A Quote by Alex Gibney

It's hard to make a living doing documentaries. Frankly, if it takes you five years to do a film, and that's the only film you're doing, you're in trouble. — © Alex Gibney
It's hard to make a living doing documentaries. Frankly, if it takes you five years to do a film, and that's the only film you're doing, you're in trouble.
If I could make a decent living doing documentaries, I would. I don't really care about [the other] stuff so much. But you can't make a living doing documentaries. Although it has affected my work, at least in that I think I make fairly realistic-looking pictures.
People ask 'How does doing a film compare to doing an ad?' Well, when you're doing a commercial you don't have to sell tickets. You have a captured audience. Which is actually completely rare and great; it gives you a lot of freedom. When you make a film, you have to do advertisements for the film.
I think I'm wealthy. I make a good living for what I do. Well, it depends. If I'm doing an independent film I'm making no money - probably losing money. But if I'm doing a studio film, I'll make a decent wage. I can live for a year without working.
If it's a choice between doing a film and not doing a film, I'd rather not. But then, you remember that you're supposed to be earning a living and that it's your career.
A learning experience is the best way to sum up my first film credit. It's hard to break into the film industry, and it was a minor role but still my only shot at the movies while I was doing theater.
I suppose making documentaries is like doing journalism on film.
You make documentaries because you love doing it; it's the only sane reason to make documentaries.
It's hard for me to approach [a film] as a still image now that I know exactly what it takes to make a movie. I mean, I know what it takes to make a movie that lasts five minutes.
When I make a film, I never want the film to become a vehicle of social propaganda. If I wanted to do that, I'd make documentaries.
When you're doing a film and the majority of the film is cast black, for me, it's most important to get people to view those movies as just movies, as just good movies. At the end of the day, regardless of the color of the cast, we're all doing the same thing in this business: trying to make a good film.
I only want to make movies that I believe in, that I care about and that mean something to me. At the end of the day, that's the only reason I'm doing this. Hopefully I can continue to grow and challenge myself to try to do things I've never done before, and make different kinds of movies that still maintain what makes the film my film.
'Senna' took five years, 'Amy' took three years. You try and say, 'Look, there's no deadline.' That's important. Just saying, 'We've got to make the film. And once the film's ready, it will be out there.'
I make films about people with disabilities as well and I think this question is more relevant in regards to these documentaries where the actual person appears on film. I know these people are proud of who they are and what they are doing with their lives.
I made four comedies, and all did well, but I always wanted to do an action film. When I saw 'Singham,' I thought this was the right film. Many stopped me, saying, 'You are doing so well in comedy, why do you want to make this film?'
It's a unique experience when you're doing an independent film where you have one person who puts up all the funds to make the film.
I meet all these American filmmakers that film for months and months, and it's a mystery to me. I couldn't make a film like that. I have to be very clear in what I'm doing and where it's going, and be very disciplined about what I film.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!