It's much better to write a book and stick to the research - that's history. In cinema, emotional truth and psychological truth is much more important.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think books, novels and autobiographies have a power to touch people far more personally than films do, so there's a bit more of a responsibility when you then dramatise it.
Books provide context and allow you to think about things over time. Film is like writing haiku; there is an immense amount of pleasure in paring down and paring down. But it isn't the same.
I began to feel that the drama of the truth that is in the moment and in the past is richer and more interesting than the drama of Hollywood movies. So I began looking at documentary films.
Research for fiction is a funny thing: you go looking for one piece of information, and find something altogether different.
Film is our literature, so we should tell stories that are apropos of our culture, in that we can learn something about ourselves.
I have to say that movies have as much impact on me as music. And that I learned as much about narrative from movies as I did from reading novels, how to arrange stories, how to juxtapose things.
The power of the story sheds a light and great perspective on well known facts. The power of cinema draws on that collective history.
Everyone relates differently to contemporary stuff. They rely on you to do the research for a period film.
Television and film are such streamlined story mediums. You can't really meander about, whereas a novel is an interior experience.
Film is important; it can be more than reportage or a novel - it creates images people have never seen before, never imagined they'd see, maybe because they needed someone else to imagine them.
No opposing quotes found.