Kevin's Watch

What makes an art film an art film?

What criteria do all you movie buffs hold that have to be fulfilled in order for something to be declared an art movie?

Curious...

--Avatar

intent. and actual conception. 13 Moons is art, but Killers is not. maybe because Stone is not an artist? there you go, artists make art films. hacks make films like Killers.

Where is the 'crap' option?

Interesting, no viable suggestions yet. I don't see how we can use the film-makers intent as a benchmark...we are not privy to his intent Sgt. And as for conception, well, maybe if you explained what you meant by it.

Now I suppose that I could add a "crap" option for LoreMaster, but it would scarcely asnwer our question. The quality of the film (or lack thereof I guess) is not an issue. If you think it's more like an action film than an art film, then vote that way. Or vice versa.

--A

well, I disagree with the srg. about Stone. I think he is at his best when he can make what he wants (instead of crap like Alexander). 'Killers' is 'artsy', but not art. There are few films I would call 'art' (by my own personal definition.
To name a couple off the top of my head:
- 'Koyannisqatsi'
- 'Dreams'

sorry but Stone is a hack of the first degree. and after watching JFK and Nixon I'm tempted to call him a propagandist.

well...Sarge, it doesn't matter what you call him...he's making films and you're not!!

i think Oliver should have been a documentary filmmaker but he can't control his tendancy toward melodrama so....ah well.


"art" film is a term that is not really valid anymore, in my opinion. we used to use it to connote films that were made "outside the studio system" which doesn't exist anymore. Films like 400 Blows or Fassbinder's Ali-Fear Eats the Soul...films that didn't adhere to "the studio code" (i.e. no prolonged kissing, no sexual inuendo, no bedroom shots, no graphic violence, etc). the code was imposed on the studios by themselves in an attempt to keep the government from diddling into their business and imposing LEGAL codes. tradionally, those films called "art films" were all films made OUTSIDE Hollywood.

now, of course, we have a new "studio system"...large conglomerates producing "blockbusters", papp for the masses, so to speak.
and "independant" as a term referring to films alMOST doesn't apply anymore either as that has very nearly become the new "mainstream".

then there's avante garde or "experimental" films...here's a link to a decent explanation of THAT as i don't feel like copying out a whole explanation...
www.miracosta.cc.ca.us/home/gfloren/F-avant.htm

avante garde is what i would say comes CLOSEST to being described as an "art" film.

and in defense of ALL filmmakers and directors, any of them would be happy to tell you how much "creativity" goes into the making of ANY film whatEVER label you want to put on it genre-wise. most directors, whether you agree with them or not, think of themselves as artists.

so...is Natural Born Killers "art"???? heh. subjective. if you say it is, it is. if you decide it isn't, it isn't.

Lucimay: the truly art films may be the guy who makes it with his own cash, equipment and cast? the ability to make films has become easier. but a lot of the amatuer stuff really isn't art either. maybe the only art films are those being shown at the nueseums? maybe art films are not for the masses.

I totally consider NBK a work of art, simply by the STUNNING mix of imagery and violence and audio. Shocking, moving, awesomely beautiful in the way it affected me. The knife whipping out, the finger hitting the boot, the total ensuing chaos.......Masterful! I was horrified!

sgtnull wrote:Lucimay: the truly art films may be the guy who makes it with his own cash, equipment and cast? the ability to make films has become easier. but a lot of the amatuer stuff really isn't art either. maybe the only art films are those being shown at the nueseums? maybe art films are not for the masses.

exactly, Sarge...which is NOT to say that "blockbuster" films can't be artfully done...many many many ARE. the recent trend in Graphic Novel and Comics adaptations are an excellent example of this...Sin City, Road to Perdition, etc. film is essentially an artistic endeavor. so, in essence, ALL film is "art" film. regarding "the guy who makes it with his own cash..." please please please see Primer!!! Shane Carruth made this film with $7000.00, after "studying" film on his own for a year. now whether you like the movie or not (as i know there are some who saw it who DIDN'T) it's an INCREDIBLE achievement, a TRULY independant film. that's what most avante garde experimentalists do. did you check the link i provided?

check this one next...you might like it!!

www.primermovie.com/index.html

and for anyone who reads this post who HAS seen it, they've added a forum (looks vaguely familiar ) for discussion of the film!!!! yea!!!

The Esmer wrote:I totally consider NBK a work of art, simply by the STUNNING mix of imagery and violence and audio. Shocking, moving, awesomely beautiful in the way it affected me. The knife whipping out, the finger hitting the boot, the total ensuing chaos.......Masterful! I was horrified!

also exactly my point. if YOU think it's art, it IS. if you DON'T, it ISN'T.

there were, i thought, some seriously artistic and creative choices made...they didn't save the movie for me but they WERE artistic choices nonetheless...

Ez, did you know the original script was written by Quentin Tarantino who pulled out of the project as he didn't like where Stone was taking it?

here's some more NBK trivia from imdb...
www.imdb.com/title/tt0110632/trivia

sarge said;

intent. and actual conception

this remindes me of many debates ive had about what defines punk music. is it a style or an attitude. i think the purest definition of an art house film is one that is not made with mass consumption as its primary aim but to tell a story that is unreliant on narrative to drive it. many art films have pioneered new technological advances in cinematography and technique. this ofcourse discounts things like neorealism(a genre by itself? sub-genre?) which could also come under the art film label. its certainly tricky pigeon holing films into certain catagories altough i would say that NBK doesnt qualify in my opinion. i agree with sarge that i dont think stone is capable of making an art film because he has to big an ego and is too pseudo-controversial.

Lucimay: saw Primer, loved it. it is stunning. i will buy it. (and i don't buy many) i need to study it and figure what the hell was going on. let's watch again one weeknd as a Watch and start discussing it.

Taz: agreed.

and as to NBK. Tarantino made the better film about violence. Resevoir Dogs.

Too tired to discuss such a complex and subjective matter, but Lucimay sums it up nicely for me:

Lucimay wrote: film is essentially an artistic endeavor. so, in essence, ALL film is "art" film.

if YOU think it's art, it IS. if you DON'T, it ISN'T.

Aah MatrixMan, was hoping for a lengthy weigh-in from you. *sigh*

Good posts folks...(actually forgot about this topic. )

Even mix in the votes I see, I suppose it's time to give my opinion, and my vote.

I was really just using that particular movie as an example, but the topic itself is based on (another) debate between the GF and I.

Now on the whole, I don't like Stone. The movies that he's made that I like...hell...I can't think of any. Except NBK. Like Esmer, I think it's awesome. One of my favourites of all time, and definitely something I class as an art film. (She disgarees of course. )

I'm not sure why I feel that way about it though. Perhaps it is as LuciMay said...It is because I think it is.

Maybe one of the things is "coherence." Although it has a nearly linear progression, on the whole, it doesn't depend on either coherence or lineararity (haha) to tell the story, or to have an impact.

The cineamatography is great, and the constant "sidelines" that are sometimes dominant, and sometimes almost subliminal contribute a great deal.

Now I'm by no means a movie expert...I doubt I watch 5 new movies a year...(in fact, I know I don't) but this has always been one of my favourites. (Better than RD Sgt. )

Yeah LuciMay, I knew that. I have a copy of the published screenplay as Tarantino wrote it. And I think that the big court scene that Stone cut should have been included. Would have fit well.

What "mainstream" film makes efforts like this:

When Jack Scagnetti goes into Mallory's cell, and throughout this scene, you can read two different paragraphs above the door in the cell, and below Mallory, on the bedside.

The one near the door reads: "Come let's away / to prison we two / alone will sing / like birds in a cage." This is from King Lear as he and Cordelia are being taken to prison.

It is a bit more difficult to read what's written on the bedside, but when Mallory puts away her cigarette you can see a glance of this reading, as well as when Mickey enters the room, the paragraph reads: "He is coming! He is coming! / Like a bridegroom from his room / Came the hero from his prison / To the scaffold and the doom." These lines are from the poem "The Execution Of Montrose" by William Edmondstoune Aytoun.

Great trivia though...thanks for the link. It only reinforces my opinion of Natural Born Killers as an Art film.

--A

interesting to me that stone didnt write this film. i think maybe that i'd heard that but cant remember. i know that directors use other peoples writing as viehcles to make their own points all the time-spike lee's 25th hour is vastly different from the book in terms of its key points for example. but you rarely find art films written entirely by one person and directed by another. if your trying to make a point about violence and the media etc then i would have thought writing the dialogue yourself would be appropriate.

theres just something about stone that makes me think hes a phony.

The only film of Stone's that I enjoyed even a little was Talk Radio. Otherwise, I think his films are dreck.

Luci's definition of art is about as good as it's going to get.

I'd nominate Wings of Desire (not the crappy remake) as an excellent art film.

Oh, and Medium Cool as well.

I voted for Art, but I'd also like to see Loremaster's option. Just because it's art doesn't mean it's not crap.

I liked the first 20 minutes of the movie, after that I felt like "Yeah, I got the point. Now stop beating me over the head with it."

And yeah, Primer was a great movie.

well, i see i'm not going to get any of you to stop calling them "art" films, am i???

Cail wrote:I'd nominate Wings of Desire (not the crappy remake) as an excellent art film.

great film!!! like a long filmed poem!! (altho i have to tell you...i really liked the remake too!)

When I think "art film" I think of something so uber-pretentious that it comes off as nothing more than a contrived attempt at artiness.

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.

Don't get me wrong, though: I don't view something as "lower" simply because it's not doing what an art film is trying to do. It's a matter of personal taste. I mean, not everyone wants caviar. Sometimes we just feel like nachos and cheese.

First point, I have no opinion on Natural born killers, and since I'm not a fan of Harrelson I probably never will. I'm not an expert about movies; however, I'm learning by listening to people who know more than I do now and reading about movies; BTW, Roz Kaveney excellent book From Alien to Matrix: reading science fiction films is a good place to start.

LF, made some excellent points about caviar vs. Nachos as an appropriate point of comparision. BTW, I think most would agree that Clockwork orange is an Art film; however a very successful art film .

Now it's possible were discussing a topic with definitions that are so ephemeral and transitory, that it all becomes problematic. 25 yrs. ago a film like Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind would have been regarded as an Art film. As would Sideways. Many documentaries made today would have been labeled as art films in years past, Roger and me an example.

In a previous post the topic of budget and casting was raised. Then would one consider Clerks as art movie. The budget was limited to what Scott Mosier and Kevin Smith could charge on the Visas and AmExs, and the cast was Kevin's friends.

I'm sure I had another point, but it's gone now. ttfn.