A Quote by Jafar Panahi

You mustn't look at a film with only one point of view. — © Jafar Panahi
You mustn't look at a film with only one point of view.
But every point of view is a point of blindness: it incapacitates us for every other point of view. From a certain point of view, the room in which I write has no door. I turn around. Now I see the door, but the room has no window. I look up. From this point of view, the room has no floor. I look down; it has no ceiling. By avoiding particular points of view we are able to have an intuition of the whole. The ideal for a Christian is to become holy, a word which derives from “whole.
First and foremost I have to look at the film from an audience point of view. Yes, one has to see the story from an actor's point of view as well so that you can showcase performance as well. However before that, I need to ensure hits.
I went from silent films to watching French new wave cinema. I became entrapped by it all. That's when I knew I wanted to do film. The moment you start looking at film from a critique point of view - there's a difference between watching a film as an audience and with a critical point of view.
The individual point of view is the only point of view from which one is able to look at the world in its truth.
I take a biocentric point of view. I look at things from the point of view of the Earth and the laws of ecology. As opposed to the anthropocentric point of view, where everything revolves around humanity.
There are lots of podcasts that look at films from the audience's point of view. There are also plenty that look at it from the combatants' point of view. It's invariably the case that the less likely you are to have heard of the people talking, the more interesting they'll be.
If I was asked to do a film that was just trying to sell a political point of view or religious point of view, I wouldn't do that because that's a bad script.
As soon as anybody puts anything on film, it automatically has a point of view, and it's somebody else's point of view, and it's impossible for it to be yours.
There is only one point of view, that is your point of view. You are making a mistake if you see the point of view of people. There is only one and that is your livelihood.
My films are very rooted in specific people's point of view. Some film-makers give a more global point of view, like God looking down at the characters.
Film is subjective, and we must be careful with that. The kinds of films I love are those that observe, and I give possibility for people to talk. No need for me to tell people what to think - even when I make a film like 'S-21.' It's only one point of view. It's still a film; it's not a tribunal.
I look for the essence of a story and a human angle that I think audiences can relate to. I also look at how the dialogues flow in the film as a whole and between the characters, and most importantly I always consider what I can bring to the character from a creative point of view.
From my point of view, which is the point of view of no illusions, there is only winning and losing. You might as well be a winner.
I think to many people the term 'activist film' implies a film with a single point of view - something designed to provoke outrage and urge action on a particular issue - sort of the film equivalent of a rally. 'If a Tree Falls' is not that kind of film.
From a high-tech point of view, an agriculture point of view, a goods-and-services point of view, a great deal of [committee Democrats] have no choice except to support allowing America access to these markets.
From a policymaker's point of view, [the back door] must look like a perfect solution. "We'll hold onto a separate copy of the keys, and we'll try to keep them really, really safe so that only in an emergency and if it's authorized by a court will we bring out those keys and use them." And, from a policy point of view, when you describe it that way, who could be against that?
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!