3 ms·

You might be right. I was just trying to offer a data point and offering a speculative extrapolation. If I've decided to "make a night of" a movie, the ticket

by sho 6y ago

You might be right. I was just trying to offer a data point and offering a speculative extrapolation. If I've decided to "make a night of" a movie, the ticket price is almost irrelevant. I guess I'm applying a very narrow stereotype but most of the "serious movie lovers" I know are fairly well paid. I'll pay for quality. Transformers - I wouldn't go even if it was free. I just feel like there's something being squeezed out of the equation here.

coldtea 6y ago
The average low income worker might not have the education / cultural upbringing for "serious" movies, and the typical audience might be college educated and middle/upper-middle class, but I think that many with the education and/or culture are still penny-pinching in these days, whether they are college-educated or not. >I just feel like there's something being squeezed out of the equation here. As a European I'd add "state funding for the arts". It's in no way more of a no-no than state funding for space is (which is how everything major has ever been achieved there, from NASA to Space-X, a state outsourcing/subsidy business if there ever was one).
- sho 6y ago
  So how about highbrow art forms like Opera? They're generally supported by the state. How many factory workers can afford to go? I'm not even sure what point I'm making here. I think it would be a good thing if the Opera cost $10.
  - sailfast 6y ago
    European opera houses offer standing room tickets at these prices or less in my experience. (Vienna, and others)
  - leviathant 6y ago
    The last opera I saw in Philadelphia at the Academy of Music, we sat next to a guy who was almost a comic book caricature of a blue collar worker. He loved coming to the opera; if you do it right, it costs about as much as a movie ticket.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    In Europe Opera has historically also been (and still remains, but less so) also middle and working class entertainment. Here's a quote I've found - it appears it was popular with US folky types too: Significantly, the opera house was the “first musical institution to open its doors to the general public” (Zelochow, 1993: 261).The first opera house opened in Venice in 1637: it presented “commercial opera run for profit . . . offering the new, up-to-date entertainment to anyone who could afford a ticket” (Raynor, 1972: 169). By the end of the century Venice had sixteen opera houses open to the general public. Interestingly, as Henry Raynor observes, “The Venetian audience consisted of all social classes” (ibid: 171). Bernard Zelochow argues that this remained the case throughout the next two centuries. By the late eighteenth century and in the nineteenth century the opera played a preeminent role in the cultural life of Europe. The opera was enjoyed and understood by a broad cross-section of urban Europeans and Americans.The opera house became the meeting place of all social classes in society. . . . The absence of the concept of a classical repertoire is an index of the popularity and vigor of opera as a mode of communication and entertainment. (Zelochow, 1993: 262) By the nineteenth century, then, opera was established as a widely available form of popular entertainment consumed by people of all social classes. As Lawrence W. Levine explains, referring specifically to the US (but also the case in most of Europe), opera was an integral part of a shared public culture, “performed in a variety of settings, [it] enjoyed great popularity, and [was] shared by a broad segment of the population” (Levine, 1988: 85). For example, on returning to the United States in the late 1860s from England, where he had been American Consul, George Makepeace Towle noted how “Lucretia Borgia and Faust,The Barber of Seville and Don Giovanni are everywhere popular; you may hear their airs in the drawing room and concert halls, as well as whistled by the street boys and ground out on the hand organs” (quoted in Levine, 1988: 99–100).
mkr-hn 6y ago
Being well-paid probably correlates to having the time and energy to explore stuff like that. Any time I set out to explore niche TV and movies, the "I could be doing things to become less broke" thought likes to intrude.
- coldtea 6y ago
  This wasn't/isn't the only case, though. Imagine Tarantino working as a video-store clerk, but still having a huge thing for movie history ("serious" and camp). Or poor creatives, writers, etc. that love such works, but make shit. (In Europe the "peniless artist" stereotype/reality is a very real thing, in music/theater/writing/painting/and so on, and those people do like such movies).

by sho 6y ago

coldtea 6y ago

The average low income worker might not have the education / cultural upbringing for "serious" movies, and the typical audience might be college educated and middle/upper-middle class, but I think that many with the education and/or culture are still penny-pinching in these days, whether they are college-educated or not. >I just feel like there's something being squeezed out of the equation here. As a European I'd add "state funding for the arts". It's in no way more of a no-no than state funding for space is (which is how everything major has ever been achieved there, from NASA to Space-X, a state outsourcing/subsidy business if there ever was one).

sho 6y ago
So how about highbrow art forms like Opera? They're generally supported by the state. How many factory workers can afford to go? I'm not even sure what point I'm making here. I think it would be a good thing if the Opera cost $10.
- sailfast 6y ago
  European opera houses offer standing room tickets at these prices or less in my experience. (Vienna, and others)
- leviathant 6y ago
  The last opera I saw in Philadelphia at the Academy of Music, we sat next to a guy who was almost a comic book caricature of a blue collar worker. He loved coming to the opera; if you do it right, it costs about as much as a movie ticket.
- coldtea 6y ago
  In Europe Opera has historically also been (and still remains, but less so) also middle and working class entertainment. Here's a quote I've found - it appears it was popular with US folky types too: Significantly, the opera house was the “first musical institution to open its doors to the general public” (Zelochow, 1993: 261).The first opera house opened in Venice in 1637: it presented “commercial opera run for profit . . . offering the new, up-to-date entertainment to anyone who could afford a ticket” (Raynor, 1972: 169). By the end of the century Venice had sixteen opera houses open to the general public. Interestingly, as Henry Raynor observes, “The Venetian audience consisted of all social classes” (ibid: 171). Bernard Zelochow argues that this remained the case throughout the next two centuries. By the late eighteenth century and in the nineteenth century the opera played a preeminent role in the cultural life of Europe. The opera was enjoyed and understood by a broad cross-section of urban Europeans and Americans.The opera house became the meeting place of all social classes in society. . . . The absence of the concept of a classical repertoire is an index of the popularity and vigor of opera as a mode of communication and entertainment. (Zelochow, 1993: 262) By the nineteenth century, then, opera was established as a widely available form of popular entertainment consumed by people of all social classes. As Lawrence W. Levine explains, referring specifically to the US (but also the case in most of Europe), opera was an integral part of a shared public culture, “performed in a variety of settings, [it] enjoyed great popularity, and [was] shared by a broad segment of the population” (Levine, 1988: 85). For example, on returning to the United States in the late 1860s from England, where he had been American Consul, George Makepeace Towle noted how “Lucretia Borgia and Faust,The Barber of Seville and Don Giovanni are everywhere popular; you may hear their airs in the drawing room and concert halls, as well as whistled by the street boys and ground out on the hand organs” (quoted in Levine, 1988: 99–100).

mkr-hn 6y ago

Being well-paid probably correlates to having the time and energy to explore stuff like that. Any time I set out to explore niche TV and movies, the "I could be doing things to become less broke" thought likes to intrude.

coldtea 6y ago
This wasn't/isn't the only case, though. Imagine Tarantino working as a video-store clerk, but still having a huge thing for movie history ("serious" and camp). Or poor creatives, writers, etc. that love such works, but make shit. (In Europe the "peniless artist" stereotype/reality is a very real thing, in music/theater/writing/painting/and so on, and those people do like such movies).