As you say I guess we probably could go on all night because my point is getting through to about....no one. It's not tit for tat one upsmanship to debate the idea of art versus commerce and why so many have been somehow programmed to think that ticket sales are the end all be all of an artist's work, which is an idea that really disturbs me. Early on we all railed against those who said that BBM would not be worth its weight because it would not make money, didn't we? It was not this way in the 70s, before the blockbuster began with Star Wars, and studios rightfully gave money to filmmakers and took risks with real actors who were not cookie cutter fabrications designed to appeal to the zoned-out masses.
Box office receipts mean nothing if you're looking for quality movies.
Well, I'm pretty sure I get it, rt, and I agree. Actually, most people
must agree that popularity doesn't equal quality. It's just that some make exceptions for their own tastes. Certainly everybody's noticed a zillion examples of things that make tons of money but aren't all that good and vise versa. I'm always a little surprised when things I like ARE popular, if only because so many of my conversations wind up concluding that, well, people are stupid.
But then, I'm stupid too sometimes. For instance, don't tell anyone but I like reading InStyle magazine. Is it the equal of the New Yorker? No. I sometimes enjoy InStyle MORE than certain New Yorker issues, but I wouldn't take InStyle with me into the coffee shop, nor remember what was in it an hour afterward. Another example: don't tell anyone this either, but I've always thought Citizen Kane is kind of boring. Would I argue that means the movie is a piece of crap? No. I assume it's my defiiciency, not the film's. Still another: I thought "Leaving Las Vegas" was really, really well made ... and I was depressed for days afterward and wished I'd never seen it.
There are two different scales: what any one person subjectively likes or doesn't like, and then what is "good" or "bad" in some larger objective sense. Obviously there's disagreement about the first one, but what's tricky is there's disagreement about the second one, too -- it's actually
not entirely objective. Roger Ebert -- who, despite discrediting himself in the Crash/Brokeback controversy, is not a
total idiot -- gave DaVinci Code three stars, but his was the only good review I've seen. I read so-so reviews of Brokeback from reviewers I otherwise respect and continued to read afterward.
I respect your opinion a lot, rt, but I'll probably go to Davinci Code anyway because, if nothing else, it will keep my kids quiet for two hours while I relax and eat popcorn. At least it's a step up from when they were younger and I had to go to Rugrats movies (and gladly, rather than trying to keep them entertained myself!).
Oh, and I also agree with you about the '70s. I'm hoping this year's Oscar contenders signal a return to those days.
*Edited slightly this morning for lucidity, as I originally wrote this too late at night.
