Quotes About Film

Film is really the one art form that can effectively use silence. Music and theater can play with silence, but they can't sustain silence without losing energy, whereas film can go into a silent mode and stay there for minutes at a time.

Theatre is more metaphorical where you have to be louder and larger than life, whereas film is more subtle and more real.

Making a film or doing a play are completely different experiences and entirely fulfilling, but completely unique. I also think one complements the other. People often say that theater is about flexing your muscles, and is actually real acting, whereas I sort of disagree.

I think film and television are really a director's medium, whereas theatre is the actor's medium.

Whereas with Sirk, everything is always filmed. No matter what the script, he's always a real director.

Perhaps where text slides toward ambiguity, film inclines to specificity. A novel contains as many versions of itself as it has readers, whereas a film's final cut vaporizes every other way it might have been made.

Television and film are such streamlined story mediums. You can't really meander about, whereas a novel is an interior experience.

What's great in theater is that you can sustain the arc of a character for a full three hours, whereas in film or TV, you have to create that arc in little pieces, and usually out of sequence.

The difficulty with film is you always have to consign a story to being a certain length, whereas with a book you don't have budget constraints; you can cast it yourself.

I think the script is the key. Regardless of how great everybody else is working on a film, if you're working on a script that you don't think is great, you're not gonna be able to make a great film. Whereas if the script is great, then you can.

The great thing about being an actor in a film is that you're able to start knowing exactly where you're going to finish and really paint something in between. You can work to know the arc you need to build. Whereas in television, it is open-ended, and you're constantly guessing. There are pros and cons to both.

In theatre, once you've got the character and you've got things together, you can relax into it. Film has a different feel - you don't get that through line of not stopping. Theatre is like a snowball gathering momentum and getting bigger, whereas in film, it's a bit stop and start - but you do tend to adjust to that quite easily.

I started from B-grade films, and today I'm the number one actress of this country... whereas other actresses, whom you might call my contemporaries, they have had no growth in whatever platform they were launched... they are still there and have not risen to another platform.

I just feel like TV takes more risks than film. Film has gotten very safe: it's very compartmentalized about what type of things will be successful. And whereas in TV, since all these new platforms opened, they're saying to writers, go out there, write the most different show that you can write. Write something that's really original and different.

Film is much more of a brand business, whereas on Broadway, you can do complete unknowns and have hits.

I did photography in summer camp; I did it in high school. The only hard decision I've had to make was whether to go towards photo or film. And I ultimately realized that the type of photo I was interested in was actually photojournalism. And it's a very individualist career, whereas film is a very team-driven medium. So that's why I chose film.

My favourite film is probably 'Star Wars'. I do love 'Starship Troopers', it is a great film but it's not a film I watch over and over again. Whereas 'Star Wars' I've watched over and over again all my life, and it's a film I can tolerate watching with my children.

I managed to make my debut with my favourite, Majid Majidi, whereas 'Dhadak' is giving me a huge mass exposure.

If you make just hardcore horror, there's a limited audience for that. Whereas if it's horror mixed with action, I think you kinda broaden your potential fanbase.

I don't have to think much when I take a photo on my iPhone. I sort of see the iPhone medium as instant gratification, whereas with film, you have to think about it because it's expensive.

The thing I do miss about the way some sequels were in the past was that each film felt like its own unique, complete tone. Now, sequels are tonal facsimiles of the ones before them, like a television series, whereas back in the past sequels would often be radically different from the ones before.

When you shoot for a film, mistakes become very easy to manage. If you fumble, a retake can mend it all. You always have another chance , whereas when you work on the stage, you have to be extremely careful. There is no second chance as such.

I think TV somehow would restrict my performance to one particular role whereas, in films, I will get more opportunity to show my versatility.

The problem with being a film actress or a movie star is that people see you so huge that somehow you're visually massive or somehow you're in some removed space, which is a television or wherever. It somehow takes your humanity.