I love the stuff that can be accomplished with film. Fantastic storytelling. An elevated visual aesthetic. Overwhelming emotion. And sometimes even a combination of these.

But honestly, the good stuff is rarely popular. Maybe critically popular, but certainly not popular popular. What is popular is almost universally slight. Here’s the top 5 box office for last year.

1 – Spider-Man 3
2 – Shrek the Third
3 – Transformers
4 – Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End
5 – Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

I mean, Spider-Man 3’s message of Don’t Be Emo notwithstanding, there’s not a lot of artistic and/or worthwhile content in the pop-theater. Now in the out-of-the-way it’s a different story entirely. But then, that’s how it is with most media.

You won’t often find the best music listening to KROQ. You won’t find the best books on the NY Times Bestseller List. And you won’t get the best comics from Marvel or DC.

Actually, for my money the novel is the medium through which popularity and greatness most often collide. Sure, Sue Grafton books are popular, but Life of Pi was also a bestseller.

@Scott:

Whereas music (for example) is normally vulgarized or cheapened in order to obtain massive success, films that actually challenge an audience or allow them to consider transcendent ideals which they might not otherwise consider seem to actually succeed on a more regular basis.

You know, I’m not actually sure that’s true. Thoughtful movies, it seems to me, can becomes moderately successful, but I think those successes aren’t the most common thing in the world. And it seems downright rare that a thoughtful film will become honestly popular.

Again, I think thoughtful films become critically popular. Just not actually popular. Citizen Kane is wildly popular amongst critics, but is hundreds of films below, say, It’s a Wonderful Life for the average filmgoer.

The popularity of film might be attributed to its unique incorporation of sight, sound, and story. A sculpture, a cd, and a book each (normally) embody only one of those aspects, whereas film engages its audience with each at once. This makes the medium more readily enjoyable to “the man on the street.”

Of course, the accessibility of a medium should not be conflated with its general “superiority,” but it does indicate a certain edge the medium has over other media.

Whereas music (for example) is normally vulgarized or cheapened in order to obtain massive success, films that actually challenge an audience or allow them to consider transcendent ideals which they might not otherwise consider seem to actually succeed on a more regular basis. This is not to say that film (or art in general) is necessarily supposed to be more than entertainment, but the filmmaker certainly has greater liberty in this realm than he might if he were, say, a novelist or a singer/songwriter. Not that a novelist or a songwriter can’t include transcendent ideals in his work, but doing so poses a greater threat to the massive success he might otherwise garner. Filmmaker’s can get away with this because the multi-faceted -ness of their medium holds the audience’s attention long enough to do things that, even if “the man on the street” fails to notice or care about, he will tolerate for the sake of the big explosion that follows.

I guess I feel like film as an art form works better in the context of this capitalist society, if that makes sense. Sorry I wasn’t more clear.

But I would still have to disagree with Rich. It seems to me that most films are pretty awful nowadays. There are still some gems (Juno, No Country), but most are superficial, commercial trash. When trailers play at the theater, I usually find myself wanting to scream “Don’t see that movie when it comes out! Stop supporting Hollywood garbage!” They made a Bratz movie for crying out loud!

In Rich’s defense however, any attempt at deciding whether an art form is currently producing mostly good or mostly bad works is inherently difficult.

Still, when you say “cynics might say that good art is rarely seen at film theaters, but when we compare film with the other popular mediums of the day, one can’t help but admit film’s artistic superiority,” I can’t help but believe you got caught up in waxing eloquent or something.

I mean, “artistic superiority”? Seems like a stretch to me.

Look, I’m all about good film and praising it when it comes about, but I have a hard time seeing how one could categorize a good film (say, Citizen Kane) as superior to, say, good music or good literature or, well, even good art. How does one even begin to make such a decision? John Coltrane vs. James Cameron? Jim Jarmusch vs. Bill Sienkiewicz? The Coen Bros. vs. Harper Lee?

Nah, I’m not buying it. So I guess I can help but admit film’s artistic superiority. So what exactly do you mean there?