A Quote by Eric Fellner

The idea that the Tony committee and the New York theater community as a whole have embraced 'Billy Elliot' is very, very exciting. — © Eric Fellner
The idea that the Tony committee and the New York theater community as a whole have embraced 'Billy Elliot' is very, very exciting.
The idea that the Tony committee and the New York theater community as a whole have embraced Billy Elliot is very, very exciting.
I was on vacation in New York when my agent called asking if I wanted to go right in and audition for 'Billy Elliot,' so I was lucky to be there.
The fact is, 'Billy Elliot' is an incredible show, for any age and any gender. 'Degrassi' fans would absolutely fall in love with 'Billy Elliot.'
When I came to New York in 1949, there was already an entire fresh avant-garde film movement blooming in New York and California. It was a very, very exciting period!
I'm a theater guy at heart; I love the theater. I was lucky enough to spend a good decade and a half in the New York theater community.
In terms of theater, there's not a more supportive theater community than in New York. It's really kind of a real thrill to go there. I mean, don't forget, I'm a boy from the suburbs of Sydney, so getting to New York is a huge, huge thrill.
The people I idolized I saw once a year on the Tony Awards. I would buy the cassette tapes of the various Broadway shows and scour the photos inside the recording package. That's how I exposed myself to the arts - New York and professional theater felt like a very distant thing.
'Billy Elliot' embodies the idea that anyone can achieve anything regardless of their socio-economic background.
New York has influenced me a lot in terms of my own independence. I'm really struck by the idea of authenticity, and I think New York embodies that idea, even though people are like, 'I miss the old New York.' But at its core, it has this natural, authentic energy. L.A. lacks that idea; it's painted over.
I'm in the film industry, and I very seldom go to the theater now. It could be work, not being in New York, that sort thing - because in New York, you do go to theaters; you can walk to a theater and then walk to a restaurant. But in places you have to drive out to the cineplex to see a movie, it's starting not to be worth it anymore. It's like the days when you went to get a book at the public library. You don't have to do that anymore. You just go on your iPad and all of a sudden you're reading The Duchess of Malfi.
New York was the last place that my movies caught on. I didn't make underground movies in New York, and in the 1960s, they were very snobby about that, because the whole scene was here.
I've always wanted to do theater in Chicago. Chicago is a big theater town-and, in some ways, I think this city is savvier and smarter than New York. Sometimes, I think it's a little too chic to go to theater in New York these days.
Theatre, when it is at its best, takes a lot of beating - the live experience and the shared collective experience of live storytelling is really special when it is good. Particularly here in New York because the audiences are amazing, very vocal and very engaged, and that makes theatre very exciting.
I never wanted to or expected to make a film outside of New York. New York became very, very expensive. The same $18 million spent in Barcelona or Rome goes much further there.
Yeah, I was only in New York from the age of six months until five years old. But my very first memories are all of New York. I remember my first rainbow on a beach in New York. I remember jumping on a bed in New York.
Well the thing is that the New York of 1846 to 1862 was very different from downtown New York now. Really nothing from that period still exists in New York.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!