A Quote by Natasha Richardson

A film is a director's vision... there is, however, much input an actor or actress can have. — © Natasha Richardson
A film is a director's vision... there is, however, much input an actor or actress can have.
I love the variety of films. In theater, you go into a room and the director runs the room, so you all work to his or her method. On film, if an actor or an actress is in for a day or two, the director has to get out of that actor what they need, so they have to change and adapt to that actor's technique.
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.
The actor should understand the script and come prepared to play the role. At the same time, they should be flexible enough to take the director's input and portray his vision.
As an actor, we can only do what the director wants. Only the director has a vision of the entire film.
As an actor, you've got to have faith in the director's vision, that the director has a vision for this that is greater than the critics say.
As an actor, you're always at the service of somebody else's vision. In a play, it's more of the director's vision, and he or she's got their hands on you all the way up to opening night, and if it's a film, there are even more people.
An actor is nothing without the vision of the director. The director needs to have a vision that will cross boundaries, that makes the audience sit on the edge of their seats and that pushes the envelope.
When I do a film, usually I work from my director. That's my boss. The director is interpreting the writer's vision, and we all interpret it, and they create their own vision as well.
A director is the captain of the ship; he gets the vision of the film much before anyone else can. While I want to experiment with characters, I know a good director means I am in safe hands.
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.
I have always believed that an actor cannot afford to have a favorite genre. He must excel in every kind of film and fit in with every director's vision.
As an actor, I'm attracted to drama; as a director, it's humor - because it's the story of my life, and I can't be that serious about it. Being alone is a big theme in all my movies, both as a director and as an actress.
I still make more money as I do as an actor than director, however I don't want to be a commercial director.
We made 'Mickey and the Bear' with barely any money with a first-time director, a first-time director of photography, and a crew who had just graduated from NYU film school. We were all very much in this together for the first time. There's no famous actor or big explosions. It's not a Marvel movie. I thought nobody was going to see this film.
I always relish the idea of collaborating with the director on creating the sound world, the sound spectrum, and the sound environment of the film. I use every means at my disposal to create a score that is as strong and powerful to enhance the director's vision for the film.
Film’s thought of as a director’s medium because the director creates the end product that appears on the screen. It’s that stupid auteur theory again, that the director is the author of the film. But what does the director shoot-the telephone book? Writers became much more important when sound came in, but they’ve had to put up a valiant fight to get the credit they deserve.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!