The lack of artistic knowledge and critical thought in America has so often been noted, it's hardly sporting to breach the subject. So I'll state right off: For those determined to indulge in pop ignorance, bandying words like "intellectual" and "highbrow " like McCarthyistic slurs, this article is not for you. But for those interested in developing artistic standards, I'd like to briefly challenge some of the trends in America that are minimizing quality in the movies, and suggest some simple ways of deve loping a more critical mindset.

From mankind's prehistoric storytellers to modern literature, dramatic standards have evolved over centuries of trial and error, leaving well-structured suspense, witty imagination, relevant themes, and intriguing characters among the reigning champions o f successful drama.

But somehow, Hollywood's drama has often enjoyed a cushion of forgiveness. "It's just a movie. Don't be so critical," people implore. "I just want to be entertained," they say, or, "I know it was dumb, but I enjoyed it anyway." These phrases are obviously lacking in their ability to explain why someone really enjoys a movie, and that's one of our biggest problems. We're so out of touch with the arts, very few people can actually articulate why they like or dislike a film.

Many times, people simply assume they're not "cultured" enough to have standards, so they blindly follow mass preferences in an effort to "belong." It's like politically insecure voters rallying around whichever candidate they think has the best chance of winning.

Hollywood skillfully takes advantage of America's artistic insecurity by perpetuating a mythological war between art and entertainment, like in "Last Action Hero" when Arnold Schwarzenegger mutters, "To be or not to be ... Not to be!" and incinerates the enemy in artistic ridicule.

But there are many movies, "12 Monkeys" or "Toy Story," for example, that are entertaining as well as artistically laudable. The real war isn't between art and entertainment, it's between art and business. The average cost of a Hollywood movie exceeds $25 million. The studios just want their money back, and they've learned that advertising campaigns alone will entice audiences, so why bother with good stories?

The most recent example of this is the reprehensible film "Independence Day." "ID4" (whatever that means) blatantly exhibits bad storytelling. Every character is a clich­, the logic is insulting, the bulk of the film has little suspense, and the plot is r ecycled from every popular movie between "War of the Worlds" and "Top Gun." The argument is that this is OK because no one expects a good story, they just want special effects. This simply isn't true.

Special effects might save a movie by depicting "Jurassic Park"'s breathing dinosaurs or "Terminator 2"'s morphing androids, but the effects in "ID4" are nothing special - just standard flying saucers, explosions, and rubber aliens.

People aren't buying "ID4." They're buying its advertisements and its status as a social event. The movie's a gimmick of a film, designed purely as an opening weekend financial bonanza. It grossed $52 million in three days, a feat surpassed only by "Juras sic Park" and "Batman Forever." However, the film's attendance dropped 33 percent by the second weekend, significantly faster than "Twister"'s 7 percent dip. The desire to see "Independence Day" when Independence Day was over wasn't very high.

So how can audiences develop critical standards so that Hollywood will make better movies? It's really not that difficult. There are movie reviews in every periodical around, and reading them will quickly teach someone how to develop a critical perspectiv e.

Another well-perpetuated myth is that movie reviewers are snooty intellectuals out of touch with popular tastes. In most cases, this isn't really true. Many reviewers are simply good journalists with a knowledge of dramatic criteria and movie history, who can express their opinions in layman's terms. Reviewers like Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times), Richard Corliss (Time), Peter Travers (Rolling Stone), and Owen Glieberman (Entertainment Weekly) write well for popular audiences. It doesn't matter whether th ey like certain movies and dislike others. The act of reading them and bouncing personal opinions off them can teach moviegoers how to develop critical standards and become familiarized with argumentative rhetoric.

The act of movie criticism is not an offensive move, it's a defensive one, simply judging what someone is giving you and becoming more aware of the values and images we take for granted.

If audiences had higher standards, Hollywood would make better movies - entertaining because of well-told stories rather than advertising. Today, studios would much rather spend millions of dollars on advertising campaigns than respect their audiences and maintain any standards. Do your capitalist art culture a favor - demand quality in the movies you watch.