Looks like this thread ended up in the wrong section. My bad.
Sure, it's a load of nonsense, but I'm actually glad they finally put it up.
dustycanyon5 said:Honestly, I haven't really sat through a single Hollywood blockbuster that actually holds any artistic weight. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they're all garbage... some of those big studio flicks are actually super fun and I love them for what they are. But from an artistic standpoint? Nothing really sticks. At the end of the day, their main goal is just making bank at the box office.
A few people here have already started pointing out certain directors. But we really need to talk about Hitchcock. He’s widely considered one of the greatest—if not quite *the* greatest—to ever pick up a camera. The man fundamentally reshaped the entire landscape of cinema. Just look at the legacy left by classics like Psycho, The Birds, Notorious, or Rear Window. Truly transformative stuff.
*Notorious* was one of the biggest hits of its year—a massive commercial success. Same goes for *Psycho*. And *Rear Window*? Another absolute juggernaut. I actually had a professor back in college—a true legend in American film studies—who used to lecture us on this exact topic. I remember his take on Hitchcock vividly. If you’re going to stand there and claim that kind of work isn't art, then you're essentially dismissing everything he taught us. He used to say Hitchcock possessed the most precise, flawless technique of any director in history. Right behind him, he absolutely revered John Ford, whose work served as a masterclass for so many of us. So, here you come, dropping this kind of nonsense. You’re practically spitting on the legacy of the great directors who mastered the balance of commerce and craft, and frankly, you're insulting the memory of the scholars who dedicated their lives to understanding them.
The problem with you and people like you is that you've been taught all wrong. And I know exactly how you were raised. You're probably still young enough that someone fed you this idea that only Bergman, Tarkovsky, and Lynch count—as if they're the only true artists in existence. It’s always the same crowd, too; the ones who act like Max Ophuls is the only director worth their salt. You've got the education all skewed. Hitchcock proved you can bridge the gap between high art and commercial success. You know, look at the heavyweights: Hitchcock, Coppola, Scorsese, Ford, Friedkin, Wilder... I mean, what's your deal with Billy Wilder?
You’re mistaken if you think "commercial" cinema only means Michael Bay and his crowd. What about Coppola? Are you telling me *The Godfather* isn't a commercial film? There you go. It made a mountain of money and carved its way permanently into pop culture. And it isn't just about the box office; it's the cultural footprint. Look at Scorsese—half his filmography is massive hits. *Taxi Driver* and *Goodfellas*, for instance. Most people would label those two as mere commercial fare rather than high art, which is honestly a pretty silly distinction to make. Because, at the end of the day, those films are pure art.
The issue is pretty simple: you’ve just been taught the wrong way. You need to broaden your horizons. Look, I love Lynch, Tarkovsky, and especially Bergman too, but please—don't generalize like that. Think a little harder before you hit post.
What is the deal with Kubrick? Even if you look at *2001: A Space Odyssey*, it pulled in some decent numbers for its era, but beyond that, almost his entire filmography has become permanent pop culture staples. Honestly, guys like Kubrick, Hitchcock, and Scorsese sit on a pedestal for anyone who actually enjoys high-quality commercial cinema. I’ve spent far too much time scrolling through various "Best Of" lists over the years, and it’s always the same pattern. You see *The Shining*, *2001*, *Taxi Driver*, *Goodfellas*, *Psycho*, and *Rear Window* popping up right alongside heavy hitters like *Terminator*, *Indiana Jones*, and *Back to the Future*. It’s a consistent club.
It’s all pop culture, really. But you’ll almost never see this crowd gravitating toward Bergman or Tarkovsky. It isn't because those directors aren't masterpieces—it's just that these folks tend to cap their intellectual curiosity at Kubrick or Hitchcock. There’s a certain line they won't cross, a boundary where Tarkovsky and Bergman live on the other side. Which, if you think about it, is a bit damning for Hitchcock, Kubrick, and Scorsese. They get lumped in with the heavyweights on every "Greatest of All Time" list, yet they still fall under the umbrella of commercial cinema for this group. Meanwhile, you’ll rarely see anyone putting James Cameron or Robert Zemeckis in that same conversation.
Does that ring a bell for you? Personally, I think it does. I’m okay with all of it—the people swimming right on the edge, those outside the lines, and even those firmly inside them. You, though? You only seem interested in what's outside the boundaries. Probably because someone older told you so, or maybe you just read somewhere back when you were a kid that this was how you were supposed to think.
