In Charleston, more than elsewhere, you get the feeling that the twentieth century is a vast, unconscionable mistake.
It is the idea of 'People' to treat its material as if it were history and, what is more, as if it were the history of a happy period.
There's a lot of common sense ... which I feel like we have lost touch with.
Weirdly, the past starts to be about something else. It becomes about style in a way that it wasn't about, and I don't mean writing style, but cultural style.
I wanted to be a bus driver when I was a kid. I look at bus driving through the eyes of a little boy. I see it as glamorous.
I loved reading 'Anne of Green Gables' and 'Little Women' and Jane Austen. Those were times when people really did have only one true love in their life.
Who wants to live in the present? It's such a limiting period compared to the past.
And I wasn't crazy about Hollywood in those days.
Before we sent kids to computer camps and told them they were having a good time, there was imagination among the human species.
Contrary to popular opinion, 'Leave it to Beaver' was not a documentary.
When people say 'Charlie Chaplin' I still think now of the guy in the moustache and bowler hat and funny walk - I don't think of an old man who was my grandfather.
What you see in 'Daredevil' and 'Jessica Jones' isn't the Hell's Kitchen of today; it's a version of what it was like.
I guess I'd never formed any hard opinions of '80s fashion, other than that it was pretty outrageous, you know.
He adored New York City. He idolized it all out of proportion... no, make that: he - he romanticized it all out of proportion. Yes. To him, no matter what the season was, this was still a town that existed in black and white and pulsated to the great tunes of George Gershwin.
Those Laurel Canyon days were great. I have a real fondness for that era, 'til about '68. Musically, it was wonderful, and there was this great innocence, an idyllic view of the world. After that, everything got a little... edgy.
I have a romantic vision of the beautiful delineation between TV and film that existed for so many years. I romanticize the studio system and movie stars as a whole, but obviously that's just anachronistic and probably a non-reality.
When I was young and I look at the things that I wrote - I don't think that was the word they used back then, but they had a hipster sensibility. They were a little irreverent.
I think at the point when they were first starting to talk about a movie, it was a little bit different back then.
Our historic imagination is at best slightly developed. We generalise and idealise the past egregiously. We set up little toys to stand as symbols for centuries and the complicated lives of countless individuals.
When I was a kid, I thought movie stars were women and men who were in these great films that we still look at now. But I don't think there are too many films coming out these days that we're going to look at in the future and say, 'This is one of the great ones.'
An idyllic childhood is probably illusion.
The VW doesn’t make you think of Hitler and genocide. It’s a breast on wheels, a puffy little dream.
Poetry's always dead, you know? You don't realize how good poetry is until 15 years later.
My parents had a long and eventful marriage and were always a bit like movie stars to me when they were young.
A walk through the storage facility of the community museum where I worked might easily have convinced you that people in the past wore only wedding dresses, carried silver candlesticks, and played with porcelain dolls.
