A Quote by Kyle MacLachlan

The difference with doing a play is that you are in control. In film you are in the hands of the director and the editor and the producer — © Kyle MacLachlan
The difference with doing a play is that you are in control. In film you are in the hands of the director and the editor and the producer
The difference with doing a play is that you are in control. In film you are in the hands of the director and the editor and the producer.
Me and Kirby are very collaborative and it changes from film to film. The first project we worked on together, Derrida, we co-directed. The last film Outrage, I was the producer and he was the director. This film was much more of a collaboration - he is the director and I am the producer - but this is a film by both of us.
Filmmaking has always involved pairs: a director coupled with a producer, a director alongside an editor... The notion of couples is not foreign to cinema.
One of the good things is the relationship between director and editor used to be more contentious. Studios used to leave directors alone more during the post production process and now they're clamoring to get in. So, the director and the editor end up teaming up sort of against the studio to fight what they're doing and you lose the creative tension that you used to have between an editor and a director.
The producer can put something together, package it, oversee it, give input. I'm the kind of producer that likes to take a back seat and let the director run with it. If he needs me, I'm there for him. As a director, I like to have the producer there with me. As a producer, I don't want to be there because I happen to be a director first and foremost, I don't want to "that guy."
I want to have a great director, and also a great producer and co-stars. And there should be a tight script. After all, regardless of how the film turns out, I must have fun doing the film!
On my 'Mickey' video, I was the director, producer, choreographer, editor, singer - everything.
Doing comedy for film is always a challenge because you are in the hands of the editor after the fact. I am hoping I can do some more soon, I enjoy doing comedy.
An actor is only a part of the film, not the whole, and very often, he is moulded by the director. That is why a good director can make so much difference to a film.
With film, so much is in the director's hands. Once something is cut together - unless you're in the editing room - you don't really remember what the alternatives are. The exercise in theater is night after night, you are doing the same play, but you have another opportunity to explore.
Once I started 'Nagaram Nidrapotunna Vela' I had to finish it. I made a wrong decision. I knew the film would be a flop and told the producer so. Everyone failed - director, producer and all.
You can give the greatest performance possible, but if you don't have a director who's pointing the camera in the right direction and an editor who's editing it properly, it doesn't matter what you do. The director and the editor are the most important people. Not the actors. Sometimes the writer is important. But if you don't have a good director, you can't have a good production.
I want to direct more often. The job of a producer brings its own benefit as you start to see the simplicity of film making. But yes there is a constant battle between the director and producer in me.
Eisenstein was a good editor. I was trained as a film editor, and I've no doubt that the editor is key to a film.
Originally a record producer more or less hired a bunch of professionals to participate in a recording session, the performers and the technicians, and a music director was put in charge. That directly related to a film producer's job.
Sometimes the producer has more say and the director takes what he is given. On other occasions, you don't see the producer very much and the director is the one who it is all about.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!