I think that’s not healthy. I’m extremely concerned about that. Why should one cancel the other? If I’m in my car listening to Mozart, someone might ask, “Why are you listening through those stupid speakers?” And it sounds great to me, but why should I not have the chance to see Mozart done by a 120-person orchestra and be hit in my solar plexus and be transformed forever?

I love sometimes to watch a film on my computer with my headphones on, but I know that I am watching a film, not experiencing the film. If we only have that choice in our lives, we are losing a huge part of the culture.

At the jury press conference, you had positive things to say about the access that Netflix gives people who might not be able to see certain movies.

When a film appears on TV in every part of the world, it’s great that people have access to that. I could not have seen [“Happy as Lazzaro”] by Alice Rohrwacher if it were not for Netflix, so thanks to Netflix. But I would have loved to have the chance to see it in the ArcLight [Cinemas in Los Angeles], and that’s what really pisses me off, that we let that die.

I want to be very clear that I support Netflix 100 percent. At the same time, we have to make a point that exhibitors and distributors have a great responsibility here. We are all letting this medium die, and just becoming a franchise-entertainment park. And if those studios, distributors, and exhibitors don’t find a way forward, Netflix will eat them alive.

Can that trend be reversed?

Well, I don’t think there should even be an attempt to reverse the technology — I love virtual reality, I love that you can watch a short film in your home. But that technology should not cancel film. There has always been a fear that TV would cancel film, or radio would cancel film. That never happened before, but now it is actually happening, and it’s very scary.