Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco King
On the one hand, yeah, it's pretty amazing how quality and profitability can be inversely-related. On the other hand... these days, I don't find myself feeling much frustration about mass-appeal media. There was a time when I lamented that Katy Perry and Lady Gaga make billions while what I thought of as "real music" (in middle school, at least) slid under the radar. Looking back, it seems more like a position I staked out in order to elevate myself above the "rabble" in an attempt to increase my self-perceived sophistication, than anything else.
I tend not to draw much of a distinction between high and low culture, and though mass-appeal and art are often separated, I don't think they are mutually-exclusive, and think that there will always be instances where artistic merit and corporate profit coincide.
|
While I get what you're saying and agree with much of it, I don't feel that music and film are adequately analogous due to the significantly higher barriers to entry likely experienced by would-be filmmakers. I may be relating to the concepts of artistic merit and high culture versus low, but my complaint is essentially that one thing is preventing the existence of another and not simply overshadowing it.
It may be true that artistic merit and commercial viability can coexist, but it's also not exactly common. Perhaps things are different in bigger cities, but it's only once or twice a year that I could hope to see something I'd like in any of the regular theatres.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Disco King
There are a lot of art movies that eschew conventional narrative, but I think people can tend to tell the difference between a work creating meaning through alternative means to narrative, and one trying for narrative, but failing at it.
|
Do you really think so?