i watch a lot of movies where you can see the seams. movies with a bit of grease on them, cobbled together with the materials and finances at hand, movies made because they desperately wanted to be made and would never receive the "throws money at you" treatment
and what i learn from places like letterboxd is that a lot of people don't have goodwill for movies like these. there's an assumption of what a good movie does or does not do and -- i extrapolate -- also a general lack of understanding of just how difficult it is to make a feature, especially if you're trying to get into genre, larger casts, lots of moving pieces, etc.
i got really into these movies because i watch a lot of what is all put together under the banner of queer cinema -- we can discuss what a queer cinema is, but in this case i mean that the queerness is something that also challenges cinematic structures in some way, sometimes subtly, but preferably more overtly. a counter-cultural foundational approach to how a story is told, because otherwise it cannot effectively tell the story it's about. form is what a story is (take an obvious example, the happy ending being marriage and kids, following a particular will-they-won't-they structure. a queer narrative shape might do something to challenge that, or it might throw away a story like that entirely)
and ive experienced it more broadly with cinematic makers who don't typically get funding, especially right now with first nations and indigenous film-makers (a natural direction as i got into canadian making)
and the thing is, ok the thing is: watching movies that are underfunded and janky-around-the-edges isn't homework or difficult for me, because i think they're incredibly exciting and cool and fun
when i think about what people watching movies in the 1910s and 20s and 30s must have felt when they were seeing new techniques and new kinds of stories being told in new kinds of ways, that's still happening, and it's usually happening in cinema made within and about communities that are trying to build cinematic conventions to tell stories that haven't really been told expansively before, who have often existed in (othered) margins along the main story. it's not a whole new language (stories are after all, very old) but it is challenging what cinema can do and be and is pushing that particular form of language. this is the man with a movie camera (or a trans with a movie camera) type cinema!
and i just think that's incredibly exciting, it's what i want cinema to do in the same way as art generally, i want it to push and strain at the edges of what it's able to currently say. and i wish there was more excitement for it when it comes to cinema, a "what is this art trying to do with the tools it has" approach which other artforms seem to have more of
i think maybe what im saying is that cinema often risks being taken for granted as an artform, because a few established structures can mean people just expect certain things and don't get super excited about these searing, bubbling, playful, challenging counter-languages, most of which are being made for £3 and because people can't stop making art and telling stories
idk, support marginalised filmmaking? especially enjoy the jankiness when it occurs? the jankiness is where the artist ambitions pushed against the constrictions that have artificially been placed on cinema