What exactly do you consider an "Artsy" or art film?

Karl Hungus

This is something that's been raising it's head in a few threads, this attitude that if you didn't like the latest Hollywood blockbuster, you must be into some "artsy" films that you don't even enjoy, you just watch artsy films to be a snob. There's this implication that these artsy films, whatever they are, have no entertainment factor and are just not enjoyable. But here's my question, what exactly are these films you're referring to? What do you consider artsy, and why do you think people are feigning enjoyment of such films?

To me, the term art film is neither here nor there. Often times it's used as a straw man, I remember reading some imdb user review of one action film or another that said (paraphrasing) "if you're the type of person who thinks the height of cinema perfection is an hour long shot of curtains blowing in the wind, this isn't for you", which honestly, I don't think that type of person exists, nor does that kind of film (though Sam Mendez did get close to that kind of twaddle once). And on the other hand cinema itself as art form, so in that sense the term 'Art Film' is a bit of a double negative, and one could certainly look at Avatar as visual artistry.

Wikipedia has this to say on the subject of Art Films:

Film critics and film studies scholars typically define an “art film” using a “...canon of films and those formal qualities that mark them as different from mainstream Hollywood films.

So, art film could really be anything that isn't mainstream, and that kind of seems in sync with the ethos of some of the posters here on boards who are defending the blockbusters and decrying those who criticize as pertaining to like artsy films; that there's just mainstream/art films. Is that what you mean by art films? Anything that isn't a mainstream Hollywood film, or do you have a different definition?

Then there's this idea that these art films aren't enjoyable or entertaining. Do you really think that people just pretend they like non-mainstream films? That a person's entire taste is just pretentiousness, and they're not really enjoying any of these films they say they like? I find that ridiculous. Do you think something that isn't a blockbuster cannot be entertaining? Because that's kind of the vibe I'm getting from some comments here lately.

Now, going by the definition of art film = non-mainstream, I'd say that my overall tastes would lean more to art films than Hollywood productions. I'd also say that I greatly enjoy what I watch, moreso than the average blockbuster. For example, The Fall is something I loved. It's an independent production from Indian director Tarsem Singh, and I'd say this is very arty indeed:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iO0LYcCoeJY

Transformers 2 on the other hand, I absolutely didn't enjoy at all, I simply wasn't entertained. So I don't get this idea that mainstream productions are automatically entertaining, they're often pretty far from enjoyable.

There's also this attitude that if you like art films, then you hate mainstream ones. Balderdash to that. Why the divisiveness? Why can't people like both art and mainstream films? Jason Statham films were mentioned as the kind of thing that arty types don't like, well you know what? I ****ing loved Crank. I loved the Transporter films. I think action films haven't been better in years. 300 was brilliant. Taken was one of the films of the decade for me.

Critically acclaimed films can be very entertaining, and most of the time more entertaining than your average Michael Bay film. You don't need to switch your brain off to be entertained. I'll say to everyone who hasn't seen it yet, watch The Hurt Locker:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GxSDZc8etg

That there is an independent film 10 times more thrilling and exciting than Transformers.

humanji

Well, this response kind of comes across as insulting considering the detail you went into, but I consider and art film to be a film which is called an art film by it's creator. Anyone elses opinion is simply just their opinion.

On a broader scope, I'd say I'd lump any film without narrative/story as an art film. I can't think of any films I've seen without an narrative that I'd not say are art films. Though I know of some films with narrative that would be considered art films. So, again, it all comes down to the purpose for which it was made.

I think you're wrong to say it's ridiculous that someone couldn't have a pretentious taste in films though because it happens all the time in various different areas. There's loads of people who follow trends because they think they should and this is no different. But that's not to say that anyone who likes art films is pretentious, just that there are some people who claim to love art films because they think it gives them status.

With regards the cries of snobbery, it's just another form of snobbery in itself. It's a claim that you can't enjoy one type of film AND another type. It doesn't matter what types they are as it makes little sense, since it's all relative to personal taste.

Basically, some people are arseholse.

Kess73

I must say that I disagree about the Fall, but I can see how it could be termed as an Artsy type film.

I really enjoyed it, and whilst the visuals were lavish at times and some inventive camera work was used, it still managed to tell a tale on a few levels without resorting to visuals for the sake of it.The visuals caused a suspension of belief rather than distracted from the story, which for me is when a film stops being an artsy film.

In many ways it reminded me of The Fountain. Which is another film that I have heard being called arty.


I think something like the Russian Ark would fall under my definition of being Artsy before the Fall would. Mainly because it's technical and visual prowess overshadow any story it is trying to tell.

The comment about the lack of a narrative being used a broad telltale sign of whether a film is arty or not is quite a valid one methinks. I am not so sure about the comment about a director calling his film an art film being enough though. Otherwise Michael Bay may get in on the act.

Ultimately it will boil down to personal taste and opinion though, as what one person sees as art another may see as overblown pap.

Karl Hungus

humanji wrote: »

On a broader scope, I'd say I'd lump any film without narrative/story as an art film.

So you'd say Michael Bay's films are art films? "Story? Who needs a story? Explosions! CGI! Leery shots of Megan Fox! That's all a film needs!" :pac:

humanji wrote: »

I think you're wrong to say it's ridiculous that someone couldn't have a pretentious taste in films though because it happens all the time in various different areas. There's loads of people who follow trends because they think they should and this is no different. But that's not to say that anyone who likes art films is pretentious, just that there are some people who claim to love art films because they think it gives them status.

I didn't mean to suggest nobody couldn't have pretentious tastes, it's in reference to people saying that everyone who likes art films are just just posturing and saying they like them. I'm not saying there can't be an element of that, but I doubt it's everyone, and I highly doubt there's anyone who's entire taste is a facade as is often suggested. "You just watch those films to be different." and so on. I think that you just can't presume to know why a person likes something.

mike65

Subtitles

It not somthing that concerns me. Blade Runner is artful in its composistion, colouring and physical design, but is it an "Art" film? It was intended as a commercial blockbuster for summer of 1982 but it flopped was taken in by the sympathetic and became a "cult" movie which is another term of dubious value.

Its all semantics, of no import.

Running Bing

Karl Hungus wrote: »

So you'd say Michael Bay's films are art films? "Story? Who needs a story? Explosions! CGI! Leery shots of Megan Fox! That's all a film needs!" :pac:
QUOTE]

Still visually Bay is trying to do something visually.....he is looking for some emotional response from the observer. It might be ****e art but its probably still art.

For me an art film is seriously avant garde stuff....like a 10 minute close up of a half eaten apple and then a women lighting a ciggerette and dying all shot in moody black and white photography on a cheap camera.

I hate when I hear stuff like Bergman/Kurosawa or even the likes of Kubrick etc. described as "arsty fartsy".....watch the films with an open mind ffs, there's a lot to interest the average viewer there.

Fysh

I don't think it's a distinction that can be easily explained, as some people seem to view film mostly as easy entertainment that shouldn't require any effort in order to be understood while others enjoy and indeed demand more effort be put into the filmmaking process such that they can get more out of the film.

Narrative is probably the key differentiator - "artsy" films tend to try and do something interesting in terms of presenting the narrative such that it appears new or different. I'm thinking along the lines of Memento or Brick here - films where the story itself isn't particularly original but the presentation of it is done with flair and style so that it's engaging. The Fall is in similar territory.

Of course, at the other end of the spectrum you've got the Lynchian stuff where there's no particularly obvious narrative a lot of the time and it's all down to interpretation. But it's not "bad", it's just different. If art is about eliciting a response then good and bad are really just measures of how effectively a given film does that.

Handsome Bob

Regardless of the definition, I just think people get pissed off when they are "ticked" off by another poster for having a perfectly valid opinion. If someone says to me that they thought Danny Boyle, Clint Eastwood or Christopher Nolan were the best directors of the decade, I would say fair enough. Why? Because over the last decade they've provided various films, all of them being of a high quality.

It's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but someone inevitably comes along and says something along the lines of "Where's this director in your list, where's that director." Often they are directors that I, and many others, have never heard of. I have no problem admitting that, I'm not into films enough where I'm willing to sit down and watch every critically acclaimed independent or foreign film or whatever.

But I, and many others too, do know quality when we see it. I mean it's not as if one is declaring Michael Bay or some other hack is one of the top directors of the decade.

johnny_ultimate

I don't know if films are that easy to define. A good film is a good film, whether its central aim is to entertain or probe the human psyche. I'd agree with Fysh in the sense that the 'artiest' films tend to be those that eschew traditional narrative in order to provide a different kind of cinematic experience. David Lynch is a good example (although a lot of his films do follow traditional story structures, or at least cleverly subvert them). I couldn't tell you exactly what Inland Empire was about, but as an experience in audio and visual it was astonishing. There are some films (Bergman's Persona) which again aren't easy to summarise, and yet are very affective even though you're not always sure why. Just because you can't describe what you liked about it in traditional terms doesn't mean its bad, and in fact often quite the opposite! And there are plenty of directors (Lars Von Trier in Antichrist, Michael Haneke in Funny Games) who clearly are trying to make a very specific statement - I think these are the films are the ones that rub people the wrong way, but are difficult to judge on traditional terms as well. The rewind segment drags you out of Funny Games, but at the same time that is a clear thematic decision on Haneke's part.

At the most extreme end of the spectrum, I wouldn't consider the Quatsi trilogy a 'movie' in the traditional sense at all! The audio and visuals tell the story here, without a word of dialogue.

But all films are art to some degree. Even Transformers 2, for all its idiocy, racism and sexism, has some moments where Michael Bay clearly has a considerable knowledge of the effectiveness of audio and video. An awful film altogether for sure, but more so what Bay does with his talents (and yes, to some degree he has talent, even if it is only knowing how to frame an explosion - although he does make **** shake around too much these days to even notice).

I think at the end of the day the films I enjoy more are the ones that truly speak to the audience (whether or not you know what you're being told is another issue :pac:). Film can help us examine ourselves, celebrate imagination or simply keep us on the edge of our seats. If I'm considered a snob because I like Trauffaut, Bergman and Lynch as much as I like Raimi, Nolan or Lasseter, fair enough. I'm just happy to experience all cinema has to offer.

krudler

For me an art film is seriously avant garde stuff....like a 10 minute close up of a half eaten apple and then a women lighting a ciggerette and dying all shot in moody black and white photography on a cheap camera.

Pretentious arse then, cant stand all that shyte, a film with no plot, characters or purpose is like a book with no words,pointless.

TheIrishGrover

Any Dogme 95 films.

Dogville. I certainly wouldn't class "subtitled" films as being arty myself as almost 1/4 of my collection is. I know it's probably a bit shallow but I want to be entertained and/or informed when I watch a film. I mean, don't get me wrong, I really enjoy a good intelligent, articulate movie as well as the odd summer blockbuster (I do tend to avoid Micheal Bay flicks).

But something that really is just a chore to watch purely because the director intended it to be so I would consider to be a bit above me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDH1n5cR1XM

I see people mentioned Bladerunner and Bay's technical achievements. I think there's a difference between artful and arty. Titanic, to me, was probably Cameron's worst film. It was a masterpiece of technical film making but terrible as a film (I think the only scenes I liked in the film was when the little girl is watching the distress flares and the pan back from Winslett in the water)

ziedth

LZ5by5 wrote: »

Regardless of the definition, I just think people get pissed off when they are "ticked" off by another poster for having a perfectly valid opinion. If someone says to me that they thought Danny Boyle, Clint Eastwood or Christopher Nolan were the best directors of the decade, I would say fair enough. Why? Because over the last decade they've provided various films, all of them being of a high quality.

It's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but someone inevitably comes along and says something along the lines of "Where's this director in your list, where's that director." Often they are directors that I, and many others, have never heard of. I have no problem admitting that, I'm not into films enough where I'm willing to sit down and watch every critically acclaimed independent or foreign film or whatever.

But I, and many others too, do know quality when we see it. I mean it's not as if one is declaring Michael Bay or some other hack is one of the top directors of the decade.

This is pretty much word for word what I had in mind to write when I read the OP.

I brought it up in another thread that I dont like what I consider to be arty films. While I do believe there is a certain snobbery on both sides of the argument I wouldn't accuse anyone on this board of saying they like a director or film because it makes them look cool, although in real life I would think otherwise.

Basically, you either enjoy mainstream, arty or both. There is no right or wrong answer arty just is not for me at the end of the day I just want to be entertained for 2 hours.

Bodhidharma

Anything with acting 'genius' Vincent Gallo in it.

Black Lead

"Artsy" is something I tend to hear from the casual weekend cinema/xtravision goer to describe foreign/subtitled films, new films that are made in black and white and films that don't have an traditional ending like hero saves the day gets the girl and romances were couples go off happy ever after.

ziedth

Black Lead wrote: »

"Artsy" is something I tend to hear from the casual weekend cinema/xtravision goer to describe foreign/subtitled films, new films that are made in black and white and films that don't have an traditional ending like hero saves the day gets the girl and romances were couples go off happy ever after.

Jesus, thats a touch condescending. Schindler's list and Battle Royale are two of the better DVDs in my collection and I don't like "Artsy" films.

Raging Bob

Woah, that's a bit broad. All artsy films?

S.M.B.

It's a similar story with the use of the word Indie to describe a film.

Both terms can be used to help classify a film but and the end of the day, pigeonholing films like this is a load of old bollox.

Karl Hungus

Kess73 wrote: »

I must say that I disagree about the Fall, but I can see how it could be termed as an Artsy type film.

I really enjoyed it, and whilst the visuals were lavish at times and some inventive camera work was used, it still managed to tell a tale on a few levels without resorting to visuals for the sake of it.The visuals caused a suspension of belief rather than distracted from the story, which for me is when a film stops being an artsy film.

In many ways it reminded me of The Fountain. Which is another film that I have heard being called arty.

Well, I'd consider The Fall extremely artistically minded, that little camera obscura bit at start was just beautiful, and it seems to me like it really was celebrating cinema as an art. That's not to say that those elements took priority over the story at all, but it's a film that to me, is pure artistry, both as a weaving of intertwining stories, and as a visual homage to the art of film itself.

Kess73 wrote: »

I think something like the Russian Ark would fall under my definition of being Artsy before the Fall would. Mainly because it's technical and visual prowess overshadow any story it is trying to tell.

You see, that's very interesting. I've not seen Russain Ark so I can't comment about it, but on the definition of technical and visual prowess overshadowing the story, that's something that can equally be said about Avatar or the like. Now, TheIrishGrover mentions Dogme 95 (have a read about Dogme 95 here, it's very interesting stuff), which I think is a fairly good example of art films. If we take Thomas Vinterberg's Festen as an example, that is a film that is purely about the story and is just about the exact opposite of style over substance.

Running Bing wrote: »

For me an art film is seriously avant garde stuff....like a 10 minute close up of a half eaten apple and then a women lighting a ciggerette and dying all shot in moody black and white photography on a cheap camera.

But now, that's what I'm on about. Does the 10 minute close up of a half eaten apple actually exist, or is it a hugely exaggerated pastiche of what detractors say that film 'snobs' like? Because to me, that 10 minute close up is a strawman, as in someone might say "Oh, you don't like Studio Action Franchise 4? Yeah, you probably like some arty nonsense like a film about paint drying..."

Running Bing wrote: »

I hate when I hear stuff like Bergman/Kurosawa or even the likes of Kubrick etc. described as "arsty fartsy".....watch the films with an open mind ffs, there's a lot to interest the average viewer there.

Kurosawa can be very artsy indeed though, just look at Dreams. I don't deny he's got a lot for your average cinema-goer to deny, after all he did greatly influence Sergio Leone, George Lucas (there wouldn't be Star Wars without Akira Kurosawa!), Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorcese among many others. But, take a look at Rashomon for example, that's something that introduced a very different narrative structure to film and told its story in a way a lot of people had never seen before. I would probably consider Kurosawa a very artistic filmmaker, and he's an example of how artistic films can be as absolutely thrilling and entertaining as anything else.

Similarly to Rashomon, Fysh mentioned Memento, a film that takes a very different approach to the narrative, and it's true, what makes it great is the way the story is structured. It just wouldn't work with a typical chronological order.

Here's another film I would probably consider an art film, the Oscar nominated Waltz With Bashir:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylzO9vbEpPg

It is to my mind one of the best War films of all time. It's fairly distinct visually, but the story is about a man who tries to rediscover his memories of the Lebanon war, and a lot of the time it's detailing fractured memory which can come across as quite surreal. It's a film I found deeply moving, and the surreal aspect really added to the feeling of confusion that filmmaker Ari Folman must have felt, and that's something I think is extremely special, that it conveys feelings with such power.

It ain't no 10 minute shot of an apple, but it's something I'd consider an art film.

Joycey

Fysh wrote: »

Of course, at the other end of the spectrum you've got the Lynchian stuff where there's no particularly obvious narrative a lot of the time and it's all down to interpretation. But it's not "bad", it's just different. If art is about eliciting a response then good and bad are really just measures of how effectively a given film does that.

Also, Lynch is operating from within Hollywood, isnt he? Actually, I think he isnt now that I think about it. Dune was the only film hes made where he didnt have final cut and its one of the worst films ive ever sat through.

I think the terms "art film" comes from "art house", where it would be as a result of the type of cinema it would be shown in on release.

TBH, I tend to just draw the line with Hollywood/everything else, with the understanding that there are some good Hollywood films and there are many, many, many sh1t films not made in Hollywood. Because im not sure what my definition of art is I dont actually believe that Hollywood films are not art (though at the very least I would say that the majority are absolute rubbish art if they merit that word).

Another way of looking at it would be to see if there is an "autuer" (sp?) behind it. Someone like Godard, Tarkovsky, Bergman, basically any film that I can think of that ive watched recently expecting something more than simple entertainment had a director who's name I knew and respected.

If we are dividing all films/people who watch films into categories, what do you make of films made for a mainstream hollywood audience, but just not now. There are so many really quality films released by Hollywood up to the last 20 years or so, that people will actually call "old" if they were made pre-eighties :rolleyes:, and not watch them. I dunno, i think il just stick with my own idea of whats good or not, regardless of whether anyone else see's fit to label it art or boring or not

Joycey

Karl Hungus wrote: »

You see, that's very interesting. I've not seen Russain Ark so I can't comment about it, but on the definition of technical and visual prowess overshadowing the story, that's something that can equally be said about Avatar or the like.

(without having seen avatar) But thats just throwing money at the problem isnt it? I mean, any group of undergraduate illustration/special effects people can make things look good given enough money/equipment/time, so obviously seasoned professionals will be able to do the same.

I havent see Russian Ark either, and I understand that its a heavily experimental work, attempting to establish new boundaries for what is possible cinematically, or at least exploring pre-existing ones. That would explain a lack of storyline, if thats the right word (I thought it was like a documentary, no?).

If you take something like the 8 minute shot where they burn the house down in Tarkovsky's sacrifice, where there was so much movement of characters which the cinematographer (Bergmans old one) had to follow, as well as trying to keep as many elements (fire, water, earth) in the frame at all times, and all the action had to be done before the house burned down fully. Unbelievable.

Or Bela Tarr's The Werckmeister Harmonies, there are some pieces of unbelievable cinematography that are simply the result of a genius at work. To shoot that film, Bela Tarr went to live in this town in Hungary in the middle of nowhere for a year and a half, he went out taking pictures every day and worked out completely how he would shoot the film, with one of the most amazing films ive ever seen as a result. For sure, the cinematography isnt anything like all thats going on there, there's an unbelievable something going on there (allegory? for what? storyline probably doesnt really get it across), but the film also looks beautiful.

I dont think either of the above, or Sokurov for that matter, really gives a sh1t if anyone thinks their films are art or not.

Now, TheIrishGrover mentions Dogme 95 (have a read about Dogme 95 here, it's very interesting stuff), which I think is a fairly good example of art films

My problem with their stuff is that Von Trier has managed to get himself popular at the moment, and hence people look at this stuff, which is average at best for the most part, and label him "art" and forget about anything else that anyone calls "art" afterwards.

Kurosawa can be very artsy indeed though, just look at Dreams.

I thought dreams was self-indulgent crap . Hes made some other great ones though. Just because its obscure doesnt mean its "artsy", I dunno.

Memento[/url], a film that takes a very different approach to the narrative, and it's true, what makes it great is the way the story is structured. It just wouldn't work with a typical chronological order.

But its still a mainstream hollywood film, hence wouldnt have been shown in an "art house" at any point. Im not sure it did anything all that formally daring either TBH. Havent seen it in a while, but Im sure it has some precursor in cinema.

Yeah basically I think im arguing for people to stop using the words "art cinema" at all. If you want to identify something as mainstream hollywood thats fair enough, because there is a clearly defined point of reference to which we can compare it to. But calling random things "art films" but not others establishes a kind of a boundary that you have people saying "I dont like art films", or "I only like art films", when really the dividing line is completely arbitrary. Just say what the film is, who its by and why you like it

Sleazus

Fysh wrote: »

I don't think it's a distinction that can be easily explained, as some people seem to view film mostly as easy entertainment that shouldn't require any effort in order to be understood while others enjoy and indeed demand more effort be put into the filmmaking process such that they can get more out of the film.

I think I'd disagree with that suggestion that mainstream cinema goers view film as "easy entertainment" that shouldn't require independent thought. I know you said some viewers, and I'm not directly responding to you, but I just find it fascinating at the unspoken assertion that cinema viewers actually want the same old mainstream crap that's thrown at them again and again.

Successes this year like The Hurt Locker and Paranormal Activity show that audiences are willing to go outside what most would consider their comfort zone if the film is right and I think several of the indie or artsy directors mentioned have managed to transition to the mainstream through that "lightning in a bottle" logic - Nolan and Boyle in particular, arguably Cronenberg as well, are now 'big' film directors having previously been autuers.

In short, I don't think that there's really too much of an actual "artsy vs. mainstream" backlash. I think that the reason that we assume there have been are twofold:

• the rise of the fanboy, who feels the need to defend badly-produced garbage like Transformers 2 or GI Joe - they can't trash films that huge audiences have loved (they'd be lynched if they protested it were superior than "the stupid Dark Knight" or "the trashy Iron Man nonsense") so they create a strawman; and the best kind of strawman is the one that you get to define yourself, so Transformers 2 is obviously better than most of the films you haven't seen and you guess the majority of people haven't seen; I think that's one reason for the mythical "artsy" genre;
• the fact that the studios are businesses means that they won't take risks; it's logical and it's efficient - from a shareholder's perspective - so you force the same mindnumbing crap on the audience week after week and blitz them with publicity and advertising; nothing can compete with the mainstream (that's why it's the mainstream), so you need to create a strawman competitor to both undermine your critics and also solidify your productions as the superior (or "more common touch") of the two;

I don't think I've ever heard "artsy" used in a complementary tone - it's almost always (in at least some manner) a criticism. If an artsy film were successful, it would be a "cult" film.

As for me, I'd consider an "artsy" film to be a film I haven't even seen a poster for or use it as a derogatory remark to refer to a director who is being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse. Von Trier step forward. And Uwe Boll would arguably make the cut. (I am kidding, but barely).

Seriously, I don't think anyone who actually cares about film actually uses the remark, save in a self-aware manner with a wry grin on their face. Like if I were to describe Watchmen as the biggest artsy film ever made.

Agricola

One film that springs to mind for me is The New World which Colin Farrell was in. It wasnt an arthouse film at all but its unfocused plot and incredibly slow pace made me feel like it was. I seem to remember alot of shots of actors standing in fields looking wistfully into the middle distance, and lots of scenes with no dialogue.

Thats kind of where id see a departure from the mainstream. Where theres no discernible plotline threaded through the film, possibly also where theres no satisfying climax. And obviously where the film seems to be more about the aesthetics than the story.

givyjoe81

Superman !V: The Quest for Peace...

Fysh

Sleazus wrote: »

I think I'd disagree with that suggestion that mainstream cinema goers view film as "easy entertainment" that shouldn't require independent thought. I know you said some viewers, and I'm not directly responding to you, but I just find it fascinating at the unspoken assertion that cinema viewers actually want the same old mainstream crap that's thrown at them again and again.

It's by no means a case of "all viewers want x", but I would argue that there is a significant chunk of the film-viewing audience who aren't specifically looking for challenging films. I don't mean that as any kind of a criticism either - it's perfectly possible to put a lot of craftmanship and skill into films that are intended as relatively disposable entertainment (I'd suggest Crank & Crank 2 as excellent examples of this).

In the same way that the audience for X Factor is clearly different to the audience for Lyric FM (or the audience for lengthy guitar-based instrumental pieces, or industrial noise, or ambient electronic music or whatever), I think there definitely is an audience for film-as-entertainment that's separate from the audience for film-as-challenging-art (though there's an overlap between the two). Neither interpretation has any innate superiority over the other; it's just down to what a given individual wants and enjoys.

johnny_ultimate

While I'd agree with Joycey that technical experimentation could be a reason to call something more "artistic" (totally agree on that wonderful shot in the Sacrafice, or the extended traffic jam in Godard's Weekend is another beautiful piece of cinematography) I'd still say that many directors can be experimental within the far tighter constraints of a studio film. I absolutely adore the introduction to the Serenity crew, where Joss Whedon uses a lengthy tracking shot of Mal as he walks through the ship (I'm pretty sure he cuts at some point, but it is pretty seamless). It may not be as complex a take as the one in Russian Ark (have a copy of the DVD here I'll have to watch through soon!) but it uses the technique wonderfully, and is used to advance the narrative.

Same with Avatar. Technically it is almost flawless, and tells the story through these effects (that said, it is the story I'd take issue with). Hitchcock too was a master of cinematography, and a lot of his stuff were extremely pulpy (but hugely entertaining) genre pieces. These are the kind of examples where you run into serious problems defining films as either entertainment or art - there are huge amounts that are both. Just because you put your energy into creating a sci-fi action movie rather than something that is perceived to be more complex / difficult doesn't mean that a director is less talented.

Duggy747

Hmm, a lot of people do tend to have a confused view of what constitutes as an "arty" film. A film that isn't on general release in cinema, doesn't have a common narrative or uses a different approach towards cinematography / plot doesn't automatically make it so. Being a foreign film doesn't mean so, either.

Unfortunately many people find any film with subtitles to be instantly arty, I can understand that as there are many, many foreign films that deviate from the usual path of story-telling. They're a different pace of film from, say, what they would seee in cinema or a generally recognisable actor /actress that appears in them. I find this a horrible shame as there are some fantastic European films out there that take different approaches to story-telling without being pretentious or trying to shove a message down your throat.

A recent example for me was when I had just started to watch Mesrine: Part 1, my housemates came back and said "What are doing watching this arty
shìte for?" I explained to them who the film was based on, they watched it, and at the end they told me to slap on Part 2 straight away. Afterwards they found the films to be better than Johnny Depp's Public Enemies Unfortunately the other tasteless housemates wouldn't watch Letters from Iwo Jima cuz of the subtitles and instead flipped the channel over to White Chicks :eek: where they laughed their asses off.

As one poster above said, if the director said (or phrases it differently to get more people interested ) that his film is arty then that would be a basis for me to class it until I actually watch it and make up my mind.

What I do class as "arty" are usually the films that try too hard to stay out of the norm of filmmaking. Films that use the instantly recognisabe visual techniques that bear no relevance to the actual plot or subject of the movie. Experimenting with camera techniques is a big yes for me as there are some truly wonderful shots done with clever editing, without CGI and bring a nice twist to the usual shots we're accustomed to. But again this "experimenting" is usually poisoned thanks to others who film bizzare angles / objects just for the sake of being "different"

A good example of this technique that WORKS and adds to the film is Pi as we learn this is how the protaginist sees because he ruined his eyesight from staring at the sun as a child. Now, I wouldn't call this film arty as it's objectives are multi-layered and starts at point A, has a wander through E, D, F ,G and then finishes back at point B. A beginning and ending where something has being resolved / learned / added, etc.

But those other films that trail on the tail-coats of other, more successful ones go for the (What I consider to be lazy / misunderstanding of cinematography) bizzare techniques, truly plot-less narratives and subjects they take on; long silences, extremely prolonged close-ups of the face / objects, the usual band-wagon anti-corporation / anti-war banter, unneccesary and sometimes frantic editing, pretentious idealogies that points the fingers at us for being us, unrealistic romances (did someone say Avatar? :P) etc.

Arty films, like any other genre films, are considered to be what they are when they want be portrayed as such. You simply can't point your finger at a film and call it arty without taking in the more layered factors.

Hmm, this is a debate that's gonna go on for a while, sign me up :pac:

Joycey

Duggy747 wrote: »

A good example of this technique that WORKS and adds to the film is Pi as we learn this is how the protaginist sees because he ruined his eyesight from staring at the sun as a child. Now, I wouldn't call this film arty as it's objectives are multi-layered and starts at point A, has a wander through E, D, F ,G and then finishes back at point B. A beginning and ending where something has being resolved / learned / added, etc.

Without, once again, having seen the film im about to talk about, from your description it sounds like Pi is simply adopting conventions of cinema which had not yet made it into Hollywood mainstream and thereby expanding the range of Hollywood films yet not actually experimenting formally itself.

Giving the viewer a subjective viewpoint from which to see the action is something that was done in literature by modernist novellists at the beginning of or just before the twentieth century, and was employed in lots of non-Hollywood film from (probably way before) the 60's onwards. Think of Fellini's 81/2, where we see dream sequences and stuff, that is the kind of semi-experimental stuff that was a precursor to films like Pi which then adapted the techniques developed elsewhere and brought them to a larger (english speaking) audience.

Simply pointing out that Pi isnt empty formal experimentation does not make it not "arty" in a derrogatory sense either, because films like 81/2 are far more than empty formalism, yet at the time viewers may have found them challanging, boring, or overly "arty" (maybe not 81/2 itself, cant think of something less accessible which did the same thing ATM).

Duggy747

Yea, Pi isn't the best example I can give (I've been up since 5am so my brain is beginning to chug :pac:) as it's cinematography and method of story-telling / subject isn't exactly unique but different.

It's usually the subject more-so than the visuals I take more into account in film that strays from the normal path. I don't really call anything arty as it's a fairly broad generalisation.