Solanas and Getino are Angry

I thought there was a remarkable difference in perspective between Teshome Gabriel’s “Towards a Third Aesthetic” and Solanas and Getino’s “Toward a Third Cinema.” I read Gabriel first, so it served as a sort of definition for Third Cinema, whereas Solanas and Getino seem to have more of a rant than an article.
Given, Solanas and Getino were active participants in Third Cinema’s inception, but they came off half as revolutionaries, and half as people who hate Hollywood. Perhaps it was the font they used (small capitals of some sort), but throughout the paper I felt as though I were at fault for enjoying movies from First Cinema.

…the cinema is an industry, but differs from other industries in that it has been created and organized in order to generate certain ideologies. The 35mm camera, 24 frames per second, arc lights, and a commercial place of exhibition for audiences were conceived not to gratuitously transmit any ideology, but to satisfy, in the first place, the cultural and surplus value needs of a specific ideology, of a specific world-view: that of U.S. financial capital. (Solanas and Getino, 64)

I don’t find it surprising that cinema should be used to make money. I thought that was the point of most industries, other than producing things. All the italics used make these statements seem ground-breaking, and at the same time they make the U.S. look so evil. Cinema was a good venue for entertaining purposes when it came out, and now, since it is such a big obstacle for Third Cinema, it has wronged.
They say that making cinema into just a “show,” so that man can only “read history, contemplate it, listen to it, and undergo it” was a bad thing. Later, Solanas and Getino admit that they found out by accident that it could be something other than a show, something interactive and political, and that wasn’t even a challenge; it just happened. So I don’t understand why they are upset with First Cinema at all.