I was just rewatching “Memento” and it struck me how a film can break every narrative rule and still feel grounded—kind of like the kind of risk you’d see in a well‑planned experiment. What’s your take on taking those extreme creative risks versus sticking to a predictable formula?

Sounds like the best of both worlds, but I always keep my eyes on the “why” before I let a director swing wildly. A risky shot is only genius if it serves the story’s core, otherwise it’s just noise. The trick is keeping that safety net tight—like a script that can fold back into itself if the gamble fails. It’s a delicate dance, and if you’re not ready for the fallout, you’ll end up with a film that feels more like a misstep than a masterpiece.

Right on point—without that safety net it’s easy to walk off the screen and into a director’s nightmare. It’s the difference between a well‑aimed bullet that can be caught and a shot that flies off script. The key is making the net invisible so it doesn’t feel like a crutch, but still there to catch you when the risk goes sideways. That’s the sweet spot for any film that wants to push boundaries without blowing the whole narrative.