"Cinema is not the art of scholars, but of illiterates."
- HERZOG

I can talk about Eraserhead all I want, but the best way to sum my thoughts up on it would probably be by jumping off a cliff and flying to the moon.

I think verbal language is more restrictive than productive; in fact it limits us socially more than we could ever know.

So I'd probably go along with your profound insights on Stalker, 24frames.

As another question, if somebody sets out to make the worst film ever made, and you agree with their intentions by responding with, "Jesus, that's the worst film ever made", does it then become the best?

Uh...

what?

No, because people would reward it with good reviews and standing ovations in public theaters, ala Snakes on a Plane.

Separating best and favorites is anti-art.

Uh, no. Pretentiousness like the above is anti-art.

Well said Capo.

24fps, Turnbull and Vercetti,
Even though you say that you are not making a claim of objectivity or universal metric, I would like you to respond specifically to this comment.

This thread is so pompous I want to fucking puke.

Someone stick a fire cracker up DVC's ass...hurry.

By the way, I think I might have mis-read you, but I think you've mis-read me.

I don't like Les carabiniers. Why? Because it's not very good.

Why is it not very good? Because I don't like it.

There's probably a sentence in the middle there that I forgot, such as (for mere example): "As a whole, I do not connect with it on an aesthetic, thematic or formal level; it has its moments here and there, but its lasting impact on me is lacking."

And as to why that is the case, or what those moments were, read my review of it again.

On a sidenote (though one which bears at least some relevance); has anybody ever looked up a word in the dictionary, and found themselves having to flick back and forth to define other words, and other words further still?

No, it's my way of thinking. If there was a set list of films I thought I was supposed to like, I wouldn't piss on any film that had overall positive reviews. My best list would simply be a copy/paste of AFI or IMDB.

The problem is Capo is viewing something from our mind through his train of thought, and that is why this never fucking dies. I acknowledge that I enjoy some films for reasons that have nothing to do with what I consider great. Goodfellas might be up there because living in a heavy Italian family I could see a lot of similarities outside of crime I relate too, and thats a big part of it. It has nothing to do with the movie's greatness. Entertainment is separate. If a film about a pregnate woman is made, I mgiht think it's great, but it might not be nearly as entertaining to me purely for it's subject matter. So this in itself is a bad movie just because the subject matter doesn't appeal to me? Give me a break. You think the way you think, let me think the way I think. I'm tired of everything completely over analyzed on these boards.

I don't actually see it as a problem, I see it as a potential for bringing myself closer to my own convictions, or a chance to migrate to somebody else's. Don't forget that I used to take pride in compiling two separate lists. I've not been stubborn from the start. I'm still not. I guess I am perhaps trying to persuade people to take steps back from their assumptions, because I see in them a great limitation on the possibilities to enjoy so many films.

But perhaps "enjoyment" shouldn't come into it when valuing "greatness"...

That has to be one of the most tragic things I have ever read. But it says so much about how melancholy, morose, depressed and generally wasted our generation looks likely to become. Because they're never going to be happy with themselves; they're going to keep on looking down upon their own tastes and values. What a whole lot of good that's going to do for self-pride.

Actually, this is genuinely interesting, because it implies that the problem isn't between great and entertaining, or best and favourite, but between form and meaning, or form and content, whatever.

Like best and favourites, I have problems seeing a difference between form and meaning. My appreciation of an apple includes the skin and the core; both are at a loss without the other.

But if you're sick and tired of over-analysing things, and if I believe that you can never over-analyse Art, or our analyses of Art, then I guess we're on completely different wavelengths; and I have perhaps been incredibly naive in thinking people were in for the love of it.

I addressed it in an earlier post. No, for me it doesn't. I can't say the same about everyone else.

I have plenty of self-pride. I have no sad feelings towards my opinions in films. Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant?

I don't so much think I misunderstood you as I misunderstand you.

Anybody else find it ironic that we are all using words here to effectively stress our failures in communication?

So much for language.

You fucking baffle me Vercetti. You have two personalities; one that allows you to make intelligent observations and provide meaningful insight about things, and another that makes you act like an inconsequential retard and post baseless, unfounded bullshit like this.

I agree. The list I posted is my favorite list, not the greatest movies ever made

Wow Vercetti, we actually agree

Good God, has this been going on all along and I just never noticed over the past three and half years? This debate over Best vs. Favorite? This is such a funny debate to me. I especially love all you word-smiths out there and how you use the English language to make points.

I'm probably just adding to the chaos here by stating my point and probably not making a NEW point, but I feel Best and Favorite are one and the same.

If I were to say The Blues Brothers was my favorite move of all time, wouldn't I also consider that to be the best? I mean if there was some "Almighty God of the Best of the Best" that sat around and TOLD us what was best and we couldn't argue or we'd be hit by a bolt of lightning then I would say FINE! But to me in order to say what your 'favorite' or your 'best' movies are takes some personal opinion. If they are both a matter of opinion then to me they are one and the same.

Maybe I should just post my movie list:

Blibbleblabble's official Favorite/Best movie list:

1. The Blues Brothers
2. The Unforgiven
3. SLC Punk
4. Back to the Future Trilogy
5. Pulp Fiction
6. Saving Private Ryan
7. Serenity
8. Lord of the Rings Trilogy
9. Braveheart
10 Eternal Sunshine of the Soptless Mind

I really, really, like the Muppet Movie(seriously). Ya know, Kermit, Ms. Piggy, Gonzo, Fozzie the Bear(whacka whacka whacka ) I would MUCH rather watch The Muppet Movie than Citizen Kane. But am I going to argue that The Muppet Movie is greater/better than Citizen Kane? Of course not.

I like hearing Bob Dylan sing waaaay more than Luciano Pavarotti*. But I'm not going to try and argue that Dylan has a better voice than Luciano just b/c I personally would rather hear him sing.



Point being.....There is a technical science to both music and movies that has to be considered. Singers who have better pitch, tone, harmony, rhythm, etc, etc are said to have better voices. Films which are better looking, have better themes, have better execution, better direction, better acting, etc are going to be considered better films. There IS a science to it. Just b/c someone personally likes watching porn and listening to Roseanne Barr sing the national anthem does not mean that they have any logical argument in saying that pornos are the best movies and Roseanne is the best singer.

*Edit--Actually, I love Pavarotti, but you get the point.

Hey I agree with you on THIS point. In fact, I should probably modify my list so that Muppets from Space is somewhere in the top ten because it is also one of my favorites/best.

I don't consider what I said retarded, I consider a pointless generalization like yours retarded. You used to have two lists, now that you changed all of a sudden you're above it and it's ANTI ART!111 to use two lists. That's pretentious to me.

All you're bringing to this debate at all is your impugning opinions of how something is "so ridiculous." Capo is at least making a point.

People seem to be underrating entertainmment, or personal pleasure, here, and I really don't know why. For those of you tired of this debate, I'm talking specifically to Ice, here, though if you want to inject some flavour, feel free.

I think, Ice (and others), you're approaching Art or Film as if everybody should have the same intentions when creating something. As if in order for something to become truly valuable and everlasting and universal it must cater to a certain, set and specific value that has always been around. Tastes and judgements are formed (or realised) after the event, not before it. But there's a disgusting prejudice which diseases Art that says, "This is noteworthy, but this will never be." It's often seen in casual dismissals of comedies but emphatic praise for tragedies. It's slowly disappearing, but there are ugly remnants that still pop up, and they're as conservative as ever. They are probably at their highest peak in history when you look at Literature, and the literary canon; a lot of that has to do with who had access to books, and therefore education. Who could be taught (who could read) and hence who could teach. It's a knock-on effect of conservatism, and it's still around, in some cases worse than ever (in the light of high-culture being out-dated), especially in academic circles.

I don't really like audience studies that much, but the truth of it is, especially in an industrialised, commercial commodity such as Hollywood, films cater towards different ages, cultures, tastes and values. They are made with an audience in mind.

The Muppet Movie might have been made for six-year-olds, and you happen to like it. Nothing wrong with that. But it seems that your enthusiasm for it, your willingness to watch it again, means that it has won you over, it has succeeded - perhaps exceeded - in its intentions in satisfying your demands. Citizen Kane for whatever reason (you haven't given any) doesn't do that; it has failed to communicate to you, you have consciously chosen to reject it, there is a failure of engagement there. Not necessarily a complete failure, just a comparative one next to Muppets.

I find both voices entirely appropriate to the lyrics they sing. The form is entirely suitable to the meaning both invoke, and both can bring and have brought me to tears. So in one sense, it's a bad example because we both like both of them, but say, I didn't like Pavarotti's singing; the reason why I didn't would be because it didn't hit my heart, it seemed to go in my ears but failed to go anywhere else. It does nothing for me, let's pretend, and Dylan's does. "Nessa Dorma" I appreciate, let's pretend, with complete indifference. How then, am I supposed to go about defining how his voice is better than Dylan's? It might reach tones and pitches that Dylan's never could, but "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll" never was supposed to be sung in Italian Opera. Don't you see the contradiction there? Dylan wrote and sings his songs not within the limits of his own voice, but within the potential of his own voice.

I think it's incredibly limiting, reductive and even dangerous to expect anything from films other than personal satisfaction. Or even excellence, for those who see the two as the same thing (like me). There's still an awful lot of room for negotiation there; people might think it's a narrow-minded view, but I like all kinds of films, and the more I see the more I want to see, it's like an obsessive quest to meet the most people, to make the most friends (because films are mirrors of yourself, of people, of possible friends or interesting strangers, but that's for an entire different thread altogether, perhaps).

If you dive into Art with pre-defined assumptions of authorial intent, whereby films have to adapt to your meaning of excellence, instead of you having to adapt to their way of meaning, then your favourites are forever going to be overshadowed by unconscious conservatism.

People always bring up pornography in Art debates, and I don't know why; to me it's a commercial commodity in itself, and a very successful one. There might be room within its own industry for certain leading figures or favourite directors or whatnot (probably more to do with the stars, really), but if you're wanting something "deep" (by deep I mean your own definition) from something intending to give you a hard-on, you're missing the entire point of it. Pornography manipulates its audience by prostituting itself to audience demands. You might be able to use "Hollywood" there instead of Pornography, but that's something else.

You've surely got to take into account extra-textual aspects, though. Aspects such as what the author put in, what the author wanted to be brought out, what was intended, what you wish to be intended, what you want, and if you're in the mood to want it.

What you wish to be intended from a text shouldn't be narrow and pre-defined, but open and embracing.

When I'm in the mood I might jerk off to some pornographic video and then watch Eraserhead straight after it. Both satisfy my needs, both are very very deep, of substance. Because to restrict depth or substance to thematic relevance to the moral upkeep of the world is, I think, something which makes the existence of Art essential. Art is beyond any moral solutions; in fact surely it should create problems, in the form of subversion, transcendence, and questioning by means of varying schema, to shed new light on established order, to slant out perceptions this way or that. If you have a concrete, solidified meaning of depth to be universal relevance, you're never going to be fully appreciative of certain texts. That's why a lot of people dismiss form unfairly; and they shouldn't, because form is the means by which we engage with meaning or content. I don't like criticisms of Kill Bill which say, "It's all style over content". That's ridiculous; Tarantino concentrates on form, it's his most charismatic and recognisable ideology, and so why should we judge it and criticise him for a lack of something beneath that surface? Why can't stylebe deep in its own right? Style speaks to the senses in a much more abstract way than meaning; because we comprehend meaning through words, words form meaning, but in translating that meaning back into words, we're giving it a new context altogether, a new style in which it can exist.

What, for instance, would be a "better theme" to you? In his book Hollywood Cinema, Richard Maltby argues that Hollywood should not be judged by conventional artistic worth, but, because it is an industry designed to make profit, should be approached as so. He says, for example: "Thematically, Singin' in the Rain is banal, but its self-reflective playfulness also makes it a complex aesthetic object."

I'm not saying you'll disagree with that, but I'm trying to highlight the absurdity of a "science" to appreciation. There's a subjectivity to it, a personal perception, a focalised value, but not an all-encompassing logic. There is a tendency, perhaps, to lean towards conservative means of what is good or not good, but hardly an external science.

I think it is possible to find the masterpiece that lies in every single film ever made. You need to adapt to its approach, its way of speaking to you, and what it has to say. Films shouldn't have to adapt to us, to our way of thinking; films can't do anything but exist, but be there. If an aesteroid wiped out humanity today, there'd be reels of films still existing in steel cans. They're concrete, and our perceptions and receptions of them are completely plastic. I can get along with people if I adapt to them; but what gives me the right to judge whether or not they're a good person, though? The only thing I have to go by is how much I like them, or get one with them. Getting on with somebody is all about embracing their faults or overlooking their faults, and extracting the good from them. The same goes to film criticism too. Somebody who's influenced me very much on the Film boards, said that there is never "badness" in films, just an absence of "goodness", and we must seek to negotiate (personally satisfying) meaning from it whenever we can.

Returning to depth and substance and what it means to be "good"... Persona is very deep to me because it speaks to me on so many levels, which at my own discretion I assume is what Bergman intended (due to the nature of his other films and the recurring preoccupations within them). But pornography is also deep to me because it does exactly what (again, I assume) it intended to do, to get my penis hard and to make me excited enough to masturbate and finally ejaculate.

I've meandered about a bit there, but I would genuinely like to know what everybody else thinks about that. Hopefully I've hit upon some points that give you enough to talk about.

This is a great debate, it is an age old one that continues to this day.

The voice example is not a very good point for your side though. There are certain standards that qualify one voice over another, just the same way there are certain standards that qualify one athlete over another. Just b/c I think you are a better quarterback than Peyton Manning does not make it so. There are SPECIFICALLY DEFINED attributes of a voice that excel it over others, just like there are specifically defined attributes that excel one athlete over another. Some voices can do waaaaay more than others, just like some athlete's legs/arms can do waaaay more than others.

However......I must admit that with movies I tend to agree w/ your side more and more. I might find certain themes in The Muppet Movie more worthy than that of Citizen Kane. Therefore, to me, it's a better movie. And who's to say that I can't decide the acting in one movie is better than another? Atter all, this is art, not organic chemistry.

Beauty IS in the eye of the be-holder. Hmmmmmm.....

EDIT-BTW- The Muppet Movie was NOT made just for 6 yr olds. Like most kid's movies it's themes apply to the adult world. The movie co starred peeps like Bob Hope, Mel Brooks, Steve Martin, Richard Pryor, Elliott Gould, Milton Berle, Telly Savalas, and Orson Welles. Did you read my thread about the Wizard of Oz representing a parable on populism? (Here)Often stories that we take as being strictly for children actually represent adult world themes.

If there were "specifically defined" attributes, or a "science" behind such grading, how the hell is it an age-old debate? If there's a way of grading it scientifically or mathematically, then I'm defeated; I'm out; it's no longer an Art form; and I shall leave highly disappointed.

Athletes perform for the sole reason of winning, for succeeding; they are judged by how many medals they are winning/have won.

Singers shouldn't compete to see who can perform the widest range of vocal pitches; they should be entirely invested in evoking the emotion suitable from what they are singing.

So you're agreeing with me about the whole Best/Favourites thing?

I said it might be. I was speaking hypothetically. Its makers made it with kids in mind. They didn't make aesthetic choices based on how an elderly old African man might respond to it.

The Wizard of Oz might or might not be a "parable on populism". That's an interpretation, and one which somebody has made the conscious decision to extract or form or construct.

What themes don't? Themes are common denominators which bind human beings.

People talk about themes as if they're only for the privileged, the educated, the elite. And because of that, for adults. There's nothing cinematic about a theme. Themes develop from anything; they're self-contained tumours that sprout when we wish to find them. Thematic fabrics are very much as much a product of audience interpretation as authorial intention.

You've skirted over many of the other points I brought up.

It can still be art, but there are certain parameters and qualifications that define good art that have been declared and passed down by the generations. These parameters do however change, and a good artist will continue to re-define them and offer their own interpretations of them.


Ya, sort of, keep reading.



There are plenty of kids movies that intend only to teach kids about not taking money from strangers. The Muppet Movie on the other hand is an adult movie that happens to have imaginary characters that appeal specifically to children.



Again, not all 'kids movies' have themes that apply to ppl over the age of 10. Not ALL themes are universal, some themes of life are only relevant to someone who is in their teens. Or, some themes are only relevant to someone in their last yrs of life. Not every theme is a common denominator b/c different themes can apply to different ppl in different situations. You may encounter a theme that brings zero relevance to you personally, but may at the same time change my life.<----This is why I sort of agree w/ you about the whole best/favorites things.





Again, I somewhat agree w/ you about the whole best/favorites thing. But like most things in life, my awnser is gray.

I DO however think there are certain films that should be considered universal masterpieces by all. Such as, Citizen Kane(for example) even though I personally don't really enjoy it. B/c as I said earlier....'there are certain parameters and qualifications that define good art that have been declared and passed down by the generations.' You(Capo) don't agree w/ this, and that's where we might differ. You are saying that there are no set guidelines or qualifications that make good art. Well, of course you are not completely right or wrong in that assertion.

But my recurring point, which nobody has yet even acknowledged, is what "certain parameters and qualifications" does Citizen Kane account for?

This seems to be a contradiction. So basically, we're told and brought up to "know" what good and bad Art should be, but the basis for that knowledge can change?

What do you think about my argument that we should adapt to excellence on the film's individual and intrinsic terms, and not expect films to adapt to ours? We shouldn't be narrow and specific and elitist as to what makes a good film.

I would awnser yes to both bolded questions. Might I say that the second one is beautifully put. We most certainly should adapt to excellence on the film's individual and intrinsic terms, and not expect films to adapt to ours.

Im thinking this right now.....

We KNOW that child molestation is bad. We can't prove it though. We can't prove what great art is, but we as an art community do have some standards. Usually these standards are what comes natural to our feelings and emotions.

Take Woody Allen. He is great, right? He was funny(i.e witty and logical) and was hugely popular B/C his art offered interpretations of everyday, real life situations. Now to me, that is great. Someone might disagree,(and that is there right b/c there is no truth to anything, LIFE/ART IS AMBIGUOUS)but we as a art community just KNOW that Woody was a great artist, Mona Lisa is a great painting, and Casa Blanca is a great movie.

Any mathematician will tell you the universe is infinite. They can't prove it, they just have faith. Mathematicians have discovered that numbers eventually drop off into sheer chaos. Well, ideas are as infinite and chaotic as Math. So...there is no definition of greatness, b/c there is not really a defining term for ANYTHING. To me there is ABSOLUTELY NO REAL TRUTH in the world, except that, I know child molestation is bad. So...there seems to be some resemblance of truth after all. And if there is resemblance of truth/absolutes then that means there can be truth/absolutes in art. But...ideas and the universe are simply infinite, right? I mean, the universe doesn't just stop. You can always keep going. So....in my opinion here in lies the greatest question of man, is there a God. Is there any other way to explain the sheer infiniteness of free thought and ideas yet also explain something as restricted and confined as child molestation? I kind of think there is a God since we know that child molestation is bad, I mean we KNOW it's bad, but we can't prove it. We just believe it. We also KNOW Woody Allen is a great artist.* We just know it, but we can't prove it. We just believe it.

*(But I'm not going to take that definition of greatness and use it to measure every other comedian that comes along.)


EDIT--WHEW!!! I'll have to take a recess after this one!!!

Not to hijack this thread w/ my own personal blatherings but I think I have finally gathered my thoughts on this one.

SCENARIO 1

Favorite films are NOT best films b/c no one can say that Rocky V is better than Citizen Kane. If they do then they lack a certain maturity, experience, and wisdom that comes with experience in life. My 14 yr old brother may honestly feel that some crap pop teen movie is waaay better than Casa Blanca but we have to consider the source.

SCENARIO 2

Favorite films ARE best films b/c once we as an art society decide what constitutes good art(honest, educated, experienced, etc)at that point defining greatness any furthur or establishing lists that rank greateness becomes strictly subjective to who is making the list. EXAMPLE--Casa Blanca and Seven Brides for Seven Brothers. Two movies that always make the film critic's top 50. I love them both, but for me, SBSB is better b/c of the music and dancing. It adds a certain something to my experience that CB does not have. I would also take another musical like Singin in the Rain over CB even though I love them both. But....I can't argue w/ someone who thinks Casa Blanca is greater, they are both accepted as great films.

**************************

So....I think as long as the art and the art critic are both educated, experienced, and honest with themselves, the art potentially becomes great. Therefore, if we establish certain guidelines about what has potential to be great(CasaBlanca, Kill Bill, Citizen Kane) and what doesn't have potential to be great b/c it lacks original or in-depth and educated thought(Rocky V, Michael Bay movies), then at that point, personal favorite movies and greatest movies become one in the same. Distinguishing rankings of greatness for 'collectively accepted' great movies like Godfather, Casa Blanca, Citizen Kane, Kill Bill, Goodfellas, etc, becomes subject to the personal opinions of each educated and honest art critic.

Sounds like an interesting argument by Maltby. I haven't read the book, but I have a few questions.

The same shall apply to Scorsese, Tarantino, and PTA who are financed by and make their movies within the Hollywood studio industry? The same shall apply to Hitchcock, Ford, Hawks, Walsh, Coppola, Altman, Soderbergh, Wes Anderson, Sofia Coppola, Woody? We shouldn't judge or appreciate these works by conventional artistic worth? I mean even unabashed money makers like Cameron and Bruckheimer can still be evaluated for their films' aesthetics - do they continue or break filmmaking practice, form, etc.? Interviews and commentaries by both show they make artistic decisions, which are of the same concern of Scorsese and his "ilk."

I'm not sure what Maltby's point is (of course I haven't read his book, so I don't know) with Singing In The Rain. Is it that Hollywood is driven by profit so they make movies that aren't challenging but dumbed-down to appeal to as many as possible?

The thing is, though, putting a barrier up against your emotions creates that best/favourite disctinction. One is decided by personal emotional response, the other is...well, I still don't know how people are defining "best" because nobody has attempted beyond what the dictionary tells them. They're taking it for granted without questioning what it might actually mean.

Don't forget too that you're dealing with child molestation from the viewpoint of how you have been brought up. Regardless of good, moral intentions of the people nurturing us, we are conditioned into that moral assumption. Molestation might be the most selfish, honest thing somebody could ever do. I don't ever feel the need to molest a child, because I've been conditioned into that moral reckoning which frowns upon it. That's the culture and times I live in, have been brought up in.

But we're mixing metaphors or at least concepts here. I made a point earlier that Art is beyond morals. You're talking about molestation as good and bad, but what you mean is morally right and wrong; Cinema or Art shouldn't be restricted or regulated by means of moral reckoning... how else would it be honest, personal, expressive?

I think he is. Somebody else might not. Humour's always hit-and-miss anyway. A lot of people love certain TV shows for their humour, and I watch and just fail to understand it.

When an artist unburdens himself of the idea in his head, it's like a contagious disease which is passed onto us. He's made himself naked and is allowing his disease to roam freely. In order to get the fullest potential out of that disease, that idea, we also have to become fully naked, and assume the same vulnerability and sense of emotional honesty. There's nothing more convincing than an honest criticism. Somebody on the film boards slammed The Godfather Part II and his reasons were critic-proof in themselves, because how can you ever dismiss personal responses?

Why not? If somebody wants to see a boxing film, a triumph over adversity narrative, a Sylvester Stallone film, chances are they're going to be disappointed by Citizen Kane. Welles' film isn't going to speak to them one bit; it has failed to engage them, there is a failure in understanding, in connection.

I think Home Alone is a much better film than Gone With the Wind, because Home Alone is meant to be enjoyed as a Christmassy, family action film, and I enjoy it as a Christmassy, family action film; Gone With the Wind tries to seduce with spectacle and give me a lesson in the history or narrative of the Civil War - I don't think it fulfills its potential with that. I can relate to the masterpiece in Home Alone, but cannot relate to the masterpiece in Gone With the Wind... whereas some people miss the masterpiece in Home Alone but find the masterpiece in Gone With the Wind very attractive indeed.

Accepted by whom? A collective establishment? A social hierarchy? A canon?

I'd rephrase what you said, and say this:
"I can't argue with someone who thinks Casablanca is a better film because their response can be nothing but honest."

(Ideally, speaking, of course.)

They have, I like to think, made themselves naked in order to catch the disease, the masterpiece inside of the film, but they didn't catch it; it wasn't for them, they were immune to its genes, and failed to connect with it, to understand it, etc.

I think every text has a potential. I think a film I can't stand (it's very rare that I hate a film, and I can't really think of one now) has unfulfilled potential, but it's unfulfilled because I haven't drank the glass that it was in; or perhaps I have drank it, but didn't like the taste, so spitted it back out into the glass. Either way, it's a full glass, waiting to be drank by somebody else. And somebody else comes along, drinks it, and loves the taste, they want more of the same, please, and so that film has found its full potential.

Sorry 24fps, I should have been so specific.

Maltby is talking about the vertically integrated system, whereby studios basically ran everything from production to distribution to exhibition; it was an industry designed to make profit by having people buy not so much a ticket to the film, but to buy time (leisure), the attendance in the theatre (social pleasure) and the film projection equipment (resulting in spectacle or aesthetic/emotional pleasure). He's talking of the era where the producer controlled things, and the job of the director was simply to translate the (marketable) script from page into moving images.

Hollywood has completely changed now due to the US Supreme Court ruling 1948 that the major studios had an illegal moonopoly over the industry; producers these days simply finance more than anything, with the creative input coming from (first, commonly) the scriptwriter, then focalised through the individual expression of the director.

It's a great read, I recommend it; it's allowing me to appreciate Hollywood films I would have otherwise neglected, on their own terms. Saying that, I find it fascinating and exciting to watch the likes of Public Enemy the other day in the context of the self-regulated production code and the star system, and yet find very little in it. I'm trying to overcome the prejudice I'm placing against such films though, because I'm looking for something that perhaps wasn't intended... that is, individual, personal, artistic expression.* I'm having to try hard to adapt to the film's proposition of excellence, but with a little more reading and studying, it will become more natural, and I shall open up a lot more and embrace a lot more films with open arms.

Not that I dislike Hollywood "because it's mainstream" or anything. On the contrary; I don't even dislike Hollywood; I find it either largely neglected and overlooked, or worshipped on a level which it doesn't deserve. But I don't want to get into that.

* I also find it fascinating to watch or see films from directors from the studio system who were hired on a regular basis for what producers wanted to be the main features of that year or the best or most profitable films. Michael Curtiz, for example, who might have had very little thematic input, but it's interesting to see an in-demand "craftsman" use his tools to create recurring rhythms, motifs, images, contexts, meanings, etc. And there are, of course, exceptions to the rule; Hitchcock, for instance, was never going to be anything but an artist in the sense of having control over his own expression.

I'm getting off-topic, perhaps, but hopefully it is of interest.