To answer the conventions question...

I think there is a question that belongs in between those two questions, and I would like to hear your (everybody's) answer:

"Does abandoning traditional conventions mean that you have to alienate the viewer?"

Have to alienate or will inadvertently alienate. My family members for instance are not connoisseurs of all things art and when I show them projects that I'm working on they smile politely and move on to some other topic...not because they don't want to support me, but simply because they don't get it. The average viewer, without a trained artistic eye, often tends to look at the face value of a work and make the standard "I could do that blindfolded with one arm tied behind my back" type of statement because they are unfamiliar with the process it took to produce the end result and layers of meaning that may be evidenced in it.

This could be overcome with training of the masses by slowly working elements of non convention into a conventional film. Conventions weren't conventions until they had been used and people began to understand them. Though contradictorily if the lack of conventions became widely used and understood it would then become a convention...hm mm.

Maybe it all boils down to how a work is created, if there are cues for the intended audience to follow the work, etc. then it wouldn't necessarily alienate them. If no precedent or explanation or seeming logic or order of any sort is in place then maybe many would feel that sense of alienation as they strive to derive meaning or create a narrative from what is presented. Since Aristotle created the three act structure humans have understood film, stories, and plays best when they fit this model. Many go to the movies to escape real life for a time and simply don't want to work too hard to figure out what is going on, even if the plot keeps twisting and surprising there is usually still the three act structure and an eventual conclusion of sorts.

Interesting question.