These films however, have ambiguity built into them, because it's too easy in film to make a strident work of propaganda or advertising, which are really the same thing anyway, meaning the message is unmistakable.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
I think that those are the things that you can uniquely do with film that are difficult to do anywhere else: they can bring a picture to life, give it a natural and historical context and make you feel that everything else is suddenly credible.
This is the age of insincerity. The movies had the misfortune to come along in the twentieth century, and because they appeal to the masses there can be no sincerity in them.
Film is the medium for communicating not just ideas, but things of the heart.
We all do films believing in them completely, but sometimes, the audiences like what we like, and other times, they don't.
You can have ambiguity in television that you are not allowed in film... at least in Hollywood studio films.
It is very easy to make clear what you want a film to say, but I did not wish to engage in overt propaganda, even for the right cause. I wanted to create an experience through the films, something where people could have the freedom of their own response to them.
I think the audience know which films are aimed at their pocket, and which films are aimed at their soul. There are a lot of films out there made by people who are genuinely trying to make a change.
When it comes to films, people often don't differentiate between the message of a bad central character and the message of the film itself. They are two separate things.
A movie is really provocation. It's not a message, it's not a statement.
Perhaps where text slides toward ambiguity, film inclines to specificity. A novel contains as many versions of itself as it has readers, whereas a film's final cut vaporizes every other way it might have been made.