A reader in the movie industry writes:
Judd Apatow’s “populism” is known as “the way we do business around here”. Sure, some filmmakers are more receptive than others (I don’t know Judd and can’t attest to his actual attitude toward test screenings – “recruits” as they are called because the audience is recruited per age, gender, racial, and films seen quotas), but all movies are tested, often side by side, especially if there are two potential endings, etc. This populism is nothing more than a necessary expression/process of the money side of the art vs. commerce equation.
I love movies for the very reason that they are part art and part commerce. Sure, part of me winces if a beautiful artistic scene/dialogue/image is altered by the reaction of the general audiences, but as I always say, if you pony up the millions for production, marketing, and distribution, be my guest to release your “art”, regardless of the public’s take on it. Until then, don’t be a dick; test your damn movie.
Some movies are recruited only once, but others might go through the wringer up to six times. In my eight years of doing this work, I can honestly say that EVERY movie benefits from a recruit. Sure, we get cocky filmmakers that think their baby is perfect and shouldn’t conform to what the unwashed masses think – and they can range from the indie director to the first time lucky-bastard director – but if it’s good enough for Scorsese, it’s good enough for anyone.
The Dish 