The Rough Theater

While this article is referring to theaters, it is quite evident that its central point can be applied to film as well. A theater need not be elegant, fancy, and flawless to provide theatergoers with a truly enjoyable experience. Likewise, a cheaper film may lack the effects, sets, and polishing of one with a large budget; however, it can still provide a cinematic experience rivaling, if not trumping, that of a well supplied film. It is, therefore, evident that the rough, dirty, and grimy tendencies characteristic of many inexpensive productions contain a certain quality that a more refined and expensive film immediately lacks. What I believe, after reading this article, that this quality reflects is a certain attitude of the artist(s). In polishing a work so much with the effects and “corrections” that a large budget may provide, film often loses a dimension of the creator, which, in effect, often compromises the original vision of the film. And what dimension of the film does this “attitude” almost always influence? Content. With a lack finances the look will almost undoubtedly be less refined. Effects may be limited to what ingredients you have in the kitchen cupboard. But where a film lacks in this area it has the potential to boost the story. This can be what effectively engages the audience and strengthens the relationship. What this article makes me think of are people who have a sensory disorder. While a blind person may lack the ability to see, how much more his hearing improves and gives him increased insight and perspective that I will never comprehend. This is also the case in the smaller and less funded film. It increases in a way that a larger production is unable.