and say, "Oh, well, this is what it means." Our movies require a little bit of effort. LW: And you feel it in a lot of critics' approach today toward cinema. As soon as they encounter a piece of art they don't fully understand the first time going through it, they think it's the fault of the movie or the work of art. They think, [dramatic voice] "It's a mess." AW: [Dramatic voice] "This doesn't make sense." LW: "This doesn't make any sense." And they reject it, just out of an almost knee-jerk response to some ambiguity or some gulf between what they expect they should be able to understand, and what they understand. AVC: Your interviews about the film so far have been definite conversation-starters, talking about deconstruction and Foucault. Can you use the media platform as an opportunity to jumpstart the conversation, to get people thinking and talking about your films instead of taking them in passively? AW: Yeah, well, I mean, here we are. One of the things about this movie is that it's precious to us. And there is a part of me that was willing to engage, if only to kick back a little bit and protect my baby. LW: We totally understand the way people can access a work of art through a dialogue with the makers of the work of art. That is understandable. We had that experience ourselves with an artist we admire a lot -- Roy Andersson. I flew to Sweden