Quotes About Interpretation

I don't think you should have to defend your actions to people who say: 'You've put some paintings on a wall, and if this doesn't have any deep meaning, then why?' What about the Dadaists? What were they doing? Weren't they just having a laugh with their tin hats?

J.K. Rowling said Bellatrix's role was going to be significant in the last one, when I showed some reluctance in playing a tiny bit part. Up front, they said, 'You're very significant in the last one.' But significant could mean a lot of things. That could just mean a significant plot point. Doesn't necessarily equal big part.

I'm a pointillist, just working my tiny little piece of the canvas. I'm not so good at perspective.

Fundamentalist Christians, adhering to what is termed 'creation science,' loudly promote the scientific accuracy of the Bible, but they sift or reinterpret science through the tiny mesh of their ideological filter. Not much real science gets through.

When I watch dance, most of the time I just see a potential that is not there at all. I just see they missed the point. They just give us a tiny bit of what it could be.

When I'm writing, I like to have a tiny bit of fact and then exaggerate it and turn it into something more people could relate to.

I want each and every entire brushstroke to be seen. I want the marks made by the tip of the brush to carry as much meaning as the marks made by the dragging tail end, the part that splits open as the paint pulls away, thins and dries.

If I had to give a tip to aspiring designers, it would be to re-look past designs and be inspired. But don't just copy.

I've loved Alfred Cortot's playing from an early age, and I never tire of hearing his recordings, particularly Chopin and Schumann from the 1920s and '30s.

To an extent, our relationship with the movies is always subjective. Our capacity to be involved says as much about each of us; I've never fathomed why anyone would want to spend four hours in the company of the exceedingly tiresome Scarlett O'Hara.

It's good to have a title that's not just one word. If you're gonna title it, you might as well try and say something.

The title of the movie is open to interpretation.

I think things can have more than one meaning and still connect with people. There's a lot of meaning to the title 'Music For People' and they're all true and they're all accurate.

When you see 'editor' on a book, there are many permutations of what that title can mean.

Some people have interpreted the title of the show - 'Love' - as ironic. For me, it's sincere. The idea that we have to agree with love is a genuine statement about love.

I like to leave things open to interpretation. But I also like to make a point. There's two meanings behind each EP title. With 'Time,' that was 'time to move on': you know, you've been in a bad situation; this is enough. But it was also time, in my life, for introducing myself, my first project I was putting out with Mustard. A new exciting time.

I'm fine with a title that's open to interpretation.

Film is the only art form where we feel we have to title our stuff literally. Musicians don't have to title their songs literally. It can be more about what's conjured up when you think of a word.

When I was told that I was doing a movie called 'Lola Rennt,' I was like, 'What?' I didn't get it, or the title. I started reading the script, and I still couldn't fathom that it was about a person named Lola running. Before my agent explained it to me, I couldn't even make any sense out of it.

It's the idea of a multi-sensory experience stemming from music that opened my interest into painting, to be honest.

To be honest, my partner Natasha is my inspiration. She is who I reference when searching for my role. I don't emulate what she does, but her interpretation of Giselle is so fragile and sensitive and so tender. It constantly inspires me. And I feel like it's the other way around. We have a great rapport together.

To be honest, you don't get the full picture when you read a script.

I don't have favourites, I think, when you play, you have to be like a prostitute, you have to love the piece you are playing. Even if you don't like it, you have to play it as if you would like it. Then you are a good interpreter.

I think what human beings need is to be able to laugh at the absurd, hold on to ambiguity, and learn to love nuance, instead of making everything one or the other, and structurally, so much of the Internet and online publishing doesn't have room for any of that.