A Quote by Rose Byrne

I love TV as a viewer. — © Rose Byrne
I love TV as a viewer.

Quote Topics

TV acting is so extremely intimate, because of the peculiar involvement of the viewer with the completion or "closing" of the TV image, that the actor must achieve a great degree of spontaneous casualness that would be irrelevant in movie and lost on the stage. For the audience participates in the inner life of the TV actor as fully as in the outer life of the movie star. Technically, TV tends to be a close-up medium. The close-up that in the movie is used for shock is, on TV, a quite casual thing.
I don't know too many people who, when the TV announcer says, 'Viewer discretion is advised', then turn the TV off. Those are code words for, 'Turn the sound up; this is gonna be really good.'
I've seen descriptions of advanced TV systems in which a simulation of reality is computer-controlled; the TV viewer of the future will wear a special helmet. You'll no longer be an external spectator to fiction created by others, but an active participant in your own fantasies/dramas.
I'm a typical 2016 TV viewer: I like short bursts of heavy watching.
I always wish I could just see the 'Stranger Things' from an audience standpoint and not from mine. 'Cause when I watch it, I remember someone was behind there and behind there. I just can't watch it like a viewer. But I love seeing something on paper come to TV.
In the voyeurism of Reality TV, the viewer's passivity is kept intact, pampered and massaged and force-fed Chicken McNuggets of carefully edited snippets that permit him or her to sit in easy judgment and feel superior at watching familiar strangers make fools of themselves. Reality TV looks in only one direction: down.
I feel that TV and film feed off each other well. It's more in the perception of the viewer than it is of the actor.
The question of painting is bound up with epistemology, with the engagement of the viewer, with what the viewer may learn.
A lot of the pieces I've done over the years have involved alterations of scale and the idea of the viewer's relationship to the object and how we see things by either enlarging or reducing objects, it causes the viewer to look at them again. It's hard to do because our culture is so bombarded by images and media. How do you make something fresh for a viewer? That's a real challenge.
As the character changes in the movie, it rubs off on the viewer, so the viewer also goes through that change.
If to the viewer's eyes, my world appears less beautiful than his, I'm to be pitied and the viewer praised.
The functional freedom that anybody can buy a gun and go out and murder a lot of people at a McDonald's is prevalent, yes. But through the effects of TV and interactive video systems and so forth, we'll also have the freedom to pretend to be a mass murderer for the evening. I've seen descriptions of advanced TV systems in which a simulation of reality is computer controlledthe TV viewer of the future will wear a special helmet. You'll no longer be an external spectator to ?ction created by others, but an active participant in your own fantasies/dramas.
What intrigues me is making images that confound and confuse the viewer but that the viewer knows, or suspects, really happened.
In episodic TV you have to keep things secret to keep the viewer in suspense.
Art is the space between the viewer and the rectangle that hangs on the wall. Unless something of the person that created the work is there, there's nothing for the viewer to take away.
I am very conscious of the viewer because that's where the art takes place. My work really strives to put the viewer in a certain kind of emotional state.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!