Adorno/Horkheimer's concept: mass media and film as apparatus standardizing consciousness, suppressing critical thought via entertainment — film as commodity, not art.
In the 1940s, Adorno and Horkheimer observed what the film industry truly does: it doesn't produce works of art, but rather mass-produced consciousness. The term describes the system in which Hollywood, the studios, the distribution machinery—and yes, even we technicians—are part of a mechanism that treats audiences less as thinkers and more as consumers. This sounds harsh, but it's worth taking seriously to understand how films are made.
On set, you notice this daily: the budgets are huge, but only for certain stories. The studio wants formulas, not experiments. A film with unconventional editing, an ambivalent ending, no happy ending—that's expensive and risky. Instead: sequels, franchises, the same pattern in new costumes. The camera rolls, but often not to show something new, but to fulfill a known expectation. This is the culture industry in practice—not censorship, but self-synchronization through economic logic. Editing is done according to rhythm-cut principles (fast cuts = higher attention = better retention), not according to narrative or aesthetic necessity.
The insidious part: it works. Millions pay for it. But Adorno would argue—and here he has a point—that mass entertainment, once industrialized, ceases to ask critical questions. Instead, it pacifies. It standardizes taste. And yes, this affects us too. If you work for years with the same lighting setups, camera moves, sound designs because they are proven, you eventually stop learning *why* you're doing them.
This doesn't mean that filmmaking within this industry is impossible or immoral. But it does mean: understand the structure in which you work. Recognize where standardization begins and where you still have room for individuality. Some of the best work emerges precisely where you push against this logic—preferably subversively, without the budget team noticing.