i know i've posted this before elsewhere, but i'll reiterate and expand on the sentiment here. as a filmmaker, i'm of the opinion that when you set out to make a film for everybody (what you referred to as "the masses"), then you are effectively making it for no one in particular. and that kind of film will rarely have a deep meaningful impact on its audience. on the otherhand, a film made for a specific audience whose sensitivity to the cinematic experience has developed in a more attentive, less passive fashion, will be infinitely more rewarding for both the makers and the audience. i'm especially interested in seeing 'the fountain' because my own ability to engage with a film has developed beyond what i cannot help but to identify as the transparency of character archetypes, plot devices, three act structure, and other standards of narrative filmmaking. i'm looking for someone who is out there taking a chance, experimenting with form and content in overt or minimalist or simply interesting ways. not that i don't enjoy checking my brain at the door from time to time, but on the whole i'd much prefer to watch a glorious artistic failure that speaks to me on some level, than to suffer a well constructed diversion from life with nothing new or interesting to offer.c.g._eads said:
there are things, that if they could be put into words, wouldn't require a film to be made about them. i haven't seen the fountain yet, but i imagine aronofsky didn't intend the full scope of the film to be whittled down to a few simple words. so i'd say, if you were provoked or moved by it in any way, then you "got it".Staven said:
