On the contrary a film can promote the idea of change without any political message whatsoever but in its form and language can tell people that they can change their lives and contribute to progressive changes in the world.
…the book creates meaning, the meaning creates life.
Close-Up has affected later films that I've made.
What I find frustrating about scripted television is that it's rare that you are surprised by how you feel about the character, or how you feel about the show.
Novels without female characters were a lifeless desert.
I mean you can go wherever you want with it really. No matter what story you're telling you're always representing some reality. You are always representing human beings, their fears, their shortcomings, their braveries, their doubts, their loves, their abilities, their brilliance and those things inevitably lead to bigger political systems, foreign policy and crime and religion. It's an action film. We are not taking a stance about big government.
I'm taken by a story and a character. I'll read a script, and if it touches me and moves me and makes waves, that's why I'll choose it.
Only library books speak with such wordless eloquence of the power good stories hold over us.
Many stories matter. Stories have been used to dispossess and to malign. But stories can also be used to empower, and to humanize. Stories can break the dignity of a people. But stories can also repair that broken dignity.
What I want is to respond to the challenge posed by the mass media - to permit the novel to say what can only be said by narrative - to allow it to be itself.
I had a strong visceral reaction to the 'Moonlight' script, partly because I felt I knew all of these characters.
We need narrative; it feeds us in a particular way, and deconstructing it completely before you've actually experienced it, I think it leaves us unfed.
With 'Opening Credit,' we were trying to establish a certain tone and put people in a specific mood.
The novel wins by points, the short story by knockout.
I'm inspired by nonmusical things a lot, whether it's a film or a book or whatever.
It's kind of the filmmaker's job to use visual, cinematic language in a way possible to tell a story that reaches and touches as many people as possible.
An awful lot of storytelling isn't really about making people understand - it's about making people care.
Learning from history is impossible if the narrative is wrong.
Mary O’Grady is commenting on Venezuela as a perfect example of the failings of socialist policies in practice.
I think people are getting into these 'Empire' songs because of the emotional investment they have in the characters. You kind of feel like you know the songs already because you just watched them play out in front of you with these characters.
I think you have to ask yourself, what is the point of the script? What is the script selling? Because all scripts are political, every story is political. It either challenges or reinforces some schism or stereotype. So what is the project going to say at the end of the day? What does it tell you about the world, or what does it challenge in terms of your world?
Fiction is risky for writers also in that the process of making certain books, of shaping certain narratives, leaves scars and marks on your inner life.
When you feel moved by the story, you want to tell that story.
Never underestimate the power of anyone's story... anyone's life.
My ultimare goal is, without illusion and without sentimentality, merely by telling the truth as I see it, to break your heart. If I can break your heart and cause your awareness to expand to include another person's experience, even a fictional person's experience, and to inhabit for a moment their sorrow and suffering, then I think it expands us as people.
I think that fiction has a certain power.