The impressionistic method leads into a complete splitting and dissolution of all areas involved in the composition, and color is used to create an overall effect of light. The color is, through such a shading down from the highest light in the deepest shadows, sacrified an degraded to a (black-and-white) function. This leads to the destructions of the color as color.
I remember watching Wesley Snipes as Blade. I watched Michael Jai White as Spawn. I even watch Shaquille O'Neal as Steel. I felt like seeing a physical representation, a non-cartoon representation, affected me in a much different way.
Orange is red brought nearer to humanity by yellow.
I was fascinated by stripes from the start. On clothing, they follow a woman's movements.
My own sense and taste in 3D films has been I don't really like it when it feels like it's a gimmick and it's coming at me, it's flying at me.
I want a red to be sonorous, to sound like a bell. If it doesn't turn out that way, I add more reds and other colors until I get it.
Colour is always a consequence, never a cause.
I use about 20 different colours to retain the luminance in my work.
There is no right or wrong angle for something. The idea of putting the camera in an unfamiliar position is simply to do with film language. Sometimes it is spectacular, sometimes it is ugly, sometimes it is uninteresting.
Black and white creates a strange dreamscape that color never can.
The distinct blue, red, and yellow colors... though they have not the kind of harmony which is produced by a variety of broken and transparent colors, have the effect of grandeur.
In the work of Seurat, you can see the dots of neutral colors carrying the form and then the dots of more intense color that make the color texture. It is a totally different principle that than of the Impressionists who used broken color to imitate visual effect.
A special effect is a tool, a means of telling a story. A special effect without a story is a pretty boring thing.
Grandeur of effect is produced by two different ways which seem entirely opposed to each other. One is by reducing the colors to little more than chiaroscuro... and the other, by making the colors very distinct and forcible... but still, the presiding principle of both those manners is simplicity.
Impressionism is simply twenty minutes into LSD.
The width of a line may present the idea of infinity. An epigram may contain a world. In the same way, a small picture format may be much more living, much more leavening, stirring, awakening, than square yards of wall space.
In the real world there are many tones, from white at one extreme, through a large number of medium tones to black at the other extreme. To achieve a three-dimensional effect on paper you need just three - white, black and medium gray.
Paint, not the thing but the effect which it produces.
I began to realize that photographs, these still images, have a tremendous power to move your soul. They can change your life by what you choose to get out of them, and I started to collect photographs.
Simultaneous contrast is not just a curious optical phenomenon - it is the very heart of painting.
What the newer landscape artists see in a circle of a hundred degrees in Nature they press together unmercifully into an angle of vision of only forty-five degrees. And furthermore, what is in Nature separated by large spaces, is compressed into a cramped space and overfills and oversatiates the eye, creating an unfavorable and disquieting effect on the viewer.
There's nothing worse than an ostentatious shot. Or some lighting that draws attention to itself, and you might go, 'Oh, wow, that's spectacular.' Or that spectacular shot, a big crane move, or something.
I don't think Seurat would have been aware of the dots - he would have been aware of what he was trying to do. The dots were an instrument.
I wouldn't apply high frame rates to a love story or a thriller or a film noir or a mystery.
I couldn't imagine 'True Grit' in 3D. I think the idea is sort of absurd.
