---In this connection, how do you view the use of
linguistics in the study of film?
---As a matter of fact, I was just talking about it
with Pasolini, at Venice. I had to talk to him be-
cause, as I've told you, I can't read, or at least not
the stuff men like him have been writing about film.
I just don't see the point. If it interests him, I mean
Pasolini, to talk about "prose film" and "poetic
film," okay. But if it's somebody else, well . . . If
I read the text on film and death Cahiers published
in French, I read it because he's a poet and it talks
about death; so, it's got to be beautiful. It's beauti-
ful like Foucault's text on Velasquez. But I don't
see the necessity. Something else might be just as true. If I'm not so fond of Foucault, it's because he's
always saying, "During this period, people thought
'A,B,C'; but, after such and such a precise date,
it was thought, rather, that '1,2,3'." Fine but can
you really be so sure? That's precisely why we're
trying to make movies so that future Foucaults
won't be able to make such assertions with quite
such assurance. Sartre can't escape this reproach, either.
--And what did Pasolini say?
---That I was a stupid ass. Bertolucci agreed, in
the sense that I'm too much of a moralist.