Quote:
Originally Posted by bungalow
But the general public has awful taste in film just like they have awful taste in music. It's incredibly difficult for a film with this demographic in mind to not be awful.
Sure, they want it to appeal to others because they want to make money. And the majority of directors working in Hollywood are, like I said, only tangentially involved in the creation of the film. They are usually hired by a studio-head (who usually retains strict final-cut authority over a film) to direct a script selected by a studio-head with actors selected by a studio-head to be edited by an editor selected by a studio-head and the primary concern throughout all of this is $$$. This is not conducive to good filmmaking.
Maybe you could define the context then?
|
I am about to head out so I won't go into any great detail at the moment.
Though, to be fair, I have only actually watched a few film that I consider to be arthouse. For example, I don't know if this is the type of film you are referring to, but I don't consider a director like Jean-Luc Godard to be arthouse. Tarkovsky - Not arthouse. Kubrick, Lynch, Fellini - Not arthouse. Might not be everyone's interpretation of the word, but it works for me (Though it often leads to discussions such as these). Though I still believe a lot of these movies were made to trasport ideas between the director audience in hope that it engages them to the point of actually enjoying the film.
Either way, apologies for the miscommunication.