As we
know these days every entertainment sphere is commercialized. So,
cinema is not an exception. Movie industry is based on billions of
dollars; every year producers contrive new ways of effective money
earning. Budgets grow, so do profits. And we can’t say that it’s
definitely bad. We shouldn’t be afraid that commercial cinema would
oust non-commercial. People creating cinema for the sake of art will
always exist. By the way, there are also talented directors in the
world of commercialized cinema. The mechanism of money earning is
simple. Producers invest some assets into the creation of a movie. They
hire directors, directors of photography, scenario writers, musicians,
actors and the other staff. Before shooting a great advertising company
begins. It involves posting advertisement on large boards, at bus
stops, in cinema theatres, on TV; creation of trailers and teasers;
interviews with actors and creators. Sometimes the advertising company
is aimed at concealing the plot and making the audience get interested
in the movie. Actually it promises a great profit. The latest example
is District 9 movie. As a part of the marketing campaign in North
America and the United Kingdom, posters were put up in major cities on
bus stops, the sides of buildings, etc. designating areas that were
restricted for humans only, with a number to call in order to report
non-humans. The title of the film was generally not included, although
the URL address for the film's official website was. The picture’s plot
was kept in secret till the very premier. The most successful movie is
The Blair witch project. It was made for 8 days
by the team of young actors and directors for $22,000. The film tells
us about the group of cinematography university students who came to
the old forest to shoot a movie about the witch. In the end they all
die and it’s said that the film was found later and the events in the
movie were real. As planned main actors should have concealed
themselves for five years and were ought to take part only in small
projects. This should have ensured the audience in the reality of what
was going on. This move made its job – every dollar invested in the
movie returned 11,000$. The film’s earnings made up $240 mln. So.
Cinematography and money are closely connected things. As for
counterarguments concerning this issue I can say that as any art form
being commercialized cinematography leaves its art essence for "money
drive”. We see lots of movies, cheap ones, made offhand just to earn
some money. All this trash is thrown into the market and is "eaten” by
the audience. That so called entertainment purpose of cinema was
imposed by cinema tycoons just to make people forget about the main aim
of movie pictures – as of any art form – to provoke thoughts, emotions
and feelings. And of course, thoughts, first of all. | 
gemi 
mirona 