I am a huge fan of art-house thinking in general. The thinking of an art-house film runs roughly this way: experimentation and intelligent use of creativity trump simplicity. The art-house film is the guy at the party who could not be bothered to discuss the weather or other such trivial wastes of time but wants to talk with you about how you feel about the cosmological implications of quantum theory. 

Now, before you react heavily to that, realize I am not anti-trivial. We all need trivial from time to time, be it the blessed release of a simplistic video game (what I call the "smashie-smashie" style), or a brain-dead popcorn flick (we all know what those are-- I'm looking at you, Michael Bay). It is simply that these are meant for escape, and lack in substance. They are like a demo video game, meant only to lure you into something deeper-- the full-game of filmmaking in this example would be something less popcorn and more, for example, Lynchian. Where a popcorn flick feeds you the simple stereotypes that allow your brain to relax and your inner child to come out to play-- and keep in mind that this is an important process-- the art-house makes us question our existence, makes us struggle with our opinions on abstracts such as love, creation, or the political predisposition of our current age.

Things that we, as humans, simply need to put on our plates from time to time, lest our hearts and souls grow shallow and empty. 

The problem, of course, that most producers will actively tell you is simple: economically speaking, this is becoming less and less a viable option for filmmakers. I often comment that I am in absolute awe that David Lynch kept his job after Eraserhead. I am not downplaying the sophisticated (and twisted) beauty of the film-- on the contrary-- but the simple truth is, any producer worth his salt will tell you that art-house movies are a risky gamble at best and a disaster-waiting-to-happen for financiers in higher probability. 

So how are film-makers supposed to react? The most clever of them, like District 9's Neill Blomkamp for example, combine the sophisticated allegory and metaphor of poetry with the popcorn aesthetic of violent conflict and ridiculous scenarios. However, this method requires either a blockbuster-sized budget or heavy amounts of ingenuity, and the latter has its limits when not backed by a significant clump of finances. Blair Witch Project and Paranormal Activity are two examples of movies that bypass the budget-requirements, but neither of them truly had anything significant to say and are too simplistic to ever be considered 'art-house'.

Interestingly, there exists micro-budget films like Primer that at least explore the possibility of being financially successful AND deep, a combination that is rare in film-making. However, I wonder just how far even this little gem can go, considering how willingly it walks above the heads of the viewer (I admit, it had me scratching my head); the biggest issue is that people do not like the feeling of being in over their head intellectually-- and I say this is an issue because it does nothing to encourage growth and progress of the individual. Tolkien was once asked, so the story goes, why he wrote such sophisticated books for such young markets, and he responded (paraphrased): "I don't read 'to my level'-- I try to read at least a few steps above it. Sure, it will be difficult, I will be confused... but if I don't stretch to reach higher, I'll always remain on the bottom."

I have to admit, our current market is far too heavily weighted toward the silly-but-insignificant side of things; sure, I am guilty of watching an explosion in an action movie and cheering as buildings crumble and faces get smashed in. And on the opposite side of the gender roles, I'm sure there is nothing inherently wrong with ladies remembering what it was like to be a confused girl being wooed by awkward and melodramatic boys (I'm looking at you Twilight) but in a world over-saturated with films that barely scratch the surface of creative expression's possibilities, I cannot help but feel that we are underestimating ourselves as an audience. It is intellectually the same as sitting on the couch for too long without getting up and exercising. 

So, the next time you take a moment to watch a film, try to encourage 'art-house' and watch something that will stimulate your mind and encourage intelligent debate with yourself and perhaps at the social watercooler (wherever that may be for you). In the spirit of helpfulness, here's a recommended list of films that are the equivalent of reading a few levels above the norm (popcorn-style): 

1) Eraserhead (duh)
2) Heartless
3) Primer
4) Atlas Shrugged Parts 1 + 2 (horrible philosophy but that alone will probably get you into debates with the hidden Ayn Randian followers out there)-- and for the sake of growth beyond primitive capitalism, that debate needs to rage on)
5) Any of the Samuel Beckett on Film series (plus for the Harry Potter fans, many of the cast from HP make appearances)

If you make it through that without feeling all the world has more poetry in it than it did before, than perhaps you just don't really have much poetry in you at all. Which is alright... but at least you tried, watched the list, and helped encourage a less monochromatic world, even if you have a tough time seeing the spectrum. 

Now that that is done, fine, flip on Jersey Shore or Jerry Springer. But something tells me you might not want to....