"Smart people can take something complex and express it faithfully in different, especially simper, terms. They can interpret and reinterpret. If you want to make something smart, it’s tempting to do smartness to your topic until you’ve condensed it into some admirably lucid interpretation, then hand that to the audience and wait for the applause. Sometimes this is what’s needed. But it isn’t how to make smart things. A smart thing is something for a smart person. However many interpretations you put in it, however fertile they are, you leave room for more.

You do this because you respect what you are interpreting and you do it because you respect your audience. It’s a lot like being considerate. And that’s how you make smart things."

There seems to be a disproportionate amount of vitriol spit at a director who is so well regarded in so many circles. We seem to be in a more or less bland era of mainstream American filmmaking where some of the most celebrated and decorated directors are ones that are almost invisible from a visual standpoint. You have someone like Sam Mendes whose films do not appear to possess one single discernible characteristic. Even worse is Ron Howard, whose films’ only linking attribute is constant and egregious manipulation. And then there’s James Cameron who could easily be described as spectacle over substance, though has no signature traits to hang his hat on. Yet these are the directors that win Oscars, make huge profits at the box office, and while they receive their share of criticism, it doesn’t compare to the amount that’s heaped on Wes Anderson who has the courage to stick by his visual world even when a movie flops financially.

25.000 Euro Belohnung: Wer hat Infos, die zur Verurteilung dieser Waffenhersteller führen?

I don't fully agree, but it's a well written perspective

Aggregated Amazon reviews give an indication of quality as reliable as professional critics.

Arts & Letters Daily (17 May 2012), from Arts & Letters Daily - ideas, criticism, debate http://aldaily.com/