I'm preparing this right now for The Daily Notebook, but it amused me to look at the first question and its answer today, as Andrew O'Hehir and Roger Ebert went at it over O'Hehir's admittedly somewhat overheated ruminations on Secretariat, of all things. What follows is from the unedited transcript.
Q: I've seen it twice now and watching it for the second time, I wondered--this is a more general question--do you think it's possible as an artist to make a work that's entirely undetermined by ideology?
A: Well, it's a good question. Yes and no, I suppose. It's yes in the sense that you can try and go in that direction. But you should not, of course, delude yourself into thinking you got there, because ultimately you never get there. A film is always seen through the eyes of an individual and if you choose to tell that scene from that angle, it's obviously defined by something. And I suppose that even the kind of distance that I try to create in terms of my position and in trying to be as factual as I could, it's still an ideological position, which also somehow means that I'm possibly not on one side or the other. But is that acceptable? Is that not defined by some form of ideology? It's pretty much open to question. Making movies is something that is ultimately so close to the complexities of this perception of the world, that--and it's ultimately so defined by philosophical questions of interrogating the very texture of our perception that you would be a fool to believe that you can have any kind of genuine objectivity.