If high art and a filthy prostitute had a lovechild, it would be named Hollywood

So I Just moved here to Los Angeles, California, and got into a conversation online with someone in the entertainment industry. I basically spouted all of the negative preconceptions I had about the movie industry, and thusly alienated this person and made them not like me. It was a fun conversation for me, at least.

But in an effort to say something positive about American film, it really is undeniable that Hollywood has made, and continues to make, a significant contribution to the history of art. Being able to produce a film (virtually) without any concern for the cost, as is the case in big Hollywood pictures, requires an amount of capital that only this town can muster. And once in a while, in addition to being expensive, these also movies end up also being good.

When you think about it all art requires an investment. A painter requires paint and canvas, a writer ink, a musician an instrument or some bribe money to force people to listen to you sing. Films require midgets, trained beasts and drums full of napalm. Not quite as easy to round up as a ball-point pen.

So as easy as it is to make fun, sometimes Hollywood gets it right. That is when it isn't knowingly producing total garbage because it makes more financial sense than putting in an effort. Or when, as some famous Hollywood philosopher once said (more or less): When they try to make a piece of excrement, and by accident it turns out to be worthwhile.