The purpose of art film?

Hudson,
That's some good stuff you've got there. Love the sense of movement in the watercolor.
 
Tks rsbush. Unfortunatley painting is something I just do not pursue. What a waste. I'd like to one day.

---

IN referring to an earlier post regarding artists working on instinct -vs- extensive planning ....

De Palma storyboarded the hell out of the Untouchables; but the one scene in the train station (The shooout) he made up as he went along

Its one of the more memorable scenes in cinema
 
John_Hudson said:
Tks rsbush. Unfortunatley painting is something I just do not pursue. What a waste. I'd like to one day.

---

IN referring to an earlier post regarding artists working on instinct -vs- extensive planning ....

De Palma storyboarded the hell out of the Untouchables; but the one scene in the train station (The shooout) he made up as he went along

Its one of the more memorable scenes in cinema
Click to expand...

It was one of the most memorable scenes in cinema 60 years before he shot Untouchables. :) I'm not sure he made it up so much as lifted it. He is the king of Homage. I still love that scene to death, though.
 
Last edited:
This thread would probably be better without the stereotyping and actually discussing actual experimental films -

It doesn't necessarily mean random images -

What's good exp. films that we've all seen to discuss?

Eraserhead
Koyaanisquaatsi
Man with the Movie Camera

others?
 
desperatecomfort said:
It was one of the most memorable scenes in cinema 60 years before he shot Untouchables. :) I'm not sure he made it up so much as lifted it. He is the king of Homage. I still love that scene to death, though.
Click to expand...

to illustrate...

Odessastepsbaby.jpg
potemkin_babycarriage.jpg
 
Editor said:
This thread would probably be better without the stereotyping and actually discussing actual experimental films -

It doesn't necessarily mean random images -

What's good exp. films that we've all seen to discuss?

Eraserhead
Koyaanisquaatsi
Man with the Movie Camera

others?
Click to expand...

Zardoz (maybe not experimental, maybe just so weird that it *feels* experimental)

Caravaggio (presumably what Man of La Mancha was aiming for; unlike MoLM they ended up with something watchable...)

Casanova (the Federico Fellini version; again, maybe just so weird that it feels experimental)

Yo Cuba (astounding camera movement; makes the opening of A Touch of Evil look simple by comparison...)

Blair Witch Project

Tetsuo: The Iron Man

actually, it just occurred to me that, really, every film might be an experiment in one way or another, so long as it's not in the mold of the formulaic big-money studio film whose aim is to fill seats, rather than tell a story...which are patently anti-experimental...

Terry Gilliam's salute to Eisenstein in Brazil is still my favorite...
 
Last edited:
Wow, I wish I saw this thread earlier. Not only do I think with your statements offends experimental film makes but also the people you watch and like then.

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.
Click to expand...
I see you have seen every experimental/art film that exists. That’s cool. Obviously you haven’t seen allot of experimental films. And definitely didn’t understand them. I always have a problem with people who hate things they don't understand. There is an easy way to never feel cheated. Look up every movie that some might have said is experimental and NOT SEE IT. Just like every genre there are good movies and bad ones. If you hate every movie from an entire genre then you have to look at yourself and realize your prejudice. And its cool if you hate a genre, just realize it not bad you just hate it.

jade8472 said:
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.
Click to expand...
You obviously have a very narrow view of what a film or commercial should be.

jade8472 said:
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,
Click to expand...
The filmmaker would probably disagree with you

jade8472 said:
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...
Personal opinion: if I feel a movie is screaming "MESSAGE" I usually hate it. Also if I walk out of a movie theater and say "I know exactly what I just saw" then it probably isn't good either. (Few exceptions)

To answer your question "Why do experimental movies suck, and why do people make then.

The ones you saw suck because u doesn’t like them. People make experimental films cuz they enjoy makin them and SOME people enjoy them.
 
Last edited:
I've observed a lot of filmmakers present as 'experimental' works that were certainly indistinguishable from simple technical unsophistication and uninspiring vision.

It's not a criticism of experimental art, to note that a lot of mere incompetence is covered by invoking the 'experimental' label.
 
I agree, but I am scared that jade confuses these films with the definition of experimental film. I've also seen people say, "well it's a action flick" to cover up bad acting, no story, non-existent plot, etc. Doesn't mean all action flicks are bad, just some of them are. I guess a bad film is a bad film. I hate any genre to get a bad rap. I've seen a good movie from every genre and one's that i would wipe my ass with.
 
Bad film is bad film, but only 'experimental' filmmakers (in my experience) will say that basic technical errors (or the results of decisions that look and sound just the same, and therefore effectively *are* the same) are really "artistic" or "experimental" choices.

I remember a professor (tenured!) from the college where I earned a film degree, who would do stuff like double-splice his 16mm mag tracks - basic, undeniable technical incompetence, something that his students knew better than to do - or shoot using an Eclair NPR16 with vignetting and focus problems from a mis-fitted lens, and then dismiss critiques with 'this is an experimental/art film.'

Of course, this guy has been a Fullbright Scholar more than once, so maybe technical ineptitude sells in academia, in a way that it won't, in the professional world.
 
i dont see stuff like that outside of college. And to tell the trust most college films are bad. Any genre. Everyones early films are bad:)
 
What do you do if you've just spent your parents life savings on going to film school and you have a burning passion to make movies but DON'T have a story to tell?
 
Go into one of the professional/technical fields within the entertainment business, and at least make a good living while developing your voice and finding that story - and making contacts/acquiring knowledge that will serve you, when you do.
 
Anyway, the only way we'll ever answer the question of the purpose of Art Film is to talk the PTB into making that the next fest.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top