Even that movie is made without any risk...it was a cheaply made movie because its experimental so that if the movie doesn't work...losses would be kept at minimal.
It kind of feels like you're shifting the goalposts. I was mainly responding to your assertions that his films are natural and non-events.
Cheapness as a literal metric doesn't mean anything.
Assault on Precinct 13 was made for about $150,000. Linklater's
Boyhood was made for $4 million and made $48 million. Your avatar comes from
American Psycho, which was made for $7 million and earned $34 million.
What are you trying to say?
1) Do you think that artists shouldn't make films about everyday people? Because it's very easy to not watch films that don't interest you.
2) Are you saying that films must have spectacle to be meaningful? Because many, many people will tell you (and are telling you in this very thread) that they find both meaning and entertainment in films that are small in scope.
It's fine to have types of films that you like and types of films that you don't. Taste is subjective. But you seem almost . . .mad that there are artists making art that isn't for you or that there are viewers enjoying art that you don't enjoy. Why not just value the art that you like? Why is it necessary to devalue the stuff you don't?