Yes, actually ever since I saw his films and tried to write about them, Sirk's been in everything I've done. Not Sirk himself, but what I've learned from his work.
Rainer Werner FassbinderRead
I'd like to be for cinema what Shakespeare was for theatre, Marx for politics and Freud for psychology: someone after whom nothing is as it used to be.
Interpretation
The quote expresses a desire for transformative impact in art, akin to the influence of Shakespeare, Marx, and Freud in their respective fields.
Rainer Werner Fassbinder aspires to leave a profound mark on cinema that would alter its trajectory and perception, similar to how Shakespeare revolutionized theatre, Marx changed politics, and Freud impacted psychology. The ambition reflects a yearning for artistic innovation and a legacy that shifts paradigms, suggesting that true greatness entails cultivating a new era in one's field.
In practice
During a film festival, one might quote this to inspire filmmakers to strive for significant artistic contributions.
Yes, actually ever since I saw his films and tried to write about them, Sirk's been in everything I've done. Not Sirk himself, but what I've learned from his work.
So certainly, if we can tell evil stories to make people sick, we can also tell good myths that make them well.
I detest the idea that love between two persons can lead to salvation. All my life I have fought against this oppressive type of relationship. Instead, I believe in searching for a kind of love that somehow involves all of humanity.
It isn't easy to accept that suffering can also be beautiful... it's difficult. It's something you can only understand if you dig deeply into yourself.
The more real things get, the more like myths they become. There have always been myths, but the myths of earlier times were, Im convinced, bad ones, because they made people sick. So certainly, if we can tell evil stories to make people sick, we can also tell good myths that make them well.
Saints have no moderation, nor do poets, just exuberance.
Through performance, I found the possibility of establishing a dialogue with the audience through an exchange of energy, which tended to transform the energy itself. I could not produce a single work without the presence of the audience, because the audience gave me the energy to be able, through a specific action, to assimilate it and return it, to create a genuine field of energy.
Why would somebody just read a novel when they can see it on TV or in the cinema? I really have to think of the things fiction can do that film can't and play to the strengths of the novel. With a novel, you can get right inside somebody's head.
That's all there was in our house: poetry and choir rehearsal and duets and so forth; I listened to Dad and Mother discuss things about poetry and delivery and voice and diction - I don't think anyone could know how much it really means.
I don't like to read contemporary fiction while writing - I need a sense of isolation, a kind of silence, and I don't want a jumble of other people's voices or visions getting in my way. Nineteenth-century voices don't create static in that silence.
As a playwright, you are a torturer of actors and of the audience as well. You inflict things on people.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.