convoluted bitching about the "film as art" vs. "movies as entertainment" dilemma

i recently watched the above film after putting it off for a few weeks under the assumption that it would be shrill and manipulative. yes, the film ostensibly deals with a topical issue difficult to approach with grace [abortion], but it is actually more concerned with the power of solidarity and the stresses placed upon connection under the looming threat of a repressive regime. thematic concerns aside, it's a beautiful film: powerfully acted, simply written, and skillfully edited and composed with gorgeous tracking shots and painfully intense extended takes, simultaneously disturbing and eloquent. it's harrowing, it's powerful, and overwhelmingly engrossing.

so, usually after viewing a film, i check out the critical consensus via metacritic. this particular film is "universally acclaimed" with a 97 out of 100 rating. [Village Voice's J. Hoberman has the most compelling review, where he compares the film to recent Hollywood fare about the issue of pregnancy. best quote: "Otilia and Gabitia are not slangy wiseacres."] thus, the critical community has responded to the film with praise and commendation.

now, contrast the critical acclamation with metacritic's user reviews.

aside from the expected anti-intellectual mistrust of critics and bizarre French bashing, quite a few users seem to think that the film was "boring" because "nothing happens" and there's no "story" or "plot." what the fuck? did we even see the same film?

no. we didn't. i saw an elegantly constructed and riveting "film." the negative reviewers and the majority of the American public want to see a "movie" with easily discernible plot points and recognizable dramatic arcs, understandable shot-reverse-shot editing; where every scene, every shot, every line of dialogue exists only to push the "story" forward. these are the same people who say that Citizen Kane is a "stupid movie about a sled" and who think pandering bullshit like The Dark Knight is the best the cinematic world has to offer.

the idea that a film, or a television show, or a book, or a piece of music, has to be formulaic and predictable in order to be "entertaining" reflects sheer intellectual laziness, sorry. why is it so difficult to be "entertained" by being challenged, provoked, or moved, or by the appreciation of aesthetic qualities?

i've been labeled a "snob" by many people, and i suppose i am, but, damnit, why is it such a bad thing to have high standards?

[this is from last october, but for some reason i didn't post it then. HERE IT IS NOW!]