Irresponsibility is part of the pleasure of all art; it is the part the schools cannot recognize.

It's sometimes discouraging to see all of a director's movies, because there's so much repetition. The auteurists took this to be a sign of a director's artistry, that you could recognize his movies. But it can also be a sign that he's a hack.

There seems to be an assumption that if you're offended by movie brutality, you are somehow playing into the hands of the people who want censorship. But this would deny those of us who don't believe in censorship the use of the only counter-balance: the freedom of the press to say that there's anything conceivably damaging in these films - the freedom to analyze their implications. How can people go on talking about the dazzling brilliance of movies and not notice that the directors are sucking up to the thugs in the audience?

When a picture can't make it on its own, the producers pull in a 'controversial' message - the way a couple whose marriage is falling apart decide to have a baby.

Television represents what happens to a medium when the artists have no power and the businessmen are in full, unquestioned control.

If you use Hollywood as the test tissue for mankind, what could the prognosis be?

Reality, like God and History, tends to direct people to wherever they want to go.