The purpose of art film?

H

Huy Vu

Veteran
I always get nervous when I see a film described as "experimental."
Usually what this means is that it's a bunch of random images slapped together, making no sense at all and ends up leaving me feeling completely cheated. Sure, I'll admit that a lot of art films have great cimatography but ultimately shouldn't it be the story that counts? I feel like doing an art film is just an excuse for a director to film a bunch of discordant scenes that wouldn't fit in any other genres.

My purpose for posting is not to insult any art film makers out there, but what I would like to understand is WHY? What is the purpose of making a film that has almost no story, no resolution and ultimately leaving the audience stratching their heads and asking "ok, that was...interesting. But what the hell did I just saw?"
 
jade8472 said:
I always get nervous when I see a film described as "experimental."
Usually what this means is that it's a bunch of random images slapped together, making no sense at all and ends up leaving me feeling completely cheated. Sure, I'll admit that a lot of art films have great cimatography but ultimately shouldn't it be the story that counts? I feel like doing an art film is just an excuse for a director to film a bunch of discordant scenes that wouldn't fit in any other genres.

My purpose for posting is not to insult any art film makers out there, but what I would like to understand is WHY? What is the purpose of making a film that has almost no story, no resolution and ultimately leaving the audience stratching their heads and asking "ok, that was...interesting. But what the hell did I just saw?"
Click to expand...

You are completely wrong and off base. Comments like this are an embarrassment to this community. Don't you realize that if they stopped making art films, literally thousands of university film studies professors would be unemployed? Do you really think film scholars could publish papers about films that actually entertain people and make money? Ha! they'd be laughed out of academia. Good God man! Film professors have families to feed! Car payments to make! Please be more sensitive next time.
 
brianluce said:
You are completely wrong and off base. Comments like this are an embarrassment to this community. Don't you realize that if they stopped making art films, literally thousands of university film studies professors would be unemployed? Do you really think film scholars could publish papers about films that actually entertain people and make money? Ha! they'd be laughed out of academia. Good God man! Film professors have families to feed! Car payments to make! Please be more sensitive next time.
Click to expand...

Word

For better or worse, most of my stuff falls into the art/experimental catagory.

These are the kind of audience members that make me want to shoot things. :kali:
...and then film it.
 
We attack what we don't understand.:)
I didn't mean to get defensive. :costumed-smiley-047 I sense that you are truly seeking some understanding of this genre. I'll try to help you out.

But it's late now and my brain no-worky so well.
:zombie_smiley:
 
Last edited:
It's all good diesel

I can be a little hot at times myself; so thanks for not throwing the extra match in there.

And of course, I always speak in general terms and not absolutes.
 
Experimental films may not always be entertaining, but experimentation in art is a good thing. You try new things and maybe you'll end up with something great. Or maybe you'll discover something you can use in a more traditional film. Maybe you'll find a new editing technique by making an experimental short.

Miles Davis experimented a lot by breaking away from the traditions of bebop (which itself was breaking away from the traditions set by guys like Louis Armstrong). I didn't like everything Miles Davis did when he was experimenting. Sometimes I loved the results, sometimes I hated it. But I always admired his willingness to try something different.

All that said, when I watch experimental shorts, I usually don't like them. But that doesn't mean I can't take something away from them that I do like. Now, experimental features... sorry, I don't have the patience. Unless you consider something like, say "The Celebration" experimental (I don't really, because it had a script and story, even if it was a Dogme movie).

Cheers,

Josh
 
I believe that it is all in the eye of the beholder, what is art-film and what is experimental? What is the norm and what isn't? Is normal considered a movie with an expected end, plot and regular cinematography? Who decides that? It is I believe the truth that if a movie fails to convey a story, a message, something whatever! Or fail to move in any way a number of people sitting in a theater or if it succedes in doing so, is what we should care about and not the purpose of this or that.

Filmaking is art and allows for experimentation in all aspects, being shallow minded and safe-thinking is as ignorant as being overly ambitious and selfish, thinking your work should be "different" for the sake of being different and that it should not be understandable or solid. Most true artists I know in filmaking always "brake the rules" in ways that are not directly obvious most of the time.

As for the feeling of being "cheated" it goes both ways. One is the old hollywood way of making films that "must" have a specific ending and plot which has been engraved from all those movies in many people's mind. That one you can't argue, people have grown to expect things and it's difficult to change that, however many movies made right now even in the Hollywod system have slowly started "braking" those rules which is a good thing. The other one is feeling truly cheated which actually falls in the same category of being overly ambitious and selfish I talked about.
 
Hmmm... I've rarely ever stumbled across a mainstream or "traditional" film that a) I enjoyed, b) looked anything remotely like "art" (a discipline under which, perhaps, filmmaking falls), and c) made me think. Ever. That's just me.
 
art film is often film made by artists instead of film-makers. In the art realm, you split your view of the piece into IDEA and CRAFT. Some artists are very idea-oriented, like Andy Warhol , while some are oriented towards the craft, like the painters in "Heavy Metal" magazine and lots of classical artists. Of course, the best are the ones that have an equal focus on Idea and Craft, one of my current favourites being Hieronymus Bosch.

SO art film is a delightful alternative to the standard Hollywood cinema that is very craft-oriented. Many art films have had inspired Hollywood movies, only most filmmakers don´t eagerly announce themselves as being el cheapo plagiarists, so we think all the good ideas emerge in the Hollywood system... Well they don´t.

Art film is the other extreme instead of this giant machinery churning out ca 400 films a year.

But I admit that art/film/music completely without boundaries often is tedious to attend to. Most art is best when bound by certain rules.

sorry i didnt write this to its finish.. Gotta run!
 
Ursa said:
Many art films have had inspired Hollywood movies, only most filmmakers don´t eagerly announce themselves as being el cheapo plagiarists, so we think all the good ideas emerge in the Hollywood system... Well they don´t.
Click to expand...
Could you give us a couple of examples?:huh:
 
To be a filmmaker you have to understand ALL aspects of filmaking, not just what YOU like. That is called amateur.
 
Last edited:
art film is often film made by artists instead of film-makers.
Click to expand...

The world definitely needs more people with ideas and stories (artists), than camera-operators and editors.
 
-D- said:
Hmmm... I've rarely ever stumbled across a mainstream or "traditional" film that a) I enjoyed, b) looked anything remotely like "art" (a discipline under which, perhaps, filmmaking falls), and c) made me think. Ever. That's just me.
Click to expand...

Really ? Should we define this maybe ? I can think of tons of traditional/mainstream films that looked like art and made me think.

I assume we are not clear on our definitions of what films we are talking about ?

Films like Schindler's, American Beauty, Pulp Fiction, Taxi Driver, The Deer Hunter, Apacalypse Now, The Thin Red Line, Goodfellas, The Conversation, Psycho, The Elephant Man, The GOdfather's ....

I could go on. These films, to me, are works of art and make one think.

-
To be a filmmaker you have to understand ALL aspects of filmaking, not just what YOU like. Tha is called amateur.
Click to expand...

I think I understand what you are trying to say; but still disagree with this statement. What do you mean, understand ?
 
"Art is whatever makes you proud to be human" Amiri Baraka

Hangs over my writing desk.

Sometimes it is something simple that makes me "proud to be human" and sometimes something abstract hits the same nerve.

In that sense, Magnolia, School of Rock and Slackers are all Art Films!
 
John, good point; I admit my statement was slightly exagerrated and I enjoyed and was thought provoked by all of the films you've mentioned. However, I do feel that "mainstream" and meaningful titles such as the ones you've listed above emerge less frequently than equivalent "arty" titles do, that's all.

These are a few of the lesser-known films that really had a profound effect on me that may be considered "art films":
My Mother Frank, Final Cut (Jude Law & Sadie Frost), Irreversible, In My Father's Den, Dancer in the Dark, Breaking the Waves, The Dreamers, Orlando and I could also go on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top