This is why cinema is the superior art form. It started its journey in exactly the opposite way literature did. Literature was for the wealthy, educated people...then arrived to the masses slowly with more and more inferior books. And cinema started for the illiterate masses and relatively fast conquered the intellectuals as well. But that's what I'm trying to say, cinema was a more generous art form for humanity. It captured the human curiosity with a huge force.
Terayama should have instead just embraced and used every cinematic tool to enforce the idea that, comparatively, cinema is the more profound one because of its form factor, package and universality. He instead chose to place it at the same level with literature and condemn both, by association. It's all over the place but the title is something we always come back to, so we get the gist of it all. He places both categories of intellectuals (book and cinema) in the same boat.
Go outside sometimes and live life. Interact with your society, on all levels, understand it and make it better at the end of the day along with you, as an individual.
Terayama should have instead just embraced and used every cinematic tool to enforce the idea that, comparatively, cinema is the more profound one because of its form factor, package and universality. He instead chose to place it at the same level with literature and condemn both, by association. It's all over the place but the title is something we always come back to, so we get the gist of it all. He places both categories of intellectuals (book and cinema) in the same boat.
Go outside sometimes and live life. Interact with your society, on all levels, understand it and make it better at the end of the day along with you, as an individual.