Nothing nefarious, I'm curious that we're apparently more curious about figures from Napoleon to Hitler or as negligible as Ed Gein than we are about Marx, Freud or Darwin, or even you and me. Until fairly recently, judging by representation in cinema.
I began reading Walter Benjamin very recently. The Work of Art in the Age of Its Technological Reproducibility
(mentioned on RI and elsewhere with a frequency I couldn't ignore) talks about many of the same topics RI explores one way or another (still reading it.) I don't have to agree with him on everything to appreciate his startling relevance. He seems to anticipate future developments in cinema through understanding clearly what the medium is and why it remains different to theatre or sculpture for example, the function latent in the form. And not necessarily from a pessimistic perspective, often with a view toward the emancipatory potential of the medium (which I doubt it possesses today but may tomorrow.)
The capture of an art form as involved as film, by those who can wield the complex resources needed to make and distribute them, seems not so much inevitable, as arising from the form itself. Video games went through a similar regression to cinema, toward the generic and propagandising forms which now dominate compared to the bewildering diversity and creativity of yesterday. A western cultural development driven largely by economic forces? Intrinsic? The same 'economic forces' now tend to shape and mould what can be considered at all, about any subject. The availability of technology today doesn't seem to have freed us by democratising access to the tools. Why? Perhaps because the audience is fragmentary, perhaps the currents which prevail are possessed of their own imperative? an we afford to imagine what we can imagine? Who knows?
An interesting note, by comparing the way a work of cinema elicits a given performance from actors relative to theatre, he led me toward a powerful sense of recognition, that something moves a theatre group just as something animates a film crew. The film crew is uniquely isolated from it's effect on an audience compared to theatre. The former audience is merely called upon to passively consume it, the latter generatively co-creates the art in each performance though to a lesser degree in cinema. There's comparatively little proximity between film maker and audience.
To quote him "To an ever increasing degree, the work reproduced becomes the reproduction of a work designed for reproducibility."
Anyway, saw this recently, Klimov, Come and See