David Grann Quotes

The best story is the story that gets to the most people.

Films do seem prestigious and glamorous, but when you create something, you want people to see it. TV still reaches so many more people; it still really appeals to me.

Rather than disliking theatre, I've expressed a preference for television because it tends to deal in its small way much more with issues and is able to reach a broader church of people than theatre.

I think the novel is at one end of the art-entertainment continuum - the play in the middle - while TV and cinema veer a bit more towards entertainment.

Cinema has a greater impact as it leaves a long lasting memory. Television, on the other hand, is also good but requires a lot of time.

When I was approached to remake 'Vinnaithandi Varuvaaya,' I felt that it was a good way to reach out to a wider audience, every director wants that.

Americas are, for a variety of reasons, the most adept at producing the kind of entertainment that delivers easy satisfactions.

The radio for these women is like television is for us today, which is really like looking at the radio.

I definitely feel sorry more people don't get to see my films. They aren't inaccessible, and if people got the chance to see them, I know they'd like them.

Movies are movies, television is television.

'The Piano' ended up on television. Everything ends up there anyway.

Whereas painting is a more rarefied art form, with a limited audience, I recognized film as this extraordinary social tool that could reach tremendous numbers of people.

I continue to work on plays, but I've always felt that you could put a note in a bottle and send it offshore, and you'd have as much chance communicating with people.

I personally enjoy theatre, but preferably I do films so that I can reach up to maximum audience. If you want to give a serious message, it will reach out to maximum people through films. But through theatre, you can hardly reach out to about 3,000 audience at a time.

Theater and film are essentially the same - just different kinds of storytelling.

There's no difference between movies and television. None at all. Except in a lot of cases, television's much better than movies.

I am broadcaster's biggest cheerleader because I genuinely believe in it. Where else can you get 20 million people a week watching 'NCIS' or 'American Idol?' Where else can you get 120 million watching the Super Bowl?

Films for TV have to be much closer to the book, mainly because the objective with a TV movie that translates literature is to get the audience, after seeing this version, to pick up the book and read it themselves. My attitude is that TV can never really be any form of art, because it serves audience expectations.

Television is much more collaborative in many ways than prose.

The cinema occupies an important place in the overall development of art and literature.

I think you can lose yourself more easily in a film than in the theater.

Film is something that reaches so many people. How many people are going to go into a gallery? And understand what they're seeing? I think about the guy walking down the street, the guy who drove me here - this guy has the opportunity to go the cinema.

The film industry has been extremely welcoming to me. It's an industry which is biased to what they think is talent. If they think you can bring value to cinema, they'll support you.

I worked at NBC and MTV for two years, and it was very interesting to see the comparisons of audiences and the way that I would have to present a story to the two different places.

You're not anyone in America unless you're on TV.