Why Does Art Exist?

The Art of Art

Today I had eight hours of sleep. That’s an hour more than what the doctor’s recommend for someone my age, which means that I shouldn’t have felt tired. But, I did.

My entire day was ruined. I was sluggish, unmotivated, and unprepared to deal with every problem that came my way. Hell, even my hand-eye coordination was off. I had fallen victim to waking up on the “Wrong side of the bed”. It ruined a day that I’ll never get to see again and though as upsetting as this was, it made me curious about the whole notion of waking up on the “Wrong side of the bed.” I mean, why is it that we feel tired sometimes even when we’ve gotten a full night’s rest?

I’ve read a lot about the human mind and why we sleep and although I can’t even begin to call myself a professional, I can tell you that other professionals have reached some wild but reasonable answers to this seemingly frivolous activity. And, what’s really cool is how they utilized science to explain why we do it, which has subsequently given us something to ponder on regarding the reasons for why art exists in the first place.

Let’s start with why we sleep…

There was a time when people thought sleep was an adaptive trait developed over time. The yearning to go to bed caused us to seek shelter from danger. Of course, this isn’t true because nature would have had us evolve in a way that would allow people to be awake at all times. After all, that would have been the best adaptation. But, this didn’t happen and it certainly doesn’t seem like we’re going to stop sleeping any time soon.

Over time as our knowledge of the mind and body progressed, we started thinking that sleep was our way of conserving energy throughout the day. In the past this would have seemed plausible but, in our age of abundance? Give me a break. With a decent job in the West you can pretty much eat and sit around as much as you’d like. If anything, we conserve too much energy, which is why we’re all so fat and out of shape! Indeed, sleep does help us conserve energy but, it does far more than that as we’ve grown to learn through the expansion of science.

Though even to this day we still have yet to know exactly why we sleep, physiological evidence suggests something much deeper than what was previously thought. Many are now beginning to think that we sleep because it’s our way of rejuvenating the mind and body. Scientists have discovered that we have many restorative functions in our bodies from muscle rejuvenation to the release of growth hormones. And a lot of these functions can only occur when we’re asleep.

For instance, the brain releases Adenosine after a neuron has been activated, causing the chemical to build up throughout the day. When we sleep our brain discards it so that we feel more restive in the morning. So in other words, if we never slept our brains would be chock full of Adenosine and who knows how we would behave…

Well as a matter of fact, we actually do know how we would behave. There are numerous case studies involving patients who could not fall asleep. Every one of them died within months but, not before losing sensory and motor functions. This further strengthens the idea of rejuvenation because if sleep was simply a matter of adaptation or conserving energy then, we wouldn’t die from lack of sleep. But low and behold we do because without sleep our bodies couldn’t carry out important functions that restore the body.

But, it gets even crazier when you combine this understanding with the Brain Plasticity Theory. Not only does our body rejuvenate when we sleep, we also produce stronger and more efficient neural connections. Our neurons are literally in constant motion when we sleep, processing our day-to-day experiences, which seems to appropriately connect to our reason for dreaming.

Think about the last dream you had. Hell, think about every dream you’ve ever had, from funny and goofy to tragic and sad. Every single dream, minus a few outliers, has been conflict driven. You’ve always been chased by something, gone through an embarrassing situation, lost a loved one, or went through something that required you to respond to a pressing matter. So, why is this?

Are we producing stories and instances in our dreams because we’re re-arranging our neural pathways? Is this our way of processing the emotional responses to everyday experiences so that we’re better prepared for the next day? Perhaps the phenomenon of dreaming is nothing more than our way of simulating experiences like they did on, “The Matrix”.

Now, obviously we’re never going to forget to put our pants on when we go to work and, it’s likely that we’re never going to get chased by a mountain lion but, we may find ourselves in an equally embarrassing or threatening situation that requires us to respond appropriately so that we can come out on top.
Perhaps that’s the reason why our dreams are so conflict-ridden. Maybe, we’re meant to dream because its nature’s ways of perfecting itself; like we’re nothing more than iphones plugged into an outlet only, instead of simply charging we’re making ourselves into better people.

Now here’s where things get a little weird and this is something that a lot scientists and filmmakers never think about. If you were to pick up any scriptwriting book they would teach you about the simple but eloquent “Story-Arch” structure. That’s single-handedly the most common way to structure a story and what’s interesting is that it’s ridden with conflict or what writers call “plot-points”, which drives the story to some sort of conclusion.

It’s essentially the structure of every story you’ve ever viewed on television, movies, and the Internet. Even films that are presented in alternative structures are still in some way, conflict driven. It’s strange that conflict defines media and art, which is very telling of what films mean to us.

If our dreams are driven by conflict because our neurons are making better connections and, if the standard for film is all about driving conflict to tell the story…Well then, maybe we create movies to better process and understand the problems we face, just as we do when we dream. Maybe there’s more to film than we think.

We always see film and art as this intangible abstraction that has little meaning or real value. That’s why we always go for the engineering jobs and of course that’s ok but, it’s important, especially for artists, to understand why we make it to begin with.

Film is nothing more than a byproduct of our struggle to better ourselves and the World around us just as dreams are a byproduct of bettering ourselves when we sleep. We re-create hypothetical situations just as we do in our dreams because we want to examine what those situations are like and how we can better deal with them.

That’s why we always have sex, drugs, and violence in shows and movies. It’s not because we idolize vice. If that was the case we’d be more violent but, what’s interesting is that we’re actually less violent than our ancestors.

Now of course we had violence in plays and stories that were written when neighbors were legally killing neighbors in Western Society but, what differentiates our violence to the kind of violence that was depicted by our ancestors is that back then, it seemed to have more meaning and intent. Today, our violence in media seems senseless. There’s less of a purpose in the actions of the characters so their crimes seem less meaningful. Granted, there are exceptions to this standard but the vast majority of films? They’re kind of stupid and at times, down-right horrific.

And what’s funny is that most people see this as proof that society is going down the shitter. Many are saying that we don’t have moral values or a sense of right and wrong and that senseless violence in films is helping our culture sustain these principles or rather lack of. Yeah, just because a few dozen kids shoot up schools over the course of a few years doesn’t mean we’re all out of control.

Let’s step back and use our heads here, for a moment. If our media is infested with senseless violence then based on everything science says, we’re actually progressing. The very reason why we have so much senseless violence is actually because we don’t have as many conflicts in our daily lives to process. If we were doing worse then, our stories at least would be better.

Our stories aren’t as enriching simply because our personal lives aren’t as enriching. Think about it. Most of you who are reading this are either doing something they kind of enjoy or absolutely hate. There isn’t any real conflict or movement in the ordinary life. We get up, go to work, come home, watch tv, and then go to bed. Sometimes we go out or go on a week-long vacation but for the most part, we work to live and we live to work without any real obstructions.

We’re not facing wars or family rivalries that get out of control. We don’t have to deal with food shortages or complete mind-fucks that alter our collective paradigms much like the Protestant Reformation.
We’re just stuck in this idle state where we’re neither living nor dead. We live comfortably but without any purpose or, so it seems. That’s why conflict in film has run amuck because to simply put it…There is very little more to process and understand…Or so it seems.

I think one day things will get rough. Maybe they won’t but, who knows? And if that happens, film and other mediums of art will suddenly have more purpose because it will seek to espouse a solution to the problems that everyone may collectively face.

Art exists for a reason. It may be fluid and arbitrary but, that doesn’t mean it has no reason for existing. It exists because we want to perfect ourselves. We’re hard-wired to do so. Sure, not everyone wants to pick up a laptop and type up a 120-page screenplay but, we all dream.

And if we always dreamt of a stranger in an unfamiliar place, experiencing non-conflicts that have no relevance to our lives then, we wouldn’t feel connected to the dream and therefore, we wouldn’t be able to make the right neural connections to maximize our response to situations that happen in our everyday lives.

And that’s why we need to be more responsible with our films because our films do what our dreams do; they help us understand our problems and aid us in better handling them. We can’t just produce mindless indulgence filled with conflicts devoid of meaning. The formula that high-paid producers use is archaic. They base it off of story-structure and whether or not it can become a franchise. But doing that fucks with society, just as an ugly room would drive someone mad.

Aesthetics and story within art are paramount to our survival because it’s our way of progressing. We need to identify real issues in the World and inspire ourselves to solve them. And if we blindly make films, believing that it’s only entertainment then, we blindly misinterpret our own struggles. So, we stagnate.
One day if we ever reach perfection then art will no longer exist as something important and therefore, it’ll be created just to stave off boredom. Thankfully, perfection will never exist because if it did, then we’d have nothing more to work towards. There would be nothing left to do. And more startling, it would cheapen art to the extent that we would no longer connect to it.

Currently, we’re moving in those trends and we’re doing it blindly. Eventually, all the technological singularity hype will reside and reality will kick back in. We’ll go through our crisis and reach closer to perfection but eventually one day, we’ll find something else to improve upon and the cycle will continue. We’ll conquer the Universe and then-some but, we’ll never be perfect and our endeavors will continue. That’s why we’ll always need art and, as long as we can better understand the reason for the phenomenon and remind ourselves of that reason, then we’ll always be progressing.
 
You know, I think I agree with a lot of this. And I do think that things get a little rougher, our films will reflect a lot of changes. Take post-World War II cinema in Japan for example, I study Japanese films a lot, and although there are great things going on today, and great things that happened before the war, if you take a look at the sheer amount of masterpieces made in the late 40's and 50's in that country, you start to see a certain trend. The Japanese were trying to perfect themselves, and this was reflected in the home dramas of Yasujiro Ozu, the art films of Akira Kurosawa, the melodramas of Mikio Naruse, the period films of Kenji Mizoguchi, and several other directors that were responding to the same problems in different ways. Many films made after World War II had a lot of meaning, because people really needed to respond to difficult situations. I think you can see the same thing going on in communist Chinese films, where the Fifth and Sixth Generation directors tried to respond to a lot of their problems as well. Another good example is the Hong Kong cinema of the 80's and 90's, you could feel the craziness of the fact that Hong Kong filmmakers knew that in 1998, their lives would be completely changed. And I think there are many other examples. I think there are less motivating events in the United States right now that commercial filmmakers have to respond to, so for the most part we get pretty similar films that don't have much to say and don't really attempt to do anything but entertain large audiences. I think that we may get a bit of a commercial filmmaking revolution as the internet and more sophisticated television programs begin to take away audiences from the cinema (look at what happened in the 50's when TV was around, film studios desperately tried new things to win audiences back). I think for cinema to grow, there has to be some problems in the industry and/or the world for filmmakers to respond to.
 
Great paper/post/article/piece Firm1. One of the best from you so far.

Let’s step back and use our heads here, for a moment. If our media is infested with senseless violence then based on everything science says, we’re actually progressing. The very reason why we have so much senseless violence is actually because we don’t have as many conflicts in our daily lives to process. If we were doing worse then, our stories at least would be better.

Although one could argue that violence is skewed and distorted within the media.

Our stories aren’t as enriching simply because our personal lives aren’t as enriching. Think about it. Most of you who are reading this are either doing something they kind of enjoy or absolutely hate. There isn’t any real conflict or movement in the ordinary life. We get up, go to work, come home, watch tv, and then go to bed. Sometimes we go out or go on a week-long vacation but for the most part, we work to live and we live to work without any real obstructions.

While daily life isn't a Spielberg film, there is conflict and there is enrichment. Life in general can be mundane, but we are living in an ever evolving world that is constantly changing and forcing us to adapt. There is humor, there is romance, and there is drama in relationships, events, exchanges, and other various encounters with other people or things. To make the generalization that most/all of us live the same uneventful run-of-the-mill existences seems odd.
 
Can I get a cliff notes version

Art is a byproduct of our struggle to process and understand issues or conflicts because we're hard-wired to do this. Not all of us are artists, but all of us have dreams because we have to understand our daily conflicts. That's why we undergo neural plasticity because we're making more efficient neural connections by simulating those problems in dreams.

Bottom line, we make films for a specific reason though it seems that many artists blindly go at it because they don't understand the ultimate meaning behind the phenomenon. They lose sight of the goal and we're stuck with crap so that others can make a shit ton of money. (obviously this is just an opinion).

Hope that clarifies things. Thanks for responding to the post, man!
 
You know, I think I agree with a lot of this. And I do think that things get a little rougher, our films will reflect a lot of changes. Take post-World War II cinema in Japan for example, I study Japanese films a lot, and although there are great things going on today, and great things that happened before the war, if you take a look at the sheer amount of masterpieces made in the late 40's and 50's in that country, you start to see a certain trend. The Japanese were trying to perfect themselves, and this was reflected in the home dramas of Yasujiro Ozu, the art films of Akira Kurosawa, the melodramas of Mikio Naruse, the period films of Kenji Mizoguchi, and several other directors that were responding to the same problems in different ways. Many films made after World War II had a lot of meaning, because people really needed to respond to difficult situations. I think you can see the same thing going on in communist Chinese films, where the Fifth and Sixth Generation directors tried to respond to a lot of their problems as well. Another good example is the Hong Kong cinema of the 80's and 90's, you could feel the craziness of the fact that Hong Kong filmmakers knew that in 1998, their lives would be completely changed. And I think there are many other examples. I think there are less motivating events in the United States right now that commercial filmmakers have to respond to, so for the most part we get pretty similar films that don't have much to say and don't really attempt to do anything but entertain large audiences. I think that we may get a bit of a commercial filmmaking revolution as the internet and more sophisticated television programs begin to take away audiences from the cinema (look at what happened in the 50's when TV was around, film studios desperately tried new things to win audiences back). I think for cinema to grow, there has to be some problems in the industry and/or the world for filmmakers to respond to.

Oh wow, I didn't even know that happened in Japan but, it makes a lot of sense. Like you, I sort of picked up on a strange pattern while I was studying history for a while. But, now I'm really interested in seeing where we go with film. I don't think Hollywood is going to die but I definitely feel that at some point in time, the playing field will be completely evened out to the extant that just about anyone can make a sensational Hollywood-type movie if they really wanted to. We'll see the film industry blossom into agglomerated niches that are crowd-sourced. And, I'm sure they'll be some crazy new immersive technology that'll blow the Oculus Rift out of the water.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, man!
 
Great paper/post/article/piece Firm1. One of the best from you so far.



Although one could argue that violence is skewed and distorted within the media.

I should clarify that statement. When I say senseless violence in media, I don't mean the news. That's definitely distorting our perception of the World. I'm actually referring to fictional stories, like "Saw" or "The Purge". Unless, I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. But yeah, definitely agree with you on reality being distorted by media.



While daily life isn't a Spielberg film, there is conflict and there is enrichment. Life in general can be mundane, but we are living in an ever evolving world that is constantly changing and forcing us to adapt. There is humor, there is romance, and there is drama in relationships, events, exchanges, and other various encounters with other people or things. To make the generalization that most/all of us live the same uneventful run-of-the-mill existences seems odd.

Oh man, I need to hang out with your circle of friends! This is definitely true. Perhaps, I was basing this off of my own observations for, my circle of friends seem to live this kind of life. We need more exciting people like you! Thanks for taking the time to read the article. It took me a while to write it. Can't wait to publish it.
 
Art is a byproduct of our struggle to process and understand issues or conflicts because we're hard-wired to do this. Not all of us are artists, but all of us have dreams because we have to understand our daily conflicts. That's why we undergo neural plasticity because we're making more efficient neural connections by simulating those problems in dreams.

Bottom line, we make films for a specific reason though it seems that many artists blindly go at it because they don't understand the ultimate meaning behind the phenomenon. They lose sight of the goal and we're stuck with crap so that others can make a shit ton of money. (obviously this is just an opinion).

Hope that clarifies things. Thanks for responding to the post, man!

Dreams are also there to help prepare us for problems we've not yet faced
 
I should clarify that statement. When I say senseless violence in media, I don't mean the news. That's definitely distorting our perception of the World. I'm actually referring to fictional stories, like "Saw" or "The Purge". Unless, I'm misunderstanding what you're saying. But yeah, definitely agree with you on reality being distorted by media.

Thank you for the clarification!


Oh man, I need to hang out with your circle of friends! This is definitely true. Perhaps, I was basing this off of my own observations for, my circle of friends seem to live this kind of life. We need more exciting people like you!

Detector_de_sarcasmos.jpg
 
can't wait to see it! (sounds like you have an interesting perspective)

Thanks man! I'm certainly trying to present a new perspective but hey, if I fail to do this then at least I can have fun making some movies before I settle on a teaching job.
 
Hahah. I guess its true when they say that 70% of the conversation is lost when body language is absent. I was being sincere.

Oops. I wasn't quite sure. :lol:

That's one of the things that really bother me about the internet. I read a conversation a while ago on the forum where a guy posted his short film, and a forum member gave him some feedback. The guy who posted it thanked him, almost praising him (which sounded a bit sarcastic). The guy who was giving feedback called him a snarky asshat. They both got into a huge argument and I think one of them got banned from the forum :lol:
 
Oh wow, I didn't even know that happened in Japan but, it makes a lot of sense. Like you, I sort of picked up on a strange pattern while I was studying history for a while. But, now I'm really interested in seeing where we go with film. I don't think Hollywood is going to die but I definitely feel that at some point in time, the playing field will be completely evened out to the extant that just about anyone can make a sensational Hollywood-type movie if they really wanted to. We'll see the film industry blossom into agglomerated niches that are crowd-sourced. And, I'm sure they'll be some crazy new immersive technology that'll blow the Oculus Rift out of the water.

Thanks for taking the time to read this, man!

No problem, I enjoy reading these things!

Oh yes, I've noticed this a lot in history, and I think we can still apply it today. If you look at international cinema, many of the countries that are producing the most artistic works are ones where there are many struggles such as China, the Philippines, Thailand, Iran, other Middle Eastern nations, some African nations, and more struggling nations. In the past this also happened with Taiwan during its difficult years.

I think that this has always been relevant, it reminds me of a quote from The Third Man:
"In Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock" - Orson Welles playing Harry Lime.

But I don't think that these struggles have to just be large world struggles, they could also be problems in the industry, and that is what I think will happen with Hollywood. Revolutions in Hollywood have always occurred due to struggles. Look at how Hollywood desperately tried new gimmicks in the 1950's with the introduction of the television. Look at how Hollywood began to focus on 'auteurs' in the late 60's and 70's when they were struggling to be in touch with the younger generation's tastes. Look at how Hollywood abandoned this approach when there were many box-office busts (especially Heaven's Gate) during this period, and when they saw films like Jaws, Rocky, and Star Wars as examples for a new kind of cinema. I think that the blockbuster approach is losing the power it once had due to the fragmentation of culture with the internet and new media. I also think that blockbuster filmmaking has simply lost the talent it once had behind it. And the thing is that Hollywood is now also competing with more sophisticated television programs which are (IMO) doing a better job at providing conventional narrative content for most audiences today, they are also competing with YouTube and online videos (which I believe are filling the desire for comedy and lower brow entertainment in current audiences).

I think that Hollywood will have to find a way to focus more on making more films that appeal to different audiences as they did before, instead of making mega blockbusters for 'everyone.' I think to a certain extent they have been doing this by making 'independent films' which are smaller and appeal to smaller audiences but still have commercial appeal for wider audiences (as opposed to say an arthouse, experimental, or underground film).

For me personally, as a viewer, I really do hope that Hollywood changes since I really feel like Hollywood cinema has not been very interesting since the 70's. There have been some interesting films, but I think they are the exception to the rule that most Hollywood films today are mediocre or bad. At the same time, I also just hope that Hollywood lives for a long time, even if it continues to produce films that I consider to be mediocre, just because I hope that the big screen experience will live on.

One thing I wish, but I think this is me just dreaming, is that Hollywood will start producing films that are somewhat original, and don't need a 'name' attached to it. I feel like most Hollywood films today have to be either sequels or prequels or remakes or adaptations of comic books or popular novels, or any combination of the previous things I've mentioned. Sure, Hollywood always made adaptations, and many of them are considered classics today, but I have a feeling that people watched film noirs because they were awesome, not because of the film's name. I think today someone watches Transformers or Spider-Man or The Dark Knight because they know the source material, and Hollywood just wants to take advantage of existing characters, stories, etc. instead of giving us anything new.
 
What movie was it where all the prisoners have a really hard tough life and then one day they all watch a silent film and laugh and forget their troubles.

I don't think it was cool hand luke.. I think it was a different prison film. But it goes to show that in really dark times people look more for an escape.
 
To MiniJamesW:

Man, I wish I had your optimism about Hollywood. I think the reason why they're downgrading is because they're constantly on the defense. With online movies and shows, compounded with illegal downloading and better stories on T.V, its kind of making them conservative in their tactics. It seems like they're always taking the easier and most assured route because they'd rather make something that they know will make 100 million in profits as opposed to experimenting and maybe getting more than what they put in.

I definitely agree that Hollywood will be around for the long haul and I'm very happy about that since I want to keep the big screen experience alive. Seriously, nothing beats that, though it'd be better if we got a big screen experience with a great story haha.

My prediction though, is two-fold. In the short run, Hollywood is going to invest in more immersive technologies. As Speilburg pointed out, it'll be more sensationalized, which is awesome.

But, I think in the much longer run, start-up production companies from the online community will grow to the extant that they'll be able to make movies that are just as sensational as they are on the big screens, today. And, I think a lot of those online production companies will be able to crowd-source there way onto the big screens and eventually utilize the same technologies that once made Hollywood sensational.

But even better, I think we'll get more enriching stories because the risks involved in making films will be significantly less than what it is, today. I mean, if you really think about it, the reason why Hollywood films suck is because they don't want to take the risk in writing something original that may or may not be good. but, you take away the risk or at least lessen it, then you'll see a surge in experimentation.

But, who knows right? Very cool insights MiniJamesW.
 
To MiniJamesW:

Man, I wish I had your optimism about Hollywood. I think the reason why they're downgrading is because they're constantly on the defense. With online movies and shows, compounded with illegal downloading and better stories on T.V, its kind of making them conservative in their tactics. It seems like they're always taking the easier and most assured route because they'd rather make something that they know will make 100 million in profits as opposed to experimenting and maybe getting more than what they put in.

I definitely agree that Hollywood will be around for the long haul and I'm very happy about that since I want to keep the big screen experience alive. Seriously, nothing beats that, though it'd be better if we got a big screen experience with a great story haha.

My prediction though, is two-fold. In the short run, Hollywood is going to invest in more immersive technologies. As Speilburg pointed out, it'll be more sensationalized, which is awesome.

But, I think in the much longer run, start-up production companies from the online community will grow to the extant that they'll be able to make movies that are just as sensational as they are on the big screens, today. And, I think a lot of those online production companies will be able to crowd-source there way onto the big screens and eventually utilize the same technologies that once made Hollywood sensational.

But even better, I think we'll get more enriching stories because the risks involved in making films will be significantly less than what it is, today. I mean, if you really think about it, the reason why Hollywood films suck is because they don't want to take the risk in writing something original that may or may not be good. but, you take away the risk or at least lessen it, then you'll see a surge in experimentation.

But, who knows right? Very cool insights MiniJamesW.

I don't think it's so much optimism, because to be honest most Hollywood films don't appeal to my taste. But not only that, I feel like Hollywood used to make incredible genre films and dramas, but I don't think they make the same quantity of great films anymore, and most of them don't interest me.

Right now they are playing it safer with remakes, sequels, prequels, and adaptations, but how long will this work? I don't think that any methods used to reach audiences will work forever, as I have demonstrated in the historical examples of how Hollywood had to adapt to new generations of audiences and new problems that the industry faced. I think that Hollywood will have to adapt to face new problems, but I don't think that this change necessarily means that the films will get better (although I hope they do!).

For me, the great Hollywood tradition feels like its dead. And I don't really care what happens to it in terms of the actual output by the studios (because first of all, I prefer arthouse films, but also, there are more and more great genre films being put out by independent filmmakers). But I do hope that Hollywood survives just so the big screen experience will survive. And although I mostly dislike current Hollywood/mainstream films, I love it when there are exceptional films such as Gravity or a few films around the Oscar season, and I think children's animated films are still well-made. I'd rather that Hollywood survive so I can experience these gems on the big screen.

I hope that Spielberg is wrong, but he's probably right. I just find all this new technology to be gimmicks that filmmakers try to use instead of actually making good films and telling good stories. Of course, some of this technology will be implemented artistically later on (just like what happened with color, sound, widescreen formats, and even 3-D to a certain extent).

I think you're right about more filmmakers coming from online communities to make films with mainstream appeal like Hollywood films do today. I think the technology is getting there, the only problem is marketing and distributing these films to the right audience. I have a lot of faith that genre films will be restored by these new filmmakers, I think that most of Hollywood's genre films today are bland, overly serious, and even pretentious, but these new filmmakers will inject passion and fresh ideas to genre films to make them better.

I also think you're right about it being better that filmmaking is becoming more accessible. Filmmaking will be like recording music is now or writing or painting, something that anyone can do even though not everyone will master it of course. This is interesting because we'll get different types of films in all modes of filmmaking. It may also make the role of the critic more valuable again, as we're going to need people to discern the good films from the bad ones when there are too many films out there. I hope this happens, but another possibility is that viewers will just pick out films for themselves according to their own tastes and not care about critical opinion and unfortunately, not broaden their tastes.

In some ways, I already see this kind of saturation happening, especially in places like Bollywood and Nollywood. Unfortunately most of what's released is garbage, but it'll be interesting to find all of the great artists and gems in this growing medium!
 
Last edited:
Right now there's an endless torrent of sequels, prequels, rip-offs, and remakes gushing from "Hollywood". It's in a larger quantity in ever, matched with higher budgets and tighter deadlines. Ticket & concession prices are soaring higher and higher, with smaller theatre audiences. There's little experimentation, no boundary-pushing, and lack of originality (in both concept and execution).

Pirate sites and cheap streaming services are on the rise, with wider selections and a greater variety of material (generally both mainstream and out-of-the-mainstream). We're already seeing a gravitation towards this type of way of viewing content, resulting in both more attention to indie film, as well as less interest in actually going to the cinema. Either "Hollywood" is going to have to adapt, or they're going to fall apart.
 
Back
Top