Rewire,

Thank you for your inputs and perspective.

The western society is certainly more advanced than us. However, it does not apply in all areas. There are areas where we have comparable level of advancement and there are areas where universal human consciousness is a decisive factor. The field of art could be one such area.

As for the culture of questioning that you said is prevalent in the western society, I have a slightly different reading. My observation is that this great quality is mostly limited in the academic field. Otherwise, you can find many sections of the society, and in some cases, the whole society, living in a deep shit of the conservatism, hatred, denial and other negativism. I often find myself taking pride in the progressive desire and steps, no matter how small, of our people.   

Having said that, our problem with low quality cinema is not really about the lack of creativity or sense of independence and quest. Indian cinema has an impressive list of creative minds.

The genre we call “art cinema” or “parallel cinema” is a testimony to that.

Here is an introductory note on the genre:

http://www.culturopedia.com/Cinema/parallel_cinema.html

Alright this genre as a whole could not attract the mass. And we are trying to figure out why. My belief is that it is not because of the unevolved mind of the viewers; it is rather because of the not properly evolved cinema. My earlier theorization about ‘missing link’ and “transitional art” was for making this point.

I consider movies like “Ardhsatya”, “Masoom”, “Arth” which enjoyed popularity to a degree as “transitional art” for what the trend indicated.

When I try to look for factors (for the popular unacceptance of “art” movies), the most important clue (from my speculation) was that they [probably] were unaccepted for their PRESENTATION STYLE rather than their CONTENT.

The flopped “art” movies have boring style. There are “art” movies that seems almost lifeless and robotic. Why the hell should such movies be popular?

So, I wouldn’t condemn the viewers for not appreciating the boring “style” and thereby missing the “substance”. I would condemn the producer for not being creative enough to find an enjoyable style.

If there is any evidence to show that the viewer rejected “art movies” for their “substance” and not for their boring “style”, then we can blame them.

Until then the viewer gets at least a benefit of doubt, re kya.

There is also some inference to draw from the quality and popular Chinese movies. The local popular acceptance of the quality Chinese movies, if not false, is a proof that there is a common universal human sense for art. The west is not necessarily more evolved than the east in this particular sense.

Nepe