Quote:
|
Dreary bollocks the like of which only you and a few pretentious film students could bring themselves to watch and claim they enjoyed".
|
Was he describing EVERY SINGLE DISCOURSE on economics?
Educated or not, let's keep things in perspective, you must have a certain mindset to major in econ. I'm not saying econ guys are all uptight money-grubbing frumps with no sense of artistic value...but then I'm not NOT saying it either.
j/k
But would the artists achieve those levels today? Yes, because its incorrect to think that the eras in which the "masters" were doing their work was anymore receptive to high art than now.
Example, Sunrise and Metropolis both took bad hits in the BO, and Sunrise won an Oscar as well as lots of other critical praise. Even in 1915, 1925, 1935 filmmakers had to concern themselves with the idea of high art vs. popular entertainment. And in a slight bit of irony, UFA and the German filmmakers of the mid 1910's were actually trying to establish their works as higher art (by means of using more literary sources for films) in order to attract more middle-class business. Before then the cinema was seen as a seedy place filled with lusty, uncouth men lying in wait in the dark.
Now its screaming little brats and cell phones. Not all that different of an experience, eh.
edit - and its not like Kane was a BO hit either. Not sure about 2001 but I believe it was not a big hit.