>Sidestepping both the film and literature discussions for the
>moment..... Maybe part of the problem is asking the same form to
>fulfill the same function in a different era.
Or in a different era in the same place. How many times have we heard of the death of this or that art form? The death of painting, of the novel, etc. Then you get painting or novels from a different part of the world until it plays out there too.
A possible bright side is that maybe when a form is on life support and unremarkable, a space opens up for it to become like new again and to command the attention and authority it once had. I read somewhere the argument that Marx is now radical again because he was so dismissed in the late 20th century. (This sounds like Zizek but I can't remember where).
When you think about movies though, there's the market dynamics people have already mentioned here. I think besides being flush in the golden age, Hollywood was also experiencing the tail end of a first wave of development of a form. Directors like Ford and Hitchcock learned by doing. They didn't set out to be directors because when they were younger there was no such thing as a film director. They helped create that position themselves and the execs needed them. Then, over time, the execs can start kicking talented troublemakers to the curb because there are a lot more people capable of making a movie that will sell tickets.