What do you think "art films" are?

[999roses]

I wanted to have this conversation in another thread or through PM, but anyway, it makes more sense to have it here to get more participation and more views. So what really defines an "art film"? What differentiates it from mainstream? Is there a difference b/w Western art films vs. Asian ones?

--

Anyhow, here's what I wrote about the topic before:

Is No Country for Old Men even considered hardcore arthouse? I think there's a difference between critically acclaimed films (cf Hollywood fluff) and actual arthouse genre. Of course, definitions are always arbitrary.

I do in fact watch mostly Asian films, BUT I do appreciate Western arthouse, i.e. Amelie (kinda mainstream, but I think it's still considered arthouse given its quacky nature). Stuff like Gladiator, Babel, Crash are all great films, but I do not consider either of them as arthouse.

Another example, I watched City of Gods. I certainly do NOT consider that arthouse at all, although it's a critically acclaimed film.

People have said that WKW is overhyped and pretentious. I find this interesting---
WKW actually is QUITE acclaimed in the West and gets tons of love from Cannes and the like all the time. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but I certainly don't think he's pretentious =P I've watched a lot of interviews w/ him, and he emphasizes again and again that he doesn't go for a certain style but just what he wants to film. Kim Di Duk on the other hand, makes me feel that he sometimes overdoes the symbolism.

PJJJJJJJJ....comment! =P

[shen diao xia]

The ones that gives you a headache (the beginning of "irreversible" with the handheld camera moving all the time) and the ones where you have to draw your own conclusion

[PJ]

To me:

Art house = High art = Movies for the Intellectual/Thinking class.

I'd say an art film generally embodies a few of the following qualities:

-Explores mature or sensitive content
-Puts you out of your comfort zone
-Does not go by-the-book
-Does not shove ideas down your throat
-Is ambiguous
-Is minimalist
-Raises questions but does not provide definitive answers
-Invites the viewer to think and interpret
-Contains subtleties only discovered with multiple viewings

As a side note, if a movie wins an Oscar, and it's not for Best Foreign film, chances are it's NOT an art film.

[PJ]

As another side note, a significant chunk (as in like: 70% [just a random guess]) of the movies coming out of Europe, Taiwan, China and Singapore seem to fall into the Art-house category. The Taiwanese and European industries in particular have been well-noted to have been "held back" by the lack of a diverse production base. Indeed, when the excellent Taiwanese comedy "Better Than Sex" came out, it was said the director was tired of his countrymen incapable of delivering entertainment via film. So he sought to create something funny and memorable, which still fits the Art-house bill.

[999roses]

Thanks for replying =D I liked both of your ideas =)

I think I get confused too, but a lot of people as well. Many people equate "non-fluff" with "art films" while blockbusters are labeled as mainstream. I do not think this delineation is correct.

I'm studying for an exam, and I really shouldn't be procrastinating, but I'll write some of the attributes I give to a good "art film".

I've been kind of inspired lately to look into more Western art films. I'm pretty cheap and all my artsy films have been from crunchyroll free viewing. I need to go and like borrow more films.

I'm still a bit confused about the delineation now that I think about it. What about films like "The Red Violin"? I mean, TONS of films have "open endings" that make you draw a conclusion, etc. But is it considered "high art"?

I'm LARGELY LARGELY influenced by Wong Kar Wai, HHH, etc. so I guess I am quite biased. But I think high art at least to me, needs that "feel" or else I just feel it's a critically acclaimed and awesome film, but not quite "art film".

To illustrate my point further, I watched "Lust Caution" and I don't even feel that it's an "art film". In fact, I don't really equate Lee Ang with art films....I LOVED stuff like "Eat Drink Man Woman" (probably wrong order for the name), but somehow...it doesn't feel like "art film" to me. It feels more like...a very realistic portrayal of contemporary life in Taiwan.

So yea, I really need to broaden my horizons in terms of art films to get a more comprehensive view of the field. Damn I really wish I minored in film....but it's too late...too late. And my dream to be a film director is forever ruined *cries myself a river*

[PJ]

Ang Lee can be considered an art director, but he's bordering the mainstream. I mean, this IS the guy who did the Incredible Hulk

Not all "non-Mainstream" films are "Art" films. There are independent films which are obviously not art-house, such as the 70s kung fu films, the Blaxpoitation films, the Italian horror genre, etc.

I really respect people like Johnnie To who switch back and forth smoothly between commerce and art. Johnnie To is one of the biggest cash rackers in HK cinema, and he admitted that he only makes those Mainstream movies (which are often formulaic and lame) in order to finance his personal projects, his triad gangster films.

[sabby123]

I think Art movies is a sequence of images ,drawings, collage, photos, mixed techniques, etc projected onto a screen with sufficient rapidity, ...

[999roses]

I have a new one, actually this idea is Wu Wudi's. But I think art films to me focus more on themes rather than plot.

Do you really think art films have to contain sensitive/mature topics? Amelie is filled w/ fun topics...sure, some of it is "mature", but not in the WKW sense.

Another factor--art films should make you question reality, life, and the world you live in. If you're left with questions, that's GOOD.

And another thing, I do have an issue with art films that have endings that DO NOT MAKE SENSE. Like Kim Di Duk--I like a lot of his films, but some of them simply are utterly illogical. That gives me a feeling he's trying too hard to be "deep". Like, you have to delinate the clear line b/w reality vs. fiction sometimes. If you're writing about Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, sure having a "magical" ending is fine. But if you're talking about normal people, living normal lives, then suddenly you get some screwed up ending...it doesn't make sense at all.

[expression]

Ahem, "Art" films = Art-Rendered-Trash films. And you get some trophies to add to the trash. Very tragic indeed.

[999roses]

Lol you broke one of the most important rules of acronymns...you can't use the actual word in it.....

[PJ]

Do you really think art films have to contain sensitive/mature topics? Amelie is filled w/ fun topics...sure, some of it is "mature", but not in the WKW sense.

No, it doesn't have to be sensitive/mature. But those would be considered more low-grade high art.

And another thing, I do have an issue with art films that have endings that DO NOT MAKE SENSE. Like Kim Di Duk--I like a lot of his films, but some of them simply are utterly illogical. That gives me a feeling he's trying too hard to be "deep". Like, you have to delinate the clear line b/w reality vs. fiction sometimes. If you're writing about Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, sure having a "magical" ending is fine. But if you're talking about normal people, living normal lives, then suddenly you get some screwed up ending...it doesn't make sense at all.

To be honest, after watching a lot of Art films, I've learned to write off anything that doesn't make sense as "artistic" or better yet -- "life doesn't make sense; if art is to imitate life, then why should art make sense"

[999roses]

Half the time, high art is very fulfilling/satisfying to watch---someone who can SPEAK about all this uncertainty/ambiguity in our lives!

The other half of the time, it just plain out depresses me about life and destroys hope.

I have a strong love-hate relationship with high art.

[Lieselle]

Art house...ambiguity --> many different interpretations --> layer upon layer --> filming/directing features are almost always based on simplicity and the natural --> tends to critique the complex nature of ironically, simple/basic themes.

You should check out Hou Hsiao-Hsien's films.

[expression]

Lol you broke one of the most important rules of acronymns...you can't use the actual word in it.....

My dear roses, true art is not about rules. An art is an art is an art, much like a rose is a rose is a rose...

[999roses]

I have checked out HHH's films lol. I have a love-hate relationship with his films as well. More hate than love compared to WKW, but the love is also strong when it comes.

And I suppose an expression is just an expression? Then what do we need dictionaries for? They don't exist in the art world? =D

[PJ]

Hou Hsiao Hsien is a bit extreme in his minimalistic approach. Most of the time, the more extreme, the more "hit or miss -- either you love it or hate it". It's hard to stay neutral.

Personally, HHH doesn't piss me off as much as Andre Tarkovsky, who is pronounced by art lovers as having reached the peak of perfection in poetic filmmaking. Well, the way he makes it, makes poetry only slightly better than torture....

I once said such a thing about achieving the balance between high art and manufactured pop:

The spontaneous, down-to-earth performances is the film's greatest asset. No moment stands out as showy, as popular blockbusters would try to impress us with badass personalities, or as experimental art films would consciously pile layers upon layers of subtleties. This type of independent film has the perfect balance in the spectrum, in my humble opinion

[LuNaR]

(generally) art film = open-ended endings, super enhance view of a character's emotion and/or martial arts, draggy, nominated for academy awards, uses color as symbolism, twisted plots, very few to no comedies, hard for audience to understand the plot, and of course the best part... nudity or sexual acts or close to nudity scenes midway in the films

[PJ]

nominated for academy awards

This one is not very true. The American Academy Awards is highly conservative, and they rarely nominate good art films, let alone let any win awards.

[Wu Wudi]

So yea, I really need to broaden my horizons in terms of art films to get a more comprehensive view of the field. Damn I really wish I minored in film....but it's too late...too late. And my dream to be a film director is forever ruined *cries myself a river*

Yes, I think you should. Like I said before in our PM exchange, most Asian "art" fims just aren't very good, imo. Also, it's possible that your definition of art films might be a bit too narrow. It's really not easy to define what's art and what's not. A film that tries to be perceived as art usually isn't very good. Unfortunately, many Asian directors are still making such films. I suspect that's one reason why Asian dramas have yet to equal the success of their action counterparts.

One useful source of info is Rogert Ebert's website: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...gory=REVIEWS08

Ebert is one of the most knowledgeble film experts in the world. His "great movies" section is a great starting point for fans and students of film alike.

One problem you might have with him is that he may seem to be a little biased against Asian films. He's especially critical of the acting abilities of Asian actors. Even though I don't hold Asian dramas in very high regard, I still find him to be too dismissive of their quality.

Don't be too sad that you won't have a directing career. You could still turn out to be an excellent film critic. Many film critics never studied film in college.

To be honest, after watching a lot of Art films, I've learned to write off anything that doesn't make sense as "artistic" or better yet -- "life doesn't make sense; if art is to imitate life, then why should art make sense"

Nah, sometimes garbage is just garbage. In order for a film to have any artistic merit, it has to actually be good. Something's not a good film just because no one else can understand it but the director. There are plenty of films every year that are called "artsy" when they should just be called trash. I'd take a well made, not very ambitious action flick any day over a low quality indie aspiring to be high art.

PS: Hi, PJ! This is my first post that's not in the Wuxia forum. Nice to see you here too.

[Wu Wudi]

I have a new one, actually this idea is Wu Wudi's. But I think art films to me focus more on themes rather than plot.

I think that's often the case with art films but I also think that it's possible to make an art film which places strong emphasis on plot. Art really shouldn't be pigeonholed into having certain criteria that must be met before it's considered art. For example, No Country for Old Men, was like an action thriller for much of the movie. Viewers got really drawn into the story and invested deeply into the fates of the main characters but then they suddenly find out that's not what the film really is about. No Country caused a bigger emotional impact than most art films because people just didn't see it coming. If someone had come in with the expectation that the film was going to be artsy or nonconventional, the "twist" likely wouldn't have as much impact.

I really don't want to spoil the film for you so I won't say anymore about it. I strongly recommend it though. No Country is easily one of the most intelligent films in recent memory. Of course, much of the credit is also due to the source from which it was adapted.