Do Movies Pervert the Definition of Art . . . or Do They Offer a Magic That Saves Us?

Over the years Calendar has occasionally printed letters that amazed me in their naivete in that their authors considered movies to be an art form.

Since the average moviegoer has the mentality of a child or moron, never reads reviews and tolerates whatever flashes on the screen, is it any wonder that there are so many bad films?

In his theater, which gets cleaned once a month whether it needs it or not, such a moviegoer will sit, alternately picking at his box of high-priced popcorn and his nose, staring uncaring at the gigantic phantom grotesques that appear on the out-of-focus screen. Such is the “art.”

The actor-phantoms on the screen will do anything for money; they mouth the bad writing, smash up the cars or other actors’ faces, and in most of the current and past movies portray people as generally subhuman; yet these same actors are thought to be part of an art form!

Art to be art must encompass a sense of intellect and a sense of beauty. Yet this appeal to these senses is what movies consistently, faithfully and utterly fail to provide. This is the last word on this subject. Please print no more letters from misguided readers who wish to promulgate the notion that movies are an art form.

LARRY THOMAS GARDNER

Los Angeles