A Quote by Dan Gilroy

Every film you're commissioned to write is all about an arc; usually, the arc is that the world creates a change in the character, usually for the better. To not have an arc, the messages and ideas in the film became more prominent.
What's great in theater is that you can sustain the arc of a character for a full three hours, whereas in film or TV, you have to create that arc in little pieces, and usually out of sequence.
As a writer, you know what the purpose of the scene is. It really has nothing to do with the actor so you have to really get out of that space because for actors it's a micro-focus and then you figure out your arc through what the writers have given you to say. But that arc is just one little piece of the huge arc of the whole film. It took a while to get out of that.
It takes stamina to get up like an athlete every single night, seven to eight performances a week, 20 weeks in a row. And there are many young performers who only learn their craft in the two minute bits it takes to film a scene. You never learn the arc of storytelling, the arc of a character that way.
When you're telling a story, the best stories, every character has an arc. Every one. And that arc is usually about finding yourself, or about at least finding something about yourself that you didn't know.
A funny thing about film is that it's the only medium where people say there are really rules that you have to stick to. Nobody says to the writer - in a film you've got to have three acts - there's a character arc you have to do - there's no reason that's true.
When I read a script or I see a character, I don't necessarily see the arc of her, that by the end she is this person, she's different from she was in the beginning. I guess it's more a subconscious understanding of that arc.
Having been a theater person first, you have the whole character, and you see the arc of the character in a play. And then when you do a movie, you have the whole character - or, if it's a small role, there's not much arc, but you see what the whole part is.
Marxists are more right than wrong when they argue that the problems scientists take up,. the way they go about solving them, and even the solutions they arc inclined to accept, arc conditioned by the intellectual, social, and economic environments in which they live and work.
With a series, you build the character as you go. When you've got a shorter project or a film, you know the overall arc from the beginning.
Getting the audience to cry for the Terminator at the end of T2, for me that was the whole purpose of making that film. If you can get the audience to feel emotion for a character that in the previous film you despised utterly and were terrified by, then that's a cinematic arc.
I have to go through that arc with Dolores, and I didn't know what my arc was going to be. We found out episode by episode, and the more it went on, the more I felt a change in myself and allowed myself to be strong and to get angry and to access emotions that I don't normally, and I think a lot of women don't because we're kind of conditioned not to. It's freed me in a way, and it made me find a strength in myself.
I feel like if a film is well-written, then the character's arc is complete. There really is very little room to expand on that afterwards.
Every time I see a film about Joan of Arc I'm convinced she'll get away with it. It's the only way to get through life.
I prefer working, period. I think that I like doing film more just because when you get a script, you have the story from start to finish, so you can really find the character's arc, and when you walk away from it, you know you're sort of powerless to what happens.
Acting is very physical, even when it doesn't appear to be. It's about the arc of your body's language through a film.
With a film, you know the beginning, middle and end of your character's arc. But on a TV show, you have no idea where they're going to end up.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!