Angie Dickinson in Dressed to Kill HFP/Lagardere Photo Archive

Are these scenes that you are thinking of when you come to shooting your own films?
It is difficult. Because even something like all the girls running around naked in Carrie, they are very difficult to shoot because everybody is extremely uncomfortable. And you think about it for hours to find a way to get the particular idea of sexuality or what you are trying to communicate through the naked form of the woman you are shooting. And you make a movie that is a whole series of different angles and it's something that is an extremely difficult aesthetic problem. And so much of it is so bad. As I say, just to have naked people running around together [isn't enough]. They've got nice bodies and some green light on them. Now what?

Sexy or oversexed young women whose days are numbered are often featured in horror movies. Why is it that the audience is so gratified when a wanton woman is punished with violence, death, disease or all of the above? Do you think that it has got something to do with puritanical American mores?
I don't think that is the right political attitude toward it. I think that the reason you have women in negligees wandering around with candelabras in dark castles is because they are women and they are smaller. You know, it is not Arnold Schwarzenegger carrying around a candelabra. So, they are weak and they can be hurt. They are vulnerable, they are small, they are women. Some big beast could overpower them. I think that is the reason why women are used — going back to Victorian times — instead of men. And then there is a whole movement of making women objects of violence. To me that was a political argument that had no aesthetic meaning to me. And we could argue this ‘til the cows come home but it is specifically because they are more interesting to look at: your eyes are drawn to them, women look at women, men look at women, how they are dressed, what they are wearing. And a woman in peril evokes more empathy from the audience than a man in peril. It was always as simple as that to me.

You could argue there is no traditional romance in your movies. Sometimes when an emotion is expressed toward somebody, often they are a prostitute, or they are a trick...
No. That is not true, Obsession is very romantic.

That is an exception to that. It is a very lush, beautiful movie. Have you ever considered doing a movie where a loving, sexual relationship is the centre piece, or is that too sappy?
It is something I see in other people's work and other directors do it very well. What draws me to make movies is more the visual design and that is why very emotional stories between two characters — loving, complicated, dramatic — is just something my particular aesthetic is not drawn to. When you shoot material like that you have to shoot it pretty simply because you are concentrating on the emotional interaction of the characters. It definitely doesn't let you maximize the visual design of the sequences. It is as simple as that. I don't make comedies because for comedies you have to shoot very simply. You've got to let the actors hold the frame: they are either funny or not funny. You can have the camera roaming around or have a thunderstorm going on or shoot them with all kinds of different dramatic lighting but it just doesn't make any difference. It is the interaction. The camera should basically do nothing but record what they are doing and get the hell out of the way. Well, that is not what I do. So that is why I am not particularly drawn to that type of material though at least say I appreciate it in other directors and realize the difficulty of doing it.

MORE SEX ON FILM...
The Virgin: Daniel Waters
The Dirty Dutchman: Paul Verhoeven
The Crossover: John Cameron Mitchell
The Punk Rebel: Larry Clark
The Big Buffalo: Vincent Gallo
The Buttoned-Up Brit: Richard Eyre
The Sophisticate: David Cronenberg
The Motherfucker: Christophe Honoré
The Shocker: Gaspar Noé