A Quote by Barry Jenkins

Film is not an amazing medium to relay interiority. I think literature is much better for that. — © Barry Jenkins
Film is not an amazing medium to relay interiority. I think literature is much better for that.
I used to think about video games, "This is clearly an amazing, new narrative medium, and it's going to be mind-blowing when people get to grips with what's possible within this medium." It took us a century to get really good at film. Video games are at a much earlier stage.
Film is a temporal medium as much as it is a visual medium: you're playing with time, and you don't have that ability where someone can pause at home. That's such a fundamental part of what makes filmmaking exciting to me. I don't really have as much interest in any other medium. I just like the control.
. . usually, the biggest problems of adapting plays into screenplays is that they stick too close to the play, and I think film is a completely different medium. I think a novel is much closer to a film.
I don't think that theater is the higher medium, that it's better than film.
Film as a medium, like a novel as a medium, possesses a unique ability to communicate. Film is capable of communicating in a way that no other medium can, and I would say the same for the novel.
I think film and television are really a director's medium, whereas theatre is the actor's medium.
I bristle a little when the argument for film gets put into the nostalgia ghetto. Film is still the highest quality and best-looking image capture medium available. I don't think it always will be. The digital image will get better, and it will eventually surpass the quality of the film image, but it isn't there yet.
They say that theater is the actor's medium, television is the writer's medium and film is the director's medium, and it's really true.
I think the wonderful thing about doing theater is that it's more of an actor's medium. I think that film is more of a director's medium. You can't edit something out on stage. It's there.
Somehow, in the novel format, I don't really like to do upfront, ideological discussion. In my heart, literature remains a poetic and ambiguous medium. On the other hand, I trained as a documentary filmmaker in film school, so my films very much reflect reality and socio-political problems. They're less subtle I would say.
Plays are literature: the word, the idea. Film is much more like the form in which we dream - in action and images (Television is furniture). I think a great play can only be a play. It fits the stage better than it fits the screen. Some stories insist on being film, can't be contained on stage. In the end, all writing serves to answer the same question: Why are we alive? And the form the question takes - play, film, novel - is dictated, I suppose, by whether its story is driven by character or place.
A film is not a vehicle to accuse, or to relay a specific message. If we reduce a film to this, we lose all hope for cinema to ignite a richer conversation.
I don't have to think much when I take a photo on my iPhone. I sort of see the iPhone medium as instant gratification, whereas with film, you have to think about it because it's expensive.
I think Tim Matheson is amazing and I think he's amazing in this - I haven't seen the film [Killing Reagan] since we shot it, but I think he's just incredible.
Life is amazing: and the teacher had better prepare himself to be a medium for that amazement.
But as far as, for I think it will be amazing you know where I find myself years from now because of this film. It's just amazing, I think everybody's going to kind of know this film and because of it, me. So I you know it's crazy.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!