Sad state of Cinema?

Just read an interesting article in WashPost about how no one wants to see "grown-up" films anymore. I don't agree with this characterization at all.

The article makes the obvious point that people often prefer to watch films at home (where you can put your feet up, grab a sweater if it's cold, and bring your own food) rather than in the theatre (where none of these things are possible, sadly.) But as a blog entry points out, the article doesn't mention the obvious: the typical A-list actor has become incredibly boring.

Challenge: when was the last time you saw Julia Roberts play anyone but herself?

Most "highbrow" films are vainglorious exercises replete with preaching and posturing and very little interesting or thought-provoking acting. Or perhaps it's that the stars are just too overexposed.

Interestingly, the theatre-going public's preferences seem to be moving in opposite directions in India and the United States.

In the States, people are opting for "GI Joe" over "Public Enemies." But in India, I've heard many people complain that Bollywood blockbusters are too fluffy, too high on escapism and low on reality. Young people (and India is expected to have more young people than any other nation on earth by 2050) praise Hollywood for breaking the mold and challenging commercial stereotypes. That said, I saw GI Joe this weekend instead of Public Enemies, and Hollywood has never made inroads into the Indian market. But then again, it hasn't ever really tried. Maybe now it will.

One advantage Bollywood has over Hollywood is that the movie stars are justifiably crazy. B-wood has yet to be tamed by paparazzi and PR the way Hollywood has been, so you sometimes catch a Bollywood actor in some really spectacular stunt.