A Quote by Greg Kinnear

When you have a director who has work you can identify from the past, it gives you some reference point as to what their interpretation of the story might be, and how that might jibe, right or wrong, with how you see it. But with a first-time director, you don't really know where you're at.
I think one third of my work is with first-time directors because I think I should, you know? Really, the difference between a first-time director and a second- or third-time director - I mean there's no director who makes enough movies anyway - but if they're talented, they have it. And there is no movie that is perfect.
I kind of joke with myself that you shouldn't be able to be a creative producer if you weren't a first AD. Because it is such fantastic training for really understanding what everyone does, and how the movie actually gets made. You have to know if you're the first you're kind of the set general, you're at the director's right hand, you know everything about how a director puts a movie together, you know everything about how a movie gets made.
A director makes 100 decisions an hour. Students ask me how you know how to make the right decision, and I say to them, 'If you don't know how to make the right decision, you're not a director.'
I like working with a first time director. I'm more likely to work with a first time director than I am a second time director.
Theater is about interpretation and what an actor and what a director brings to a piece too. I'm open to it every time I work with a director and a group of actors. I have to be open to that interpretation. I'm not one of those hysterical playwrights that come and say, "This is not what I intended to do." It's one rendition of the piece.
It [the scene] can be something given to you and you go, "Ah this is a good idea, I can work with this." Sometimes it cuts right across your instinct and that's when I might resist. Even if the director might be insistent, I think it's very important to say, "Look, I'm not feeling this. I'll try to make it work but I got to let you know."
Independent means one thing to me: It means that regardless of the source of financing, the director's voice is extremely present. It's such a pretentious term, but it's auteurist cinema. Director-driven, personal, auteurist... Whatever word you want. It's where you feel the director, not a machine, at work. It doesn't matter where the money comes from. It matters how much freedom the director has to work with his or her team. That's how I personally define independent movies.
I don't really think I have the personality. I am not very external. I don't want to dance on the table and do impressions. So I think that the way I approach it is really loving story. That's my first love - the words. The words and the story and how to create images. I guess I come at that as a director. I think that's much more in my personality to be a director, so that's kind of informed my acting.
You have to get the casting right. You have to get the people behind it. Your director might not be the right director for the project. And then, it has to test and those people in that room, wherever they are, have to turn those buttons the right way at the right time.
You can always hear a director saying, 'Well I don't really know what this piece is saying, so therefore, I reject it.' There are any number of things you can anticipate going wrong, and sometimes they go right. But I think the things you like most are the things that get rejected first. That's just how things work.
I judge my film choices based on the director, and then I see how much the story has affected me when I read it or when I hear it in the narration. Then comes how important my role is in it, but primarily director, script, and then role.
You're in a movie, so you have to think about how something plays. It's not like you're thinking about how an audience is going to react. You're trying to present the story. You're trying to illuminate the lives of these people in the story. So I'm thinking about how my behavior as this character best illuminates what's going on with them in this moment in time. I always say it's sort of the director's job. People think that the directors direct actors. No. Really, what the director's doing is directing the audience's eye through the film.
I am telling you now: I might be young, but I am good. I work hard, and I'm a good person. I know what's right. I know what's wrong. And if you give me this chance-- if you just give me one shot to show you how good I can be, how hard I work, how much I believe in doing the right thing -- I won't let you down. I promise.
A lot of times I don't know if I trust the director to tell that film's story. Or I think it's inappropriate for a male director to tell a female story, or a white director to tell a black story. Everyone walks away from a movie differently, because you're relating it to your own life.
I'm not interested in the director's commentary stuff. I think that stuff is really boring. And, if the director explains too much, it takes a certain mystery away from the interpretation that is very important for the audience to have. The audience should have their own interpretation.
I think you've got to talk to the director, see the director's films and recognise that it's important that the work fits right in and see if as part of the movie.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!