Defining Art Cinema

I had a discussion with a friend from class today. He was trying to justify King Kong (2005) as an art film. He said it was about the death of cinema itself- its about subverisons and perversions and all that. It was a curious and interesting conversation i may save for another thread, but it started me thinking on just how we define 'Art Movies'.

I think most film folk would agree that 'Art' Cinema is:

1. Less concerned with action than reaction
2. cinema of the mind, of psychological effects
3. More challenging to the audience

And then you have to think, is there a clear line between Art Cinema and Commercial Cinema? King Kong, if we agree with this friend o' mine, would be good evidence that there is no line. On the other hand, we have movies like Glitter and Mission Impossibble III which may exist only because of their monetary value.

What do you all think?

I think 'art cinema' is best applied to films that the vast majority of people (those with only a passing interest in - rather than a semi-religious reverence of - films) would find incredibly boring, whereas the aforementioned worshippers would find some beauty in them. Of course, there are films that are just boring full stop.<==full stop.

I've not seen King Kong but can't imagine it fits into what I'd describe as an art film. As for giving a good empirical description of what constitutes art cinema, I don't think it's possible, at least, not for me. They tend to be slower, more character driven, less full of explosions, and every frame has something beautiful about it. They're also often pretty ****ing weird, or challenging, if that's what you prefer to call it.

::ahem:: Tries to have something beautiful about it might be a better definition.

If it fails then it's pretentious bollocks, not art.

I think art, even 'real' art can be pretentious too. It usually is, if you ask me. But this raises a much more difficult question...what the hell is art?

Art is in the eye of the beholder...

What art is to one person could be stupid to another. What stupid is to one person could be art to another.

__________________
"All the confusion of my life... has been a reflection of myself! Myself as I am, not as I'd like to be." - Guido, 8 1/2

Intellectual, emotional and spiritual growth.

I feel you cannot give "art cinema" a definition. In the literal sense, it can be defined with a few words and you can apply prerequesites to a film that judge whether the film at hand is art cinema or not. But honestly, art cinema is feeling.

To continue with Zeiken's quote: "what the hell is art?" You cannot put a finger on what art is. Art makes you feel something, makes you think on a deeper level, makes you have revelations and epiphanies, and leaves you not in humanistic form, but spiritual. Art effects everyone differently, as well as art cinema.

And in actuality, art cinema is sometimes commercial cinema in disguise. I don't think you can make a film with the intended goal of "making art", simply because that goal deprives art of what it truly is. Art is spontaneous and cannot be premeditated. Art becomes art in the process, not beforehand, and by setting out to make art, you deprive the heart and soul of the end product. Art is spontaneous and sometimes accidental, not aforethought and intentional...

And vice versa

Yep.

I think the mistake a lot of people make is the idea that art cinema does not have explosions, or action in a traditional sense. Truthfully, most "action" flicks do not suceed as art. That being said, I believe there is nothing inherently commercial about action.

Take for example V for Vendetta. V includes numerous action scenes. However, there is a good deal of ideas discussed in the film--issues of Lockian resistance, revenge vs justice, safety vs liberty.

__________________
"What might have been and what has been
Point to one end, which is always present." - T.S. Eliot

but does thematic content signify art?

i think films are artistic. Every one of them is art, whether or not we as viewers appreciate them as art. Glitter, if i may say so without being banned, is in my opinion art, but only because i am not limited to my own appreciations and tastes when it comes to defining art. That flick is simply lousy art. not that i've actually seen it...

My original question, though, was an attempt to define Art Cinema as a genre of its own- to see if anyone had any ideas on how to carve that genre out in a clear way.

I'm sure this is silly of me, but when I hear a phrase like "art cinema," I think of any film which is, well, overly artsty. I think of films which try to be "artistic." Technically speaking, though, I surely agree that they're all "art." Or, at least, any film which aims to spark any sort of emotional response is art; you could make a some sort of case that exploitation films weren't/aren't art.

For me an art film is one made out of the mainstream, not for any audience. But i'm sure it's quite broad, like Avant Garde film, or music videos or 8 1/2, all 'art' but all different.

__________________

It's not simple a question of thematic content, although that certainly helps.



Going this route make every single thing created by anyone art. Certainly, the poems written by my 10th grade students are not art. (God, most are not even spelled correctly!) Art must be more specific in its definition. Art is meant to be aesthetic (stimulate the senses) and cerebral (stimulate the mind). Glitter does not stimulate the mind (although I miight argue Mariah Carey stimulates the senses.)


I guess my answer to this question is there is no such thing as Art Cinema. There are the films which go to art house theaters, but in this case Art Film is simply what Pyro Tramp claimed:

However, to look at Art Film this way makes an art film any movie which does not have massive distribution. I am relunctant to give this much credit to the film companies.

It doesn't stimulate yourmind, so therefore you say it cannot be art, but still, this is from your own personal point of view. With the production of that flick, decisions had to be made every step of the way regarding aesthetics and things like that. It is this process of creation that to me, is the very essence of art. Just because the flick might just make me vomit doesnt mean i cannot consider it art. I am open to the possibility that it can, in fact produce a cerebral or emotional response within some *ahem* less educated members of our race.

I doubt you can find anyone, anywhere who claims Glitter stimulates their mind. People who like films like this (albeit, I have never met anyone to admit to liking Glitter) defend it with the battle cry of, "I don't want to have to think!"

By this definition, assembling a car is art. Boiling potatoes is art. Coloring is art. Art cannot be defined simply by creation. The product must be considered.

In that case, i stand by my definition.

Think there's two different arts being discussed, the act of being creative thus creating Art, extending to anything a subconscious thought or idea could have spawned or been related to and the actual genre of Art Cinema....


or i've not been reading close enough.

You tell you're friend this. King Kong "works" because it's something we haven't seen before. We're impressed by the graphics. We aren't impressed with the story. Aesthetics of astonishment. I've mentioned that before. It applies to things that are cool because their new. "Oh my gosh! A moving picture! A movie with sound! A movie in color!" No matter what the movies were that first used those new techniques they were going to be considered awesome because they were something new. A few years later that new car smell goes away and then you're left with a lame story. In a few years when we're used to seeing amazing graphics, King Kong 2 will join the large pile of baloney that used to be considered cool. A movie like The Seventh Seal continues to remain an awesome film because it's an awesome story. That movie could have been made using pixlevision, it wouldn't have mattered, the director wasn't making a movie to show off new technology, the director was making a movie to tell a story and used the tools available to do that. It's like when some retard says a movie or documentary has to be edited using an Avid machine - as if that gives it some sort of magical power. Tools continue to change and it's the effin' story that matters, not the crap you use to make it.

I realize that turned into a hard to follow rant but I don't care.

My take on Art Cinema... anybody can consider any film, video, commercial, industrial video, home video, etc., etc. an art film if they want to. Unless the creator of the film says, "This is an art film." or something similar, it's up to the viewer to make the decision. I think that was the whole point of M. Duchamp putting a urinal on display. Art is whatever you want it to be.



This is considered art. If you're friend says, "King Kong is art." punch them in the groin and thank them for having a different opinion.