Many of the paragraphs are painful to read, and not just because, as Ava put it: "when I hear people being so rigid and so strict about certain forms and presen

Many of the paragraphs are painful to read, and not just because, as Ava put it: "when I hear people being so rigid and so strict about certain forms and presentations, it just reminds me of that "Simpsons" cartoon, "Old Man Yells at Cloud" -- but also because there's a clear sociocultural gulf between the kind of semi-fictitious art-seeking, high-culture but low-access-to-celebrities Sundance fan for whom many of the interviewed appear to target their works and the kinds of people who actually exist in their potential audience. It's as if their target person, whose lack of access to the actual movie festivals where these films are first shown, is made whole by urban theatres in culturally-thriving cities, with these theatres serving as a democratizing force of access, so that the viewer can ponder the topics and messages in the film and reflect on its lessons for themselves and their communities -- while they seem oblivious to the fact that technology and online distribution have democratized access not just for dopamine-cravers whose tastes they seemingly find lacking, but also for their target groups. The fact is, in the history of public art and entertainment, there has never been a time where access to one's idealized audience was easier. Some filmmakers have demonstrated that they can successfully leverage these new channels to make their works have more of an impact, than they would have had otherwise, while others seem to writhe in discomfort as they try to articulate their displeasure with a world that no longer matches their preferred where of scarcity was the norm, their societal role was clearly seen as provoking emotion and critical thought, and they had leverage over the venues that would dole out the privilege of this access.