I can enjoy a gruesome tango or watch a movie that makes me cry.
Teaching is a good distraction, and I am in contact with young people, which is very gratifying.
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.
I don't think humor is forced upon my universe; it's a part of 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 have written every one of my novels to convince somebody of something.
Book reviews have never helped me. Most of them erred in their interpretations and their work has been a waste of time.
Writers are not meant for action.
Kafka truly illustrates the way the environment oppresses the individual. He shows how the unconscious controls our lives.
I believe realism is nothing but an analysis of reality. Film scripts have a synthetical constitution.
Hitchcock makes it very clear to us. There's an objective and a subjective camera, like there's a third- and a first-person narrator in literature.
I started writing movie scripts. They excited me a lot, but I didn't like them when they were finished because they were simple copies of the films I saw in childhood.
I haven't been the kind of writer about whom book-length academic studies have been written.
As a rule, one should never place form over content.
What better model of a synthesis than a nocturnal dream? Dreams simplify, don't they?
For someone who writes fiction, in order to activate the imagination and the unconscious, it's essential to be free.
The translator's task is to create, in his or her own language, the same tensions appearing in the original. That's hard!
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.
I allow my intuition to lead my path.
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.
In film, you can't go into analytical explorations because the audience will reject that.
