A Quote by Rhys Ifans

The whole film genre is one of deceit. It is the suspension of disbelief. That's what all theater and all film is based on. — © Rhys Ifans
The whole film genre is one of deceit. It is the suspension of disbelief. That's what all theater and all film is based on.
The stage is suspension of disbelief. Film is a literal medium.
I want to regard my public as infinitely intelligent, as understanding notions of the suspension of disbelief and as realising all the time that this is not a slice of life, this is openly a film.
We love genre, but in film if you make a genre film it has to all be about the genre. We were excited to be able to tell more complex stories on television.
Any genre as it's called, I think can be quite reductive in terms of what a film is, because I think there is an eagerness to put in any film, in anybody's work, to give it a genre title and I think as a consequence of that, the film starts to obey the rules of the genre.
I always envisioned working in film and in theater. Theater and film are not, they're not in any way substitutable. What I love about theater is so different from what I love about film, and I enjoy the craft of both.
I looked at theater, in the sense that theater is unmanipulated. If I want to pay more attention to one character on stage than another, I can. I think there's not enough theater in film and not enough film in theater, in a way.
Film noir is not a genre. It is not defined, as are the western and gangster genres, by conventions of setting and conflict, but rather by the more subtle qualities of tone and mood. It is a film 'noir', as opposed to the possible variants of film gray or film off-white.
I was a child in the '60s and a teenager in the '70s, which was the golden age of film as far as I'm concerned, between American film and the Italian reinvention of genre film.
'Rudhramadevi' is a film which falls into a very new genre. It is a historic and biographic genre movie. It should be called a bio epic. I am curious to see how the audiences accept the film.
One of the things that's different about London and the English market is that theater and film and television are all based in London. It's not quite the same as in the States where if the playwright here wants a successful TV or film career, they're whisked away by Hollywood.
Sometimes I read a script and it's obvious from early on that it's one where the suspension of disbelief has to develop strongly from page one. Some are more reality-based.
Suspension of disbelief and that whole question is part of the heart of the 'Leaves of Grass'movie.
I like to go back and forth between film and theater. When I do film, I miss theater and vice versa.
I auditioned equally for film and theater. The difference is that theater has seasons, while film, it's always happening.
When I was younger, I definitely thought musical theater was sort of more pure than film. I used to say I'd never go to film because we had to get it right the first time in musical theater. But then, of course, I started doing film and realized I loved it. Keep in mind that I was 8 years old when I said that.
I would make a huge distinction between theater improvisation and film improvisation. There isn't much improvisation in film - there's virtually none. The people that theoretically could be good at this in a theater situation don't necessarily do this in a film in a way that will work, because it's much broader on a stage. But in a movie, it has to be real, and the characters have to look entirely real because it's being done as a faux documentary, so there are even fewer actors that can do that on film.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!