The purpose of art film?

[Huy Vu]

Wow, I think I've touched off a nerve here, although I am surprised at the amount of hostility over a simple question. Thank you though for the people who have discuss my question in a rational and intelligent manner.

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

Yes, I am an amateur, although that status doesn't mean that my question can simply be brushed aside.

I agree that you can learn new techniques through making art film that can be apply to other films. But the main direction that people seems to be going through so far has been that an art film makes the audience think. This is what I don't understand. A film worth thinking about is a film that has a message to offer, or raises an issue that is relevant. They do this through telling a story, with developments that the audience can grasp. and thus ponder. An art film buries its message under a thick layer of images and expects the audience to sort it out. In my experience the message is often so vague and high-concept that it's just not worth sitting through the film.

So maybe we should define how an art film makes the audience think, and go from there?

 

[J.R. Hudson]

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.

100% agree.

I am surprised at the amount of hostility over a simple question

Whose hostile ? Perhaps that was your goal all along, hmmmm ?

-

The trick is too define an art film. But we're not all going to agree on this absolute. It is impossible.

-

I've conversed with filmmakers who detest anything done inside the Hollywood Empire. Their love of film kept exclusively for Goddard, Tarr, Dogme 95, the German's or the French New Wave.

... whereas for me, I just like it if it's good. I can care less what genre it falls under.

 

[Huy Vu]

Whose hostile ? Perhaps that was your goal all along, hmmmm ?

Um, I really hope that you're kidding with this. I made this post because the question has been bothering me since I first started making film. The number of replies totally surprised me.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

The number of replies I see about 'What's that click' still surprises me.

My point, Jade8472, was that I did not find anyone here being hostile and felt that choice of word a strange one and wondered if your goal all along was to incite a debate; which is fine.

The discussion between art house and mainstream is a long winded one but always fun to engage in.

 

[Josh_Boelter]

... whereas for me, I just like it if it's good. I can care less what genre it falls under.

Of course, "good" is subjective, but yeah that's bascially how I feel. It doesn't have to fall into a specific category for me to like it. I loved The Celebration, which was a Dogme 95 movie, and I loved Spider-Man 2, which is about as mainstream Hollywood as you can get.

 

[bklyndv]

I think a better question to start with is what is the purpose of art? Then from there, how might a film function as art?

I'd like to think the answer to either is more nuanced than merely "telling stories," which seems to me the prevelant assumption here. I can enjoy films for which the story is either subsumed or altogether nonexistent, provided the film works in other ways, and nothing about them is slipshod or less satisfying than a well made story driven film. In fact, I'd argue the contrary -- what is typically accepted as "story" is a convention and has its limitations. Film can be a more expressive art if you allow it.

 

[Matthew B. Moore]

I think what it boils down to is, "Am I wasting my life watching this or not?" This can be said about any film, art house or not. I've seen a bunch and alot were CRAP, but I've seen some that really spoke to me and had my full attention. One of the big problems with art films is that pretentious people get into making them and then call them art even if they turn out to be dog waste, again, this can happen with any film. Style will develope and things will be learned. I insist that if you make an art film. Stand behind it when you introduce it. Don't stand up there and run on at the mouth about how you couldn't get this or that and how it is what it is. I've seen so many "artist" start a showing that way and it makes me want to leave. If you love the art of it, love the film or put that scatt back in the drawer and make room for some one who is serious.

I have a few experimental films. They were fun to make, but in never quit on them until I could stand behind them.

 

[Josh_Boelter]

I think what it boils down to is, "Am I wasting my life watching this or not?"

That's one of the problems with film as an experimental art form--wasting the viewer's time. If I'm in a museum looking at experimental paintings and I don't like something, I can quickly move onto the next painting. If I'm in a film festival audience watching a shorts program, I'm stuck until the short is finished. And eleven minutes can be an eternity when you're watching something you hate.

 

[CallaghanFilms]

Now this is art, baby...

Cinema itself is the art form that we will be judged on as the centuries roll by.
I feel that the word "art" in relation to film was hijacked at some point along the way; and corrupted into a reference used by (YAWN) pretentious elitist who consider anything that is at all commercial (regardless of quality) to be "good enough for the masses..."

By and large the "experimental" stuff, on the other hand, will only serve to show archaeologist of the distant future the effects of recreational and hallucinative drugs on those who could not quite hack it as a storyteller.

 

[bklyndv]

I love Casablanca, but in truth it has far more in common with this:

or this:

...than it does with this:

or this:

 

[Matthew B. Moore]

What I call an "art film" is one that uses the art of color, design, motion, music, mood to entertain you visually. There is, often times, no need for a story in an art film. The term can be pushed around a bit. You can point the art finger at most any film. Art wins over all when the people stand back and go, "that wasn't just a film, damn it, that was art." I said that when I got done watching Momento. Knowing the diffence between art and shite is the key.

 

[J.R. Hudson]

Film for me is totally about storytelling. Through the ages we have had the caveman paintings, Greek Tradegy's, Shakespeare, the literary arts and stage radio. But in our lives, we have the fortunate of well-being to be in the age of Cinema.

I find art-house films and experimental films to be a bore most of the time. I find them usually lacking any vision, any plan, any execution (think Brackhage's use of Moth Wings on celluloid; ooohhh, aaahhhhhh ! How brilliant.)

Those who understand the true language of cinema are true artistes. They are the masters:

Coppolla, Spielberg, Scorsese, DePalma, Tarantino, Storaro, Chapman, Hall, Prieto, Zsigmond, Willis, Toll ...

I wan't this:

Not this:

 

[CallaghanFilms]

Brilliant analogy there, John...you just hit a homerun

 

[Tainted]

I was never a really big art film kind of guy, but I recently watched "The Perfect Human" and there was something about it that mesmorized me. I actually stumbled onto the documentary called "The Five Obstructions" which was based on re-creating The Perfect Human with obstructions added in, but on that DVD is the original movie which for some reason has completely changed my attitude on art films. Still not sure why, but I guess that might be the point.

 

[bklyndv]

Those who understand the true language of cinema are true artistes

What's the "true language of cinema"? Can you expand on that idea?

 

[Josh_Boelter]

If we're going to use the painters as comparisons, then hey, I dig Rembrandt as well as Jackson Pollock. It's not mutually exclusive for me. I dig the old masters, and I dig Joan Miro. I don't want one or the other. I want to enjoy it all.

 

[-D-]

Quote:
Those who understand the true language of cinema are true artistes

What's the "true language of cinema"? Can you expand on that idea?

Second that. Again, the "true language of cinema" is totally subjective.

 

[kimko]

Hmm.. Absolute Vodka................ Kinda Like Miles Davis Playing Wtf Is That Hmmmm Can He Really Play Or Is He Trying To Hide His Inadquadacey(sp) But Then I Heard Him Play, Whoa! See If They Have Done Some Conventional Sh It, Then You'll See Who's Hiding.

 

[kimko]

Imo, Art Cannot Be Dupplicated,oops!.............. It Just Is! ....art Is Seen OR HEARD OR FELT Once , Then It's Gone!

 

[bklyndv]

the "true language of cinema" is totally subjective.

While I wouldn't say totally subjective, I am interested in learning from someone like John who seems to have some firm ideas on the subject.

Always interested in learning...