When You're Dealing With The World Of

I Like Films That Don't Have That Unonimity Of A Response; That Don't Have Consensus In The Audience. What It Is Essentially For Me Is That If You Go Back And Watch The Film A Second Time, Do You Feel That You've Been Played Fair With? Are All The Clues In Place? Indeed, Sometimes These Things Are Even Overstated. Specifically, For That Reason.

For Me, Batman Is The One That Can Most Clearly Be Taken Seriously. He's Not From Another Planet, Or Filled With Radioactive Gunk. I Mean, Superman Is Essentially A God, But Batman Is More Like Hercules: He's A Human Being, Very Flawed, And Bridges The Divide.

Yeah, It's Odd When You Look Back At Your Own Work. Some Filmmakers Don't Look Back At Their Work At All. I Look At My Work A Lot, Actually. I Feel Like I Learned Something While Looking At Stuff I've Done In Terms Of What I'm Going To Do In The Future, Mistakes I've Made And Things At Work Or What Have You.

Say You Have A Headline Like "mountain Bike Stolen," And Then You Read The Story, Read Another Story About It The Next Day, And Then The Next Week, And Then The Next Year. News Is A Process Of Expansion, The Filling In Of Detail, And Making Narrative Connections - Not Based On Chronology, But Based On Features Of The Story. There Are Narrative Connections Made Between Props, Between Characters, Between Situations, And So Forth.

What I React Against In Other People's Work, As A Filmgoer, Is When I See Something In A Movie That I Feel Is Supposed To Make Me Feel Emotional, But I Don't Believe The Filmmaker Shares That Emotion. They Just Think The Audience Will. And I Think You Can Feel That Separation. So Any Time I Find Myself Writing Something That I Don't Really Respond To, But I'm Telling Myself, 'oh Yes, But The Audience Is Going To Like This,' Then I Know I'm On The Wrong Track And I Just Throw It Out.