In the most basic terms it was about how when we experience art without critical awareness we consent to the ideas being promoted, either intentionally or unintentionally, by the filmmaker. For instance, if you watch a racist comedian and laugh at his jokes, you are consenting to the prejudices inherent within them. Similarly, if you watch a movie which perpetuates conventional ideas about race, gender, etc., you are consenting to them and not affecting change in any way.

Films that rely on their cast to be funny are often episodic and feel like a series of loosely connected sketches rather than a satisfyingly structured script.

I think the jokes would have been a bit broader and a bit more obvious in terms of the day-to-day of country life.

A movie is a creative process from its conception, through its writing, to its execution, to the editing. I think with the best films there is some kind of contribution from one person all the way through that. The best films are made by people who write, direct, and edit, so there's continuity.

You know what, despite my complaints about The Phantom Menace and Episode II, when Episode III comes out I'll be first in line. I genuinely love it.

I love my job very much, and I don't think I would change it. In fact, I know I wouldn't, because I can't do anything else.

The trouble with improv is that it is often about being funny in the moment without any real consideration for the bigger picture.