Art Films

[Usivius]

interesting points, taraswizard, about perception through time. But it still comes down to a personal perception. No one can tell you what is art and what is not. "Art" is totally a subjective concept. "Just because it hangs in a gallery, don't make it art." (Can't reall who said that)

The notion of Clockwork Orange being art is close to my definition but not quite. However Kubrick's 2001 is.
For me, it has nothing to do with budget, it is more about intent, execution, and perception of viewer. And this goes for any form of 'art'.

[Marv]

weatern society is founded on capitalism. capitalism takes anything that is subversive and softens the edges until you get something that makes money. thats why the art film genre has become more and more obsolete. rebellion has become a dirty word nowadays. art cinema like hip-hop and rock and roll and punk and many other expressions of art have been diluted to the point where they are almost seen as antiquated.

true art cinema cannot exist anymore because anyone that makes these types of films can have their motives questioned.are they looking to make money?

i truly believe that the only form of expression nowadays that remains post modern and anarchistic and pure is poetry. noone can question a poets motives, poetry can be whatever you want it to be-there are guidelines but adhering to those is hardly compulsory.

as far as avant garde cinema goes, reminds me of 'new wave' which was the genre of music that followed punk. further signs of the softening of the edges i was talking about.

[Avatar]

So I'm not sure I like "art films," unless stuff like A Clockwork Orange qualifies. For me, an "art film" is something that attempts to challenge its audience, rather than merely entertain. A film that can accomplish both is a masterpiece, in my eyes.

Of course Clockwork Orange qualifies LF. And I'd call Eternal Sunshine and art film, (:| LuciMay ) too.

Challenges? Yeah, I like that. I think movies qualify both when they push the boudaries of what is usual, when they're visually and technically stimulating, and when they give you something to think about afterwards.

--A

[sgt.null]

ETernal SUnshine qualifies.

too many films are formula. they even try to slot Terry Gilliam into the Hollywood formula.

[Usivius]

Terry Gilliam...!

[The Laughing Man]

Brazil? definitely art!

[Usivius]

Brazil? nah .. artsy, but not art.
My favourite Glliam movie too!

BTW, I like your 'power windows' and Rush images...

[The Laughing Man]

thanx, Usivius, it's the closest thing I've found yet to display how I see myself. Does it look like me to you? (I'm 39, btw)

[Esmer]

heh, one more vote for art! is that cheating? stuffing the ballot box?

(this is how I secretly see myself, heh. )

[lucimay]

as far as avant garde cinema goes, reminds me of 'new wave' which was the genre of music that followed punk. further signs of the softening of the edges i was talking about.

www.miracosta.cc.ca.us/home/gfloren/F-avant.htm

i don't think you're thinking of the same avante garde film that i'm talking about, Tazz...please check this link again...scroll down further on the page, there's an excellent list of avante garde films dating back to the 1920's...

here's another link to a really great film site that discusses avante garde film...i've linked to the director page but please peruse the menu on the left for more info...avante garde film is ANYTHING BUT softened edges...

and by the way...this is a discussion about "art film"...not one person has mentioned Fellini, Warhol, Bresson, Lynch!!! sheesh folks...FELLINI!!!

[The Laughing Man]

[Usivius]

actually Esmer, put brown hair flecked with grey on the 'Rush-guy' and it's me (also 39)

Erasurehead! Ohhhhh, defineately 'art' film. And I think the same goes with 'Lost Highway' ..yah, come to think of it, Lynch very much has an "artist's" manner and outlook to film... Most people when they hear him talk think he is crazy, or at least, talking nonsence, but speaking as someone who came close to tackeling the 'artist-path' he speaks very much like one who listens to his muses without questioning. Sometimes you just have to let creativeity take you where it leads, and not examine too much until it's over. <shrug>

[matrixman]

So I'm not sure I like "art films," unless stuff like A Clockwork Orange qualifies. For me, an "art film" is something that attempts to challenge its audience, rather than merely entertain. A film that can accomplish both is a masterpiece, in my eyes.

Of course Clockwork Orange qualifies LF. And I'd call Eternal Sunshine and art film, (:| LuciMay ) too.

Challenges? Yeah, I like that. I think movies qualify both when they push the boudaries of what is usual, when they're visually and technically stimulating, and when they give you something to think about afterwards.

Pushes the boundaries? Visually and technically stimulating? Gives you something to think about? Well then, for me The Matrix qualifies as art many times over. It's an art film...with guns.

It's good fun trying to nail down what an art film is or should be, but I think it still boils down to Lucimay's "if you think it's art, it's art. If you don't, it isn't."

[The Laughing Man]

actually Esmer, put brown hair flecked with grey on the 'Rush-guy' and it's me (also 39)

Erasurehead! Ohhhhh, defineately 'art' film. And I think the same goes with 'Lost Highway' ..yah, come to think of it, Lynch very much has an "artist's" manner and outlook to film... Most people when they hear him talk think he is crazy, or at least, talking nonsence, but speaking as someone who came close to tackeling the 'artist-path' he speaks very much like one who listens to his muses without questioning. Sometimes you just have to let creativeity take you where it leads, and not examine too much until it's over. <shrug>

Twin Peaks, Art TV!

sounds like me, heh

I think when watching a movie is more like reading a book classifies it as art!

[Marv]

ofcourse what constitutes art is completely subjective and essentially lucimays assertation that "if you think its art then it is..." is one hundred per cent right. i think there is a difference, however, between art and the the 'art film genre'. i dont think people should be confused just because of the title. art cinema is supposed to be the antithesis of the traditional western movie best represented in hollywood. i just feel that, particularly in the last 20-30 years or so cinema has become one big grey area. the difference between an art film and a blockbusting hollwood action movie is, today, rather slight. as i said earlier, so-called art films are big business now and as a result you get directors like stone(IMO) who patronise the genre without really having the requisite depth of feeling to produce pieces of work worthy of the name. this in turn, unfortunately, leads me to question other peoples motives when delving in to this genre.

and luci, to be honest, i stand corrected on avant garde cinema. it was sort of a throw away line at the end of my post. although i havnt seen enough avant garde to form a thorough opinion, or maybe i have and just didnt know it.
i liked this though in reference to it
quote;

As such, you might call them cinematic or painterly "poems."

fellini.... 8 1/2 is a great film(the greatest about the actual making of movies ever?). the use of fantasy and reality elements is seemless.but didnt like much else of his work to be honest. again though i would like to see more.

[Loredoctor]

Pushes the boundaries? Visually and technically stimulating? Gives you something to think about? Well then, for me The Matrix qualifies as art many times over. It's an art film...with guns.

I completely agree with you here, MM.

[Marv]

The producers of art films seek a niche audience rather than mass appeal and usually present their work at specialty theatres and film festivals in large urban areas.

Often produced on small budgets, these films lack the lavish advertising campaigns of films in wide release

the matrix!??

[Worm of Despite]

Well, I definitely don't think the Matrix is an "art house" film, heh. I mean, if we're talking genre then the Matrix is more in line with Hollywood epics or marital arts bonanzas.

But it's still ART, by my estimation. Like a great painting, it's a combination of several formal qualities, such as color, perspective, space, subject, architecture, etc. In the Matrix it's not much different--just a technology difference (cameras, sound, acting).

Then again, one could argue that You Got Served is art. *shudders*

[Marv]

hmmm...i'm getting frustrated with myself here because i cant seem to get my argument across. or maybe im just being ignored .

art is art. it can be whatever you say it is.

art film, while in many respects liberated from normal constraints HAS TO HAS TO HAS TO adhere to certain principles. namely, the originators of the film cannot in anyway be motivated by money, they cannot target a large audience and it has to be art for arts sake. i'm not arrogant, just look up any definition of art cinema you wish and it will say just that.if they happen to make money out of it then thats as well as maybe but not the reason for the conception of the movie.

and i also think you have to be careful when saying something is pioneering. the matrix may have seemed contemporary to you but anyone who has seen the 'once upon a time in china' series or 'eight diagram pole fighter' to name a few will consider the cinematography and action sequences as merely above average.

btw im not pretentious...really im not!

[lucimay]

Tazz...i can't imagine the person who would call YOU pretentious!!! you're a totally "down-to-earth" guy.