Brigham Narins comments:
"Consider Norton's closing comments. First he asks, paraphrasing others,
"Which has greater impact and/or sway over . . . 'the mass'[es]? Narrative
realism (i.e. Hollywood and its clones) or the avant-garde . . .?"
 
The answer would seem self-evident. The important point in this context,
however, is that discussions of narrative structure--that is, questions of
aesthetics--have little bearing on the tumultuousness or quiescence of the
masses. Again, if Godard was naive and a failure in some sense, it was not
because he chose one narrative strategy over another. If at all, he was
naive (if he really had revolution in mind) in choosing to be a filmmaker
as opposed to a labor leader, teacher, etc. Godard is not Marx, he's not
Che, and he isn't a member of the Tupac Amaru. He's a wealthy movie
director (whose heart and mind are in the right places)."
 
 
One thing to recall is how mainstream media, in its omniverous appetite,
will turn to the avant-garde for inspiration and material--watering it down,
transforming it beyond immediate recognition, depoliticizing it, and what
have you, but using it nonetheless.
 
The avant-garde, in turn, feeds off mainstream media and pop culture--Godard
being a prime example of an artist who has used so many narrative and
iconic elements of pop culture either for political or personal reasons.
 
So aesthetics of the avant-garde do enter into mainstream moviegoing to some
extent.  But I personally doubt the "subversive" qualities so often proclaimed
in mainstream films, except to the extent that a handful might be
aesthetically "subversive" of routinized modes of perception.
 
 
Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
 
----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite 
http://www.sa.ua.edu/screensite