The purpose of art film?

GenJerDan said:
You sure he wasn't a Halfbright Scholar?
Click to expand...

*rimshot*

Believe it or not, that joke never occurred to me, in the sixteen-some years since I knew the guy.

Well, okay, you probably believe it.
 
there are multiple planes on which humans receive information. Sure, the most known and linear way of getting a message across in film is through plot, but abstract film has its place just as any form of abstract art. some people tell a story using words and events, and others tell their story by manipulating the viewers sensory. Light + sound by themselves work wonders at triggering emotional responses, because every person has a subconscious connotation to every shade of light and every sound their hear.
 
As a film and media studies major, I feel educated enough to comment on the dichotomy between spectacle and narrative. Pre-1968, much of film theory (and humanities in general) focused on the way text created meaning. In other words, humanities-oriented academia focused its attention on how filmmakers (to be cinema-centric) created meaning through formal means - direction, cinematography, editing, and story. However, post-1968 and into now what is considered to be modern theory of humanities and film, there has been a shift away to how the spectator or viewer creates meaning from the text, instead of how the filmmaker does. As many filmmakers know, especially those "art" ones you spoke of Huy Vu, is that different people can have different interpretations of the same text.

The point of the brief history of film is to account for the fact that all types of cinema, television, and performing art have their place. It may be the case that Hollywood and increasingly independent film focuses on story and narrative in opposition to spectacle, but it is completely naive to believe that "story trumps spectacle" so much so to say that art film doesn't have its place. Remember, though film is widely predicated on telling stories with images in the business today, it is first and foremost a visual media, a spectacle in and of itself.

And hell, just because you scratch your head when you see experimental films doesn't mean other people do. Experimental films are, for the most part, responsible for developing the conventions that are used today in classic Hollywood filmmaking. Think about a situation where no one had thought to experiment with camera movement because they thought it had no place or that people woudln't understand it, for instance. What would the role of camera movement be today, if that were the case?

Don't be so naive to assume that the Hollywood model of story, structure, and resolution is all that matters. It's a terrible viewpoint to take and in reality, it demonstrates a relatively high level of ignorance as far as cinematic art goes.
 
I think there is a difference between having an art film, and calling your film experimental. Some art films I've seen are interesting. Others put me to sleep. Some caused me to have migraines. Even others I've walked out on. Those are by distinguished art filmmakers. It's not really my cup of tea personally. A few of my friends find them beautiful.

Some people I personally know simply leave out a coherent story in a film and call it experimental. Or they mess up their film so badly they call it experimental and use the artistic choice as an excuse. Wether it be story-wise, someone messing up the film stock, not being creative, or just not being a good filmmaker.

I know someone who tries to leave her films open and "weird" so they are "experimental". When really, just leaving the end off and throwing odd scenes together does not equate to art-house.

There is a disconnect. And here I think is a good example. Real "experimental" film is art. But the label is used too much I feel, and thus creates a misconception. At least, that's how I see it.

PS> What I said is basically what Max was getting at.
 
Mattykins said:
There is a disconnect. And here I think is a good example. Real "experimental" film is art. But the label is used too much I feel, and thus creates a misconception. At least, that's how I see it.
Click to expand...

I think you hit the nail right on the head. The term "experimental" gets thrown around too much in cinema today. Experiment film is simply filmmaking that attempts to ignore techniques of storytelling, cinematography, editing and other formal aspects of filmmaking in favor of exploring other means of said techniques. For instance, The Maltese Falcon (generally considered by film scholars to be the first film noir piece) can be considered an experimental film because it was the first film that ignored classical conventions of Hollywood lighting and framing in favor of exploring harsh shadows, oblique lines, and canted, disorienting cam-angles.

Experimental film seeks to innovate. Sometimes it fails. Sometimes it succeeds brilliantly and creates a genre, mood, or style of new and interesting filmmaking - as is the case with film noir. But whatever it does, the point is that it does something - and that means it is not useless as Huy Vu initially suggested.
 
Even Robert Garcia says that "art" can be used as the biggest excuse in the film industry. Some people do a good job with art films but allot of the times people just don't want to take responsibility for mistakes so they call it art. For example the god awful film grain in "Primer".
 
Man, this is an old thread and it's funny to see this getting revived now when I was just musing about this topic again. I think I'll chime in here with a few years of experience under my belt since I started this thread.

Do I still get nervous when I see a work described as "experimental"? Yes I do. It turns me off a film. Does that show that I'm ignorant and unwilling to appreciate new things? Maybe...but maybe not. Mattykin is absolutely right, the term "experimental" have been abused and shi* on so much by people who haven't the slightest idea of what they're doing that I'm simply drained. It's like the phenomenon nowadays where everybody can get their hand on a camera and shoot "movies"; the deluge of crap simply drowns out the few gems that are out there. Finnegan, when 9 out of 10 experimental pieces out there being simply incomprehensible wrecks, I think I can be excused for not wanting to see anymore.

Since the time I started this thread I've found several experimental art pieces that I greatly enjoyed, ranging from live theatre performance art to film. I've come to realized that true experimental art brings to the audience a completely different experiences and perceptions that can be wonderous and exciting. There's no snobbery in the order of "you're not good enough to get what I'm trying to impart to you." Real art doesn't need to call its audience close-minded for not understanding it; it just is.
 
Huy Vu said:
Do I still get nervous when I see a work described as "experimental"? Yes I do. It turns me off a film. Finnegan, when 9 out of 10 experimental pieces out there being simply incomprehensible wrecks, I think I can be excused for not wanting to see anymore.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you've seen a bunch of shitty drama films too, but why doesn't the fact that a film is labeled a drama turn you off to it prior to seeing it? And while "art" films may increasingly be a type of cinema that is infrequently done well, I think you're pretty far off the mark to say that 9/10 of them are incomprehensible wrecks. For one, to claim to have seen enough experimental films to really be able to estimate such a high percentage of what is generally an obscure genre of film is kind of pretentious.

Case in point - Jean Luc Godard's Breathless. Now considered to be a staple of the French new wave, an iconic film, and a landmark of cinema, one forgets that it was widely panned by French audiences upon its release for being light on story, and utilizing jump cuts. Now I'm not comparing all experimental films to Breathless because its an unfair comparison. But what I am saying is that in some cases great films innovate without knowing it, and it isn't until later that the world realizes that which has already occurred. After Breathless did poorly at the box office, scholars and academics and eventually critics and audiences began to praise it for its unique visual style - and in many cases retracted assertions about the use of jump cuts being disorienting to the narrative flow of time.

So, maybe art films do more often than not fail to do what it is they seek to do, which is innovate. And yeah, a lot of filmmakers try to create something, fail horribly, and call their projects "art films" to save face. But despite all of this, real art films have a solidified place as one of cinematic innovation. We owe the French New Wave and Film Noir to experimental films. We owe all the classical filmmaking convention to those experimental filmmakers who decided to change and develop technique. And to forget that, or to assert that experimental film has no place anymore in cinema, is not only dead wrong but also incredibly stupid.
 
Huy Vu said:
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...
Think of it as a horror film with no budget for gore.
 
Finnegan said:
I think you're pretty far off the mark to say that 9/10 of them are incomprehensible wrecks. For one, to claim to have seen enough experimental films to really be able to estimate such a high percentage of what is generally an obscure genre of film is kind of pretentious.

...And to forget that, or to assert that experimental film has no place anymore in cinema, is not only dead wrong but also incredibly stupid.
Click to expand...

Which is why I started this thread in the first place, to discuss and see what perspectives others have to bring to the table. I really don't understand your confrontational tone here. Read my original post, at no point did I say that "experimental" work is useless, in fact I wrote:

"My purpose for posting is not to insult any art film makers out there, but what I would like to understand is WHY?'"

And I don't say the same about drama film because when you film sucks you can't use the "Oh it's a drama" excuse.

Finnegan said:
But what I am saying is that in some cases great films innovate without knowing it,
Click to expand...

I am well aware that many conventional filmmaking style today are adaptations of what once was considered radical. Somebody has to do it first. But I hardly think it's fair to retroactively point to the innovation of a film as proof that the audience of the time were somehow stupid for not "giving it a chance" in the first place.
 
Huy Vu said:
But I hardly think it's fair to retroactively point to the innovation of a film as proof that the audience of the time were somehow stupid for not "giving it a chance" in the first place.
Click to expand...

This isn't what I'm pointing out with my example of the French New Wave. The reality of the matter is that cinema is a very young art form by comparison, and its naive to assume that there is no more room for innovation. At the time of the French New Wave (which is one of if not the most defining cinematic art movement in film history) Hollywood had already been producing films along a given techniques, conventions, and structures for 30+ years. There were many, many people both outside and inside the industry who believed that all that could be discovered about filmmaking was already discovered. The French New Wave proved them wrong, and revolutionized on multiple levels the way films were made, stylistically, structurally, and aesthetically.

My only point, Huy Vu, is that one shouldn't jump to conclusions about art films as a whole. Like I said, a lot of them suck - you're right. But that's because most films suck. There is always more bad than good in art, and cinema is no exception. But to make the leap from that premise to a claim about a specific type of film, be it any type, not having a place - isn't a logical or intelligent leap.
 
Finnegan said:
...to make the leap from that premise to a claim about a specific type of film, be it any type, not having a place - isn't a logical or intelligent leap.
Click to expand...

Again, I never said any such thing. I'd like you to point to the quote that I say anything like that. The purpose of this thread was to start a discussion on "what is art" and the boundary between innovation and pretentious crap. And it was a pretty civil discussion too until you jump in with words like "ignorant", "stupid" and "naive." I have a different interpretation of what makes good art than you, but that doesn't make my point of view any less valid, remember that.
 
I think Huy is speaking about the difference between true denotation verses connotation of the term experimental or "art". As aforementioned, they are not one in the same. Labeled experimental seems to be done too often.

Think of it as: "The Film Look" or "Hollywood Look" syndrome.

True film look is achieved using film stock. Rarely do you see extremely shallow DOF.

What a lot of people do is hunt for the film look by tossing Magic Bullet at it. Making the color grade do really funky things, adding film grain (sometimes) and having every shot rack focus or have 2.6 inches in focus and call it the "Film Look".

There is a lot of "film look" wannabe's in the mix. To the point where newcomers to filmmaking mistake the hollywood look (that true hollywood films achieve) as the shallow, full of rack focus, color graded crapola. And thus associate the general "really indie, generally crappy" look with the illustrious "hollywood look".

Hence a disconnect that newcomers think is great and others know is the exact opposite of what is supposed to be going on.

*hopes that sounds as good as it did in my head*
 
One benefit of 'art film' is that it offers those opportunities to experiment - possibly discovering effective new techniques - without the pressures of having to satisfy some number of people's expectations that are brought to a 'commercial' or 'mainstream' film.

Sure, most people who describe themselves as artists probably picked the title because they view it (consciously or not) as a field in which incompetence can simply be written off as a creative choice, and they'll never have to face any competent dissection of their work. And precious few of them could draw a picture of a puppy if their lives depended upon it.

That's just the gravel you have to sift, if you're hoping to find a diamond.
 
This is one experimental filmmaker whos work I find incredibly inspiring. His work lacks a narrative but exhibits just as much polish and mastery of craft as any film I've seen.

His name is Jesper Just:
here is one of my favorite films of his:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJw2HsNR8kE

and for comparison one of his early works:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FH55pBOjaxU&feature=related

I think it's clear that he had an idea of what he was trying to say early on but lacked the resources the fully execute that until his later work. So yes, sometimes the label "experimental" is used to cover flaws, sometimes the artist is trying to use a lack of polish to express and idea, and sometimes they just have a bad idea.
 
Last edited:
I don't "get" the whole experimental thing either, it reeks of pretentiousness and I'm not interested in that whatsoever. I love brilliant filmmaking, from all eras and many countries, and really love to delve into what makes a film great, or what makes a script work, etc. It's just that I'm not into the whole crowd of people who basically define themselves as "indie" and against mainstream filmmaking. I think it's just silly. The goal is to make mainstream movies, to me, so when someone sets themselves against that, I usually assume they are a failure and they're trying to redefine failure as success. This is incredibly common in psychology, where you have a goal, you are unable to achieve it, and you basically change the rules of the game to pretend like you won. Christians are famous for this. "Well, it doesn't matter what we do here on earth, sure I'm a total failure at life, but Jesus loves me, and I'm going to heaven, that's all that matters." Classic example of a loser trying to use a new definition and change the rules of the game to become a winner under a new paradigm. Indie filmmakers often do this.

I appreciate indie filmmaking when it's people with talent who are doing their best on limited resources to tell great stories. That's indie filmmaking at its finest, to me, not where it's TRYING consciously to BE Hollywood filmmaking, like car chases, explosions, lots of action, etc. But where there is a mix of the indie mentality and the Hollywood mentality, which to me means, "I cannot make the movies Hollywood does, because I don't have the money, but I can make a great story that doesn't rely on effects and action, but on acting and story, and I can do so in a professional manner that looks like a Hollywood film." That is the ideal I think. You can't tell the same stories they do, but you can maybe tell more interesting stories and still do so in a way that is just as professional, by building your stories around characters and situations that are more affordable.

So for experimental filmmaking, it comes across as basically self-indulgent most of the time and lacks any clear purpose. I've seen some stuff that is borderline experimental that is excellent, like Heartbeat has no dialogue, it's told all through action and music, and is borderline experimental in the sense that you have to think harder about what exactly is going on, what the purpose is, it's very esoteric. But it's pure style over substance, and that's ok, it's just crafted so well, it's very fun, the music builds to this great climax, and it looks fantastic. Much more experimental than that, though, and I start thinking what is this crap?

I'm a very outside-the-box thinker, but at the same time I think you have to understand that a lot of conventions exist for a reason, and it's important to study those reasons so you can internalize them and not just be following rules, but really aware of why things are done this way. Like screenplay structure. Some people may think, well screw that, I don't want to make a Hollywood film, I'm not following some made up structure for my film, I'm just going to write and it's going to be great! Well, the issue with that is there is a definite structure that works well for storytelling in general, that audiences are used to, and that has built-in "beats" to it that makes things move along. It's actually not at all confining to adhere to that structure once you understand it, and it helps you setup something that's going to work. It's beautiful, really, and within that framework you can be very creative.

Experimental filmmaking is a decent testing ground I think for some new ideas, that can be incorporated into more mainstream projects, but I don't feel that it's something I like watching.
 
Like anything else, i like good experimental work that resonates with me. it is rare, of course. just as rare as finding a mainstream studio picture that resonates with me. stuff like HP6 makes me want to eat my own face as much as watching an indecipherable, chaotic, loud "art" installation.

side thought: this is not directed at jonathan but his use of the word "pretentiousness" made me wonder what the opposite of pretentiousness and self-indulgence is? maybe not opposite, but the other end of the spectrum... like when you take just as much pride in crafting low-brow, broad fodder for mass consumption? is there a word for that? just curious?
 
ZAK: Does that mean you didn't like Harry Potter? It was way better than the others and the best representation of the book in my opinion. I give it like an 8 or 9 probably just because it didn't butcher the book and I found it genuinely enjoyable. Which I guess is a personal thing. Or did HP6 stand for something completely different?

Also, SABI. What does it mean/stand for?
 
To me (in the context of creative arts) pretentious means in large measure dishonest. As in, the work has pretensions toward being something it isn't (trenchant, meaningful, innovative, competent).

I guess the antonym I'd propose for pretentious would be honest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top