No matter how slow the film, Spirit always stands still long enough for the photographer It has chosen.
A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what's behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.
Being a leading man on a film set under the direction of somebody like Dickie Attenborough is very empowering, and you have to be extremely careful how you use that power.
Cardellini on deciding to pursue film and television roles in Los Angeles instead of stage work in New York: "I had the desire to go to Los Angeles, and it's paid off for me. I can't complain." --quoted in DAILY NEWS, August 19, 1999
Farrah was one of the iconic beauties of our time. Her girl-next-door charm combined with stunning looks made her a star on film, TV and the printed page.
Film is more than the twentieth-century art. It's another part of the twentieth-century mind. It's the world seen from inside. We've come to a certain point in the history of film. If a thing can be filmed, the film is implied in the thing itself. This is where we are. The twentieth century is on film. You have to ask yourself if there's anything about us more important than the fact that we're constantly on film, constantly watching ourselves.
Gonzo journalism is a style of reporting based on William Faulkner's idea that the best fiction is far more true than any kind of journalism -- and the best journalists have always known this. True gonzo reporting needs the talents of a master journalist, the eye of an artist/photographer and the heavy balls of an actor. Because the writer must be a participant in the scene, while he's writing it -- or at least taping it, or even sketching it. Or all three. Probably the closest analogy to the ideal would be a film director/producer who writes his own scripts, does his own camera work and somehow manages to film himself in action, as the protagonist or at least a main character.
Happiness is a sunbeam, Which may pass through a thousand bosoms Without losing a particle of its original ray Nay, when it strikes on a kindred heart, Like the converged light on a mirror, It reflects itself with redoubled brightness. It is not perfected till it is shared.
He who knows the surface of the earth and the topography of a country only through the examination of maps..is like a man who learns the opera of Meyerbeer or Rossini by reading only reviews in the newspapers. The brush of landscape artists Lorrain, Ruysdael, or Calame can reproduce on canvas the sun's ray, the coolness of the heavens, the green of the fields, the majesty of the mountains...but what can never be stolen from Nature is that vivid impression that she alone can and knows how to impart--the music of the birds, the movement of the trees, the aroma peculiar to the place--the inexplicable something the traveller feels that cannot be defined and which seems to awaken in him distant memories of happy days, sorrows and joys gone by, never to return!
Hope, like the gleaming taper's light, Adorns and cheers our way And still, as darker grows the night, Emits a brighter ray.
I am the biggest "Harry Potter" fan; I even was before I knew there was going to be a film. I read all the books. The fourth one is amazing. It's scary, but I like all the books. You've got to read them all to get the complete Harry Potter experience. In the third book, I like all the bits about Scabbers being an Animagus. And I like that Ron gets an owl.
I can understand the validity of showing people the ugliness of the world, but I also think there is a place for movies to leave people with a sense of hope. If your film isn't going to do that, I just don't think it's worth making.
I do remember, as a child, that I always imagined, when I was maybe 6 or 7, my fantasy was that everywhere I went I was being followed by an invisible film crew.
I knew it was a great film, but I didn't expect it to get the attention it did because none of his other films had and I thought they were just as good. Of course, I didn't know what it was about until I saw it in the cinema because of the way that he works — but I knew it was good. That it reached a wider audience surprised me.
I know a lot of people must think that The Lovely Bones (2009) is a pretty dramatic film and it's going to be really deep and dark and everything, but I promise you it's not. It's really humorous and funny and bright and happy. Then this awful thing happens and it kind of makes everyone really sad, obviously, but they have to get on with things. It's like the journey that Susie takes to learn to let go and realize that she can't be with her family anymore, and the same for her family. They have to let go and they know that they can't be with Susie. But it's a really funny, lighthearted thing. There's some really dramatic scenes in it as well, which is great with The Lovely Bones (2009) because you kind of get the best of both worlds. You get to do funny scenes and dramatic scenes. You get to cry, you get to laugh, so it's great .
I really enjoyed making this film. But after we were done filming, I fell into a stage of depression. This movie sticks to you. Especially if you're the one playing the main character. I think this role will always be a small part of me.
I would consider doing any part as long as the script is good and the film has an interesting director.
I'd like to see a nature film where an eagle swoops down and pulls a fish out of a lake, and then maybe he's flying along, low to the ground, and the fish pulls a worm out of the ground. Now that's a documentary
I'm really interested in acting but I think I still want to get to high school to study off a degree. I think maybe something involving art because I'm really interested in the film industry now, from being in it. Maybe something artwise in the film, behind the camera, not so much in front of it. Maybe more in costume or set design and things like that.
If you want to tell the untold stories, if you want to give voice to the voiceless, you've got to find a language. Which goes for film as well as prose, for documentary as well as autobiography. Use the wrong language, and you're dumb and blind.
It can be a bit irritating when someone asks me how the new film's coming along when I haven't worked on Harry Potter for two years. Generally speaking, I have no problem with it. Most actors go through their careers without ever being involved in something so spectacular, so I think it would be a bit ignorant of me to object to being associated with it. Harry Potter is an amazing thing. I'm not just being diplomatic here either. I'm still reminded regularly of what a unique experience it was.
My initial thoughts about what a title can do was to set mood and the prime underlying core of the film's story, to express the story in some metaphorical way. I saw the title as a way of conditioning the audience, so that when the film actually began, viewers would already have an emotional resonance with it.
My movie is born first in my head, dies on paper; is resuscitated by the living persons and real objects I use, which are killed on film but, placed in a certain order and projected on to a screen, come to life again like flowers in water.