Does 'Shooting Fish' have less artistic merit than a play like 'Angels In America,' which I did? Well, probably. But it's good for something.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
In my mind, the plays I was writing were extreme examples of art for art's sake. I didn't necessarily think that other people would love them, though I thought they probably would.
Fishing is very meditative; you need to be able to give up control and cast out the line and then hope for the best, so in that way, it's quite like acting.
When I am fishing, I think quite a lot about the fish, but I also think about the book I'm writing.
If it's good art, it's good.
It's hard to write a good play because it's hard to structure a plot. If you can think of it off the top of your head, so can the audience.
All art at a certain level is entertainment. We go to a tragedy by Sophocles to be entertained.
We are breaking new ground in the territory of dumb with 'Shooting Fish.' Dumb, but in good taste. Silly, but not ridiculous.
I think you can appreciate different interpretations. Art is not a contest. I can even appreciate hearing someone play something in a way that I wouldn't.
A good play puts the audience through a certain ordeal.
When art in general, and film in particular, succeeds is when it pulls you away onto a voyage. Then it's a good film.
No opposing quotes found.