Quotes About Interpretation

I don't think you can tell the objective truth about a person. That's why people write novels.

I don't really write with living actors in mind. I guess I write for dead actors. I'll think of like, you know, Burt Lancaster would be good in this part, and so on. With 'L.A. Confidential,' it was like, 'Wouldn't it be cool if Dean Martin played the Kevin Spacey part?'

Whenever I write, I write what I find to be the way people are. I never use any symbolism at all, but if you write as true to life as you possibly can, people will see symbolism. They'll all see different symbolism, but they're apt to because you can see it in life.

When you are interviewing someone, don't just write down what he says. Ask yourself: Does this guy remind you of someone? What does the room feel like? Notice smells, voice inflection, neighborhoods you pass through. Be a cinematographer.

History is imperfect and biased, and it always, always has omissions. The most common omissions are the bits that the writer of that history took for granted that his readers would know.

If you only hear one side of the story, at some point, you have to question who the writer is.

An autobiography can distort; facts can be realigned. But fiction never lies: it reveals the writer totally.

Studying psychology is fun because you're always looking for the same things I think a writer should be looking for, which is the story behind the story.

I am not a self-help writer. I am a self-problem writer. When people read my books, I provoke some things. I cannot justify my work. I do my work; it is up to them to classify it, to judge.

There are actors who can pull of a writer's lines; I am not competent enough to do that.

I know that books seem like the ultimate thing that's made by one person, but that's not true. Every reading of a book is a collaboration between the reader and the writer who are making the story up together.

Some actors, I think, want to feel that they are as creative as the writer. And the answer is, frankly, they're not.

When you are preparing for a role, you have a script to comb through and the writer's help in telling you about the character, and then you can fill in the gaps. When you are doing a cabaret show, it's very personal. You have the opportunity to share parts of yourself with an audience and figure out how you want to connect.

A writer should write with his eyes and a painter paint with his ears.

I think, as a writer, you see the big picture, and as an actor, you're thinking of all the minutiae, all the very small details.

One of the things you do as a writer and as a filmmaker is grasp for resonant symbols and imagery without necessarily fully understanding it yourself.

As a writer I've learned certain lessons. One of them is to be careful about how you put a view, and to bear in mind how easily and readily you'll be misinterpreted.

The ear is the only true writer and the only true reader.

As a writer, I'm more interested in what people tell themselves happened rather than what actually happened.

A writer who is in a hurry to be understood today or tomorrow runs the danger of being misunderstood the day after tomorrow.

Sometimes there's something that a writer doesn't see or a producer doesn't see when he's looking at a shot.

A writer stops writing the moment he or she puts the last full stop to their text, and at that point the book is in limbo and doesn't come to life until the reader picks it up and the reader flips the pages.

The challenge for a writer looking at history is to figure out what is history and what is myth. After all, what you are looking at is an interpretation of history, and so at some level, it becomes an interpretation of an interpretation.

The creations of a great writer are little more than the moods and passions of his own heart, given surnames and Christian names, and sent to walk the earth.