I hate to slam my preferred method of expression, but there is just no such thing as the ultimate art form. Film certainly is one of the most popular and the most varied. But that does not make it the ultimate anything. This isn’t Pizza Hut and this isn’t The Ultimate Meat Lover’s Pizza.

Film certainly has a jack-of-all-trades-but-a-master-of-none sensibility. Yet it isn’t as “photography” as photography; isn’t as “music” as music truly is. Just because it incorporates elements from other mediums does not mean that it gets away with stealing its essence—as if the movies were some comic book villain that parasitically absorbed the abilities of its host.

The problem with filmmaking is that no one artist is truly in charge; genuinely, absolutely in charge. Some even dismiss the auteur as an illusion perpetrated by the French (kidding). I say that even if the auteur did exist, they would still not have as much control over their vision as, say, a single painter before a canvas of their own; or as a writer before their own typewriter. The difference is that they can create undisturbed. If Robert McKee was correct in his statement that the screenplay is the only original art in the movies, and that everything else is interpretive of it, then surly this is the biggest drawback of filmmaking as pure art: the artist never has free reign over their own creation.

But even if the artist did have absolute control over their vision, then what must be said about the audience? Movies are victim to the worse spectators of any art form combined. Because it is approached as disposable entertainment, audiences of all kind–any kind–will attend a movie without knowledge of its vision; of its genre or its intentions. Compare this with the audience for classical music or literature: the spectator, the audience, will always have been “initiated” into the medium prior to actively engaging in it. Before they can pursue, they must experience it; and if they pursue, then they must surly like it. Consider even the matter of taste within the mediums: a fan of classical music will know not to attend a Metallica concert, and a fan of Metallica will not readily attend a classic symphony. They know their boundaries, and so the respective artists are free to delegate to a preconceived audience as they see fit.

Not the same with movies. Instead of the artist delegating to the audience, the audience–however oblivious and untrained–will try to delegate to the artist. What you have is not an industry bursting to the brim with uncompromising visions, but rather an industry that tries to peddle to the untrained eye. This is where we get the phrase, “This movie is depressing,” as if the film has violated a contract with the viewer by having them leave with anything less than a smile. They confuse most films for simple entertainment (which indeed should leave you with a smile) rather than for pure art, which can be whatever it wants to be.