A Quote by Tulsi Kumar

I think content-driven cinema is appealing in terms of even money-making. — © Tulsi Kumar
I think content-driven cinema is appealing in terms of even money-making.
Content-driven films can make money - something that is gripping, is a journey of revelation and is relevant is cinema.
The question now is can better content be driven solely by more money. I have learned in 26 years that only money cannot give you best content.
With Marathi cinema, content is king. It has always been driven by content. I am lucky that I don't have to leave home to seek a job elsewhere. The industry is here at home.
We've always actually been remarkably commercially successful. Not in terms of making huge amounts of money, which we rarely do, but in terms of not losing money and making modest amounts of money. We're actually strangely consistent in that respect.
I'm not a driven businessman, but a driven artist. I never think about money. Beautiful things make money.
When you think of everything in terms of just money, then almost nothing is enough. I mean, how much money is enough? Because it's hard to translate money into goods. And I think people, once, I think there's a lot things can believe, and once they start thinking about wealth in terms of money, they lose the idea of enough-ness.
I think it is very possible he [Donald Trump] could be nominated and depending on how this all plays out, I would take him seriously in terms of being able to win because he's appealing to a very, very - he's appealing to fear.
I always felt that I had anxiety of survival in terms of livelihood even when I was making plenty of money.
What bothers me is that the cinema - what Fox News calls the "wholesome cinema that our children are supposed to be able to see" - is so violent. I'm not even talking about the content. I'm talking about the way in which it's cut.
With platforms like Netflix, things are evolving as they are making content-driven films and series.
. . . you [film critics] always overstress the value of images. You judge films in the first place by their visual impact instead of looking for content. This is a great disservice to the cinema. It is like judging a novel only by the quality of its prose. I was guilty of the same sin when I first started writing for the cinema. . . . Now I feel that only the literary mind can help the movies out of that cul de sac into which they have been driven by mere technicians and artificers.
I think in terms of content and subjects and whatever kind of production it dictates. Can I conceive of an idea that would really connect with my personal rhythms and cost a lot of money? I don't gravitate in that direction, but it is possible.
I'm not the greediest person. Of course, I work in a business where that's all relative and there's a lot of money to be made. I think I'm satisfied making as much as I have and I don't feel particularly driven to have more.
I don't think there is any scientific evidence about the question of whether we think only in language or not. But introspection indicates pretty clearly that we don't think in language necessarily. We also think in visual images, we think in terms of situations and events, and so on, and many times we can't even express in words what the content of our thinking is. And even if we are able to express it in words, it is a common experience to say something and then to recognize that it is not what we meant, that it is something else.
Well, I think by and large, certainly in terms of cinema, American culture dominates our cinema, mainly in the films that are shown in the multiplexes but also in the way that it has a magnetic effect on British films.
I demand that a film express either the joy of making cinema or the agony of making cinema. I am not at all interested in anything in between.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!