> > My point was that millions (billions?) of people watch
>movies without having any idea, or caring, what the
>critics say. That hasn't been true of painting for a long
>time.
>
>Okay. I guess I do not see the significance here.
>
Last week you wrote:
>People seem much more willing to admit the advantages offered
>by a trained ear in music or a trained eye in painting, than those
>conferred by a trained eye for cinema.
I'm saying I think there's a reason for that and that is one thing that sets movies apart. People who make movies don't depend on a critical community to communicate with the audience. I'm not saying there is no place for film criticism or that movies can't be art. I'm only highlighting that difference and saying that I don't think watching movies without thinking too much can just be dismissed as know-nothingness. There's something else going on.