Teatro Duro (rough translation)

I thought "The Rough Theatre" by Peter Brooks was a very interesting article. Although it was probably written years ago, what it says still holds true today. What's "popular" these days was not necesaily "popular" when it first came out. I am talking about documentaries, experimental film, anything non-blockbuster hollywood-esque. These to me are my rough theater, which more than not are playing at a small communithy theater, a small venue located on the second floor of a library, or a simple art house theater, hence the name art house cinema. They are the types of films you see at Jengo's playhouse. Yet, after enough rave, one of these films could evn reach Mayfaire.
Okay, let me continue to talk about the actual movies. As I said before, I believe that low-budget movies, independent film in general, documentaries, experimental film, etc. are my rough theater because they usually don't depict the same cinematography, special effects, or general quality that Hollywood films do. But because of their nature audiences forgive that. In fact their "roughness" might even enhance their subjects or their very nature. A shaky camera in a documentary bolsters the realism of the film. The 16mm of an experimental film will enhance a classic look if that is what you are after.
Even if there are inconsistencies in a film, yet everything else is well done, I will forgive it for the sake of film, and because it in many ways might mirror the "roughness" of my life.