The purpose of art film?

I cant really decide on what Bklyndv meant by deeper, but I would definately say that art films by necessity are unconventional. Your average film uses the "rules of film-making" to create a very tradtional film, whereas (as someone else also pointed out) art films sacrifice some of the realism to evoke feelings and emotions beyond words.

I think films, by definition ought to have a story. A film is a visual form of a story. Frankly, all those films without any plot whatsoever are pretty much crap IMHO. But thats just my opinion. Films like "Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind" are true art-films. Powerful stories with a very unconventional style od story-telling.
 
Fugitive said:
I think films, by definition ought to have a story. A film is a visual form of a story. Frankly, all those films without any plot whatsoever are pretty much crap IMHO. But thats just my opinion. Films like "Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind" are true art-films. Powerful stories with a very unconventional style od story-telling.
Click to expand...

That's a very narrow definition of film. Film is just a sequence of images, moving images, and anything can be committed to film, story or otherwise. You can shoot them one frame at a time, or many.

Non-narrative films and filmmaking might be compared to "pure science," research, while mainstream films are "applied science." The ability to tell good stories on film is the result of lots of pure science filmmaking that revealed the power of certain types of motion, color, combinations of images, editing, etc. And that pure science continues.
 
Joshua Provost said:
That's a very narrow definition of film. Film is just a sequence of images, moving images, and anything can be committed to film, story or otherwise. You can shoot them one frame at a time, or many.

Non-narrative films and filmmaking might be compared to "pure science," research, while mainstream films are "applied science." The ability to tell good stories on film is the result of lots of pure science filmmaking that revealed the power of certain types of motion, color, combinations of images, editing, etc. And that pure science continues.
Click to expand...

Is science art? :)
 
Perhaps not - but the rest of the nation is ... and if your in the business of entertianment, you entertain with the hope and desire (perhaps) to do more

see fight club
see american beauty

both widely accepted by the world as great films particularly in the united states ... and both do more with their medium than "special effects garbage" - i could list quite a few more that dont quite fit with your "mainstream" definition

if you have a problem with the product, blame the people - they pay for it

have you read this whole thread?

--

I can't help commenting on your last sentence, because maybe, just maybe, the whole point is to make you ask exactly that; why?
Click to expand...
or maybe, just maybe - the whole point is to demonstate an idea that just gets conveyed improperly.... perspective is a funny thing in argument

robert
 
Last edited:
i had another slightly poorly devolped rebutal - but it would just turn this into one of those heated debates that isnt good for anyone

but i will clarify myself

hollywoodian mainstreamism, that churns out thousands of miles of fast food products in form of predictable special effects garbage....
Click to expand...
hollywoodian mainstreamism - (an ideology) that churns out thousands of miles of fast food products in form of predictable special effects garbage

Erm... rest of what Nation?
Click to expand...
its that center-of-the-world mentality, sorry :( -- i ment that america's general population pays to keep "mainstream" media "mainstream", so they must enjoy it to some extent (which is really dosent go against what you said in the first place)

to emphasize that there is another side to the debate
Click to expand...
your totaly entitled to that .. but check out the other 10 pages of this thread before you single out and belittle jade8472 like that- its all good stuff, and becomes more than any "art-film vs. mainstream" type debate

ps :) my bad about misunderstanding you - i was a little steamed at how you presented all of that, thats all

<--looks sorta a bit like a jerk, but really dident mean to!
 
Last edited:
Joshua Provost said:
That's a very narrow definition of film. Film is just a sequence of images, moving images, and anything can be committed to film, story or otherwise. You can shoot them one frame at a time, or many.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have said "motion picture" then. Still, thats an overly general definition, dont you think? I would think that when "most" people go to the cinema to watch a film, they intend to see something that makes sense, and has a story (not necesserliy narrative). In any event, you are entitled to disagree if you will.

When the composition of an image can tell a story in and of itself, story isnt always needed.
Click to expand...

There you go. You "do" need a story, in whatever form, that is not important. If composition tells a story, it still telling a "story". You cant have composition that is there just for the sake of composition. Ofcourse, I would still argue that Motion-pictures ought to have atleast one layer of a "tangible" story line (for the sake of the general audience atleast). It can have several deeper metaphysical meanings if it will, on top of that.
 
Nik Nerburn said:
He told me that the revolution I was alluding to could not reach the hearts of the people before it reached the mind. Simply put, revolution starts in the head. He told me that if I use art to irrigate the minds of the masses, humanity will change for the better.
Click to expand...

This is so good it's worth repeating...
 
Then again, I guess we people who prefer to be left with questions rather than fixed answers after viewing something, are a rare breed indeed these days.
Click to expand...

Not so rare as you think.


I believe that things do not have single dimensions and one can see many examples of cinema work that encapsulate many ways of expression. 2001 a Space Odyssey is in my view a good example of what I'm trying to say.

The audience going to the cinema is also very diverse most of the time, I mean think of it, how many people are able to see i.e tarkovsky's sacrifice any time of the day? However you may find that alot will have a certain moment that they will be able to do that and pay the required attention. Unfortunately real art demands people that are awake, people that do not "censor" what the see all the time with fixed notions and ideas.
I recently read Goethe say that reading a book is as difficult as writing it, maybe that's the same with movies who knows...
 
Draccan said:
I guess painting is just oil and canvas with applied technique then.......

geeezus... :banned:
Click to expand...

No, I don't really feel that way, but the "art" discussion has been used again and again, and some people still don't get it. The pure vs. applied science is just an attempt at an alternate illustration of how these things relate.

In the end, I'm not even I can explain excatly why "art" films appeal to me, and yet they do. I just saw "The Five Obstructions" and was fascinated. Some people don't get it. I guess that's OK.
 
Perhaps this discussion should be redefined along the lines of "experimental film" specifically, as I think the line between "art film" and "mainstream film" or even between one man's "art film" and another man's "art film" have become rather blurred.

Whether one consider's a film to be "art" or "mainstream", chances are, if it was seen in a theatre, it had a narrative structure. But with "experimental" film that isn't always the case and that's where people seem to have a few points of contention.

Perhaps we should move on from the "art" vs. "mainstream" debate as its not going anywhere?
 
Joshua Provost said:
No, I don't really feel that way, but the "art" discussion has been used again and again, and some people still don't get it. The pure vs. applied science is just an attempt at an alternate illustration of how these things relate.

In the end, I'm not even I can explain excatly why "art" films appeal to me, and yet they do. I just saw "The Five Obstructions" and was fascinated. Some people don't get it. I guess that's OK.
Click to expand...

And do you "Get it" ? Actually how do you "get it"if not on a subjective, personal way?

The discussion is getting pretty interesting, but I would like to add something to it:

Someone told before that it likes to be filed with questions ratter than answers. Well, "Fight CLub", "Seven", "Magnolia", "La Dolce Vitta", "Metropolis", "Ordet", "Breaking The Waves", , "The Village"... These movies all raise questions and they all obey a narrative "mainstream structure" with conventional 3 act structure...

I don't like the Idea of separating Film into "Mainstream" and "Art Film, or Non-Mainstream". A mainstream movie can be Art, just as a mainstream Painting- "Mona Lisa", "The Scream".

I believe, however, in the distinction of "Abstract Film" and "Narrative Film". Both can be Art, in my opinion, but are different.
 
Draccan said:
And even though I really don't feel like going into your train of thinking (as it is your thoughts aren't thought out or carried out well) I can't help commenting on your last sentence, because maybe, just maybe, the whole point is to make you ask exactly that; why?
Click to expand...
There's really a difference between making the audience think and forcing the audience to think by deliberately being vague. If I wanted to I can drawn all sorts of abstract themes and message from a film, and that's been the bread and butter of all my college essays, but the problem is that unless a film give me enough solid material to get me interested, there's really no point in philosophyzing (sorry, I just butchered that word) about what the film means. Then the time I've spent watching it is wasted.
 
jade8472 said:
There's really a difference between making the audience think and forcing the audience to think by deliberately being vague. If I wanted to I can drawn all sorts of abstract themes and message from a film, and that's been the bread and butter of all my college essays, but the problem is that unless a film give me enough solid material to get me interested, there's really no point in philosophyzing (sorry, I just butchered that word) about what the film means. Then the time I've spent watching it is wasted.
Click to expand...
You have a very crass and cynical view of what art is, and how ambiguity, or mystery, affords art its opporunity to be affecting and something altogether different than science. That kind of attitude "Well, I can spin any piece of crap into the next thesis for my paper" is the kind of attitude that has soiled art in the first place. In academia, people shovel out that sort of view and unfortunately loads of others swallow it back. Welcome to Post-Modernism, where theory trumps substance.

Look, there are things not spoken overtly in the sense that they are not spelled out with a lot of handholding or neon signs, but they are there and are quite deliberate on the part of the artist. That they may not be clear to you or to an audience in general is not necessarily the failure of the artist in being exact, but often the failure of the audience to look at the work closely, and consider it with a bit of informed critical rigor. The important thing here is that, as an audience member, you come to a piece prepared to engage in a dialogue with it, not have it simply do all the work carrying you to a place -- art is a conversation, not a carnival ride.

The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.
Marcel Proust
Click to expand...
To go back to painting, for instance, you can come to a Kandinsky or an Auerbach with the presumption that every painting has to "be about something," presumably something physically substantial and recognizable -- objects, people, "scenes," a "story," etc. but you're missing an entire world of conversations the artist can be having with you. If you've come to the experience closed off in this way from the outset, you're imposing a sort of rigid and narrow construct of what a painting "has to be." Instead, work at it from what I think could be a more rewarding position -- ask the work questions "What is this painting about? What is it telling me? How is the artist trying to speak to me?"

With the first point of view, you might see nothing but mush on a page and vaguely make out an abstract face, with the second point of view, you might be invited to reflect on how a painting could work in other ways...

And for film, it's the same.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top