Mike of Modernity (or post?)

To be entertained means to be in agreement." {Horkheimer and Adorno)

With the wealth of observations and Nostradamus-like predictions about the acceleration of postmodern culture by these two, this phrase seemed particularly interesting. It imparts some of the lessons of Saussure and the "unspoken contract" of language, The study of textual timesis by Barthes, the study of the cultural effects of simulation echoed by Baudrillard and Eco, and the Althusserian principles of ideology. Entertainment can be a powerful conduit to pass through whatever one chooses. As success is measured in mass, the most "successful" works of entertainment reach a large number of people. A blockbuster film can have a huge impact on its audience. Fashion and buying trends swing by the fulcrum of the next big marketing blitz. When we watch a film and "agree" that we are entertained, what is it exactly we agree on? Just enough explosions, laughs and sexual content to satisfy our thirst for it, or do we seek something more "sublime"? I enjoy the bubblegum fare like "Transformers" which taps into an icon of my childhood. I'm equally moved by films that entertain and provoke like "American Beauty". How can one discern the "quality" of one over another, as both are designed for a specific purpose. Ultimately, both provide us with the obligatory intrigue, drama and sexual imagery. But while the childhhod toy inspired "Transformers" provides a triumph for the audience to be a part of, American Beauty leaves its audience shocked and introspective. It would be difficult to accomplish the saem ends in on film.