Quote

I don't think the audience always listens to the critics. That's been proven time and time again.

Critics have their purposes, and they're supposed to do what they do, but sometimes they get a little carried away with what they think someone should have done, rather than concerning themselves with what they did.

Have you ever noticed how most critics disagree with the public? That should tell you a lot about critics.

Don't pay any attention to the critics - don't even ignore them.

Critics have a job to do. I understand that. It's not just to criticize. They're trying to interpret art for the public.

I think critics are very useful. But I think that they, in a way, betray their position when they stop people looking for themselves.

I guess you'd have to say that sometimes the audience is smarter than the critics.

A lot of critics are lazy. They don't want to look closely and analyze something for what it is. They take a quick first impression and then rush to compare it to something they've seen before.

Those who write clearly have readers, those who write obscurely have commentators.

The thing we call critics are not really reviewers, they are not really critics. They don't have the discipline to write what we would term as critique - it's really just reviewers. They have a common man kind of taste. If you watch them overall, they are not different from the box-office. That's my view.