It's funny though with films because you can incorporate a variety of elements and sometimes that can work for you and sometimes I think it can work against you.

Working with Chaplin was very amusing and strange. His films are so funny but working with him I found him to be a very serious man. Whereas the films of Hitchcock are macabre he could be a very funny man to work with always telling jokes and holding court. Of course when I worked with Charlie he was getting older.

When I first envisioned 'Funny Games' in the mid-1990s it was my intention to have an American audience watch the movie. It is a reaction to a certain American cinema its violence its naivety the way American cinema toys with human beings. In many American films violence is made consumable.

'Funny Games' was conceived as a provocation. My other films are different. If people feel my other films are or respond to them as provocation then that's quite different. 'Funny Games' is the only one of mine where my intention was to provoke the audience.

I mean I've seen 3D films so far and I think it's a long way to go before they replace actors. It's a funny thing with 3D I haven't quite got it yet. Yet.

If my films make one more person miserable I'll feel I have done my job.

I have a love interest in every one of my films: a gun.

My films are always concerned with family friendship honor and patriotism.

Watching John Lasseter's films I think I can understand better than anyone that what he's doing is going straight ahead with his vision and working really hard to get that vision into film form. And I feel that my understanding this of him is my friendship towards him.

But short films are not inferior just different. I think the short gives a freedom to film-makers. What's appealing is that you don't have as much responsibility for storytelling and plot. They can be more like a portrait or a poem.