Art House Films

Very true. Perhaps it would have been the better to say a movie in the modern popular conscious. But my point still stands that the term art house to be is very subjective.

I think I have a clip.



I remember finding a website with more information but I deleted the link from my bookmark bar. Trying to find it again. But I do remember the films were maybe a few minutes long. Nothing feature length. And either way, if Dada is anti art, Freddy Got Fingered is not anti cinema, it is just sh*t.

You've seen this? I've posted it here at least three times.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Never mind we go a whole movie! lol

Yes, I did not intend to detract from your main point. I agree that the term 'art house' or 'art film' has lost much of its meaning when discussing contemporary films, but still can help classify a genre of films in their historical context.

For the OP

Personally I think "Arthouse" is a bogus word used to try and define films that don't necessarily fit into normal or Western idealized genres.

Kurosawa is the perfect example. He didn't make his movies to be artsy. He was more Hollywood than Hollywood. His Samurai movies are Japan's version of our Westerns, which is why Hollywood and others stole from him. Seven Samurai became The Magnificent Seven, Yojimbo became A Fistful of Dollars and so on. He was just really, really good at what he does and it was natural for Hollywood to use his ideas.

Godard, didn't start out "Arthouse". Pierrot le Fou is certainly not, by contemporary definition. Of course by Weekend he certainly was trying to be such. Personally, I think, he did it partly because he was bored, and partly just to see if people would watch. If you really feel the need to classify him it would fit better into European New Wave.

Additionally, and this certainly isn't meant to offend anyone, but don't listen to anyone's recommendations on where to start or what to watch. I love Pierrot le Fou, but I hate Weekend, Does that make it bad? No, someone else may say it is their favorite movie. To that extent, Solaris, a movie which I love, can easily be seen as tedious and boring, and I can understand why. I would hate to see you miss out on a movie which you may really love based on someone telling you it's crap.

I don't watch so called "Arthouse" movies because I feel the need to broaden my horizons. I watch them because I love movies and find all forms entertaining. I'll watch damn near anything. I love Rashomon, but you know what? I also love The Dark Knight Trilogy. In my opinion ALL movies are some form of art. It's just that some are really, really, crappy art (see earlier reference to Freddy Got Fingered, which who knows, someone here may like and that's fine.)

I also think that to a lot of people "Arthouse" gives negative connotations. I have friends that will roll their eyes or say, "oh, so it's French?" if they see a movie labeled as such. Due to just that fact I hate the word, because it allows for preconceived notions and often times inaccurate judgement.

That all said, you are opening yourself up to a whole new world of cinema and that is awesome! Hollywood makes some legitimately great movies, but there is soooo much more out there, that it makes me happy to see people watching, appreciating, and discussing it. So enjoy, and please post what you watch and if you like it!

Disclaimer: This is my opinion to which I am entitled, as all of you, yours. I don't claim to be right or any of you to be wrong. I find that when discussing movies(particularly "Arthouse" and foreign in general) people tend to get verrry opinionated and if someone doesn't like what they like or vice versa, then the other person is an idiot. I read every response in here before I posted and thought about what I wanted to say regarding this topic before I posted it. I agree with some of the posts, and disagree with others. However, it is not necessary to point out which is which as they are opinions and me pointing it out would be 100% hypocritical.

Well said Omega. I have been reluctant to join this discussion because I have only started to branch out from mainstream cinema in the last year, year and a half and certainly don't have the knowledge that many around this site have. In branching out I have tried to track down the best stuff possible so as not to waste my time. Websites like this and podcasts have been invaluable to leading me to new films. The main thing I have discovered in watching more independent and foreign film is that the ones that I like, I like for the same reason I like the mainstream films I do. I love dialogue character driven films, it is true in mainstream movies, it is true in foreign and independent films. If the narrative is driven by surrealism or visuals I probably will not enjoy it as much. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. So if you love film, seek out good film in all it's forms. Above all try not to let your experiences define others. Share your opinion, not your dogma.

If you have Netflix and you want to learn a bit then you should check out The Story of Film: An Odyssey, it's a 14 part series going through the history of film. It's directed and narrated by Mark Cousins, an Irish film critic. His narration can be dry, and he does sometimes give opinion over fact, but it covers almost every significant movement in the history of film. He does make a few mistakes(most notably to me stating that Lucas directed Empire), that aside I still really enjoyed this series. The European New Wave, and the New American Independents are great episodes.

Not if you understood my very strict definition of art film. Guys like Bresson and Bergman are not art filmmaker in my book. It practically excludes every great director except Tarkovsky.

Indeed, this "film" doesn't attempt to generate any emotional response but works only on a purely intellectual level:



However, I don't think I can say I liked an actual film that didn't have any emotional impact on me.

So what is your definition of an "arthouse" director? What makes Tarkovsky mutually exclusive from all other directors, and I'm drawing your attention to the word all because that just indicates blind fanboyism on your part.

That I can agree on.

Well, I don't know about you guys, but I watch art films in order to gain a smug sense of intellectual superiority over those around me.



But in all seriousness, I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that art films often offer emotional and mental stimulation in a way that conventional cinema cannot. They get you thinking about the nature of humanity and the world around you, or sometimes trying to decipher their meaning can be like a great puzzle. Plus, they're usually pretty offbeat or different, which is refreshing. I'm quite new to art films myself, I've held off on Tarkovsky for awhile but I'll probably watch Stalker soon.

__________________
"Puns are the highest form of literature." -Alfred Hitchcock

Great post.

I also don't really like the term, "art house". I just felt I needed to use it for the purposes of this thread. I didn't want to get into a discussion about what defines an art house film, as it's entirely subjective. But when I use the term, I'm referring to films that aren't conventional and made outside of the mainstream. I agree that Kurosawa was very "Hollywood", as most of his films don't stray away from conventional film-making, so I don't group him into the "art house" catergory. He is, however, one of my favourite directors.

I also agree with you that all movies are some form of art, in the same way that the Mona Lisa and a five-year old's finger paintings are both art. As with any art you're going to have great movies like Taxi Driver, and "not-so-great" movies like Twilight.

I am going to try and seek out a few of the films already mentioned in this thread, but I think I will take wintertriangles' advice about holding off on Tarkovsky for now (though I'm very much looking forward to reaching that stage). I watched Three Colours: Blue the other night and was very impressed. I really loved the symbolism used in that movie, and though it was quite artistic I found it very accessible and quite enjoyable. Looking forward to seeing White and Red,as I know a lot of people here consider the trilogy as one whole movie experience.

__________________
TOP 100 | "Don't let the bastards grind you down!"

I think I understand generally what type of movies we can all agree on being "art house", and I wanted to post about Meloncholia. When I went and saw this in a theater (lucky for me) the first 20 minutes blew me away. If you've seen it, you know what I'm talking about and if you haven't, I recommend looking it up. The rest of the movie was also really well done, and while I didn't really like the story or ending, I couldn't help but love the movie. Because it wasn't really made to be a movie, as far as I could see, but more like a painting or song, made to evoke undefinable emotion and make you lightheaded. I probably would've liked it more if it was just the first 20 minutes, but nobody watches 20 minute movies anymore.

Also, and forgive because I have no idea how to spell this, Korianaskatzy is interesting. I don't really love it, but I like its point and the music/images.

__________________
"so i turned away, because i didn't want to see. just like everybody else."

"If dreams are like movies then memories are films about ghosts"

Why you need to be so difficult to talk to?

I never said all directors. I said "every other great director", where the term "great" should be stressed. I think that Bela Tar is also a pure art filmmaker by my classification. However, he isn't a great director in the league of Bergman, Welles, Hitchcock and Kubrick. Tarkovsky is.

So out of the around 25 greatest directors, Tarkovsky is the only pure art filmmaker. Of course, I know several pure art filmmakers, if you cared to read the first post I wrote on this thread.

It is not fanboyism. I am just applying the definition. If you include Bergman into the term art filmmaker you invite the likes of Kubrick, etc and pretty much everybody else into the term.

Compelling story. But you needed to stumble upon the most hardcore non-entertaining movie before you noticed that movies could be more than a simple way to kill time? I already was deeply stimulated by watching stuff like Aliens, a typical action movie, and There Will Be Blood before coming upon what's considered "art house".

I could fell greatness besides entertainment value in several hollywood blockbuster movies. Anyway, the difference may be that art films don't try to be entertaining but only try to work on a higher level while typical movies try to be entertaining and some do work also on a higher level, besides being entertaining.

This calls into question the very definition of an "art film". I think what you mean is that Tarkovsky is the most challenging of the canon directors, in that his films require the most patience on behalf of the viewer. But I'm a bit confused on what you mean by "pure art". Obviously, in terms of how challenging they are, Bergman is a step up from Kubrick and Tarkovsky is a step up from Bergman. But does that alone really make him a more "artistic" filmmaker? I'm sure many people get just as much enlightenment out of a Kubrick or Bergman as they would a Tarkovsky flick, the latter just happens to be the most metaphysical in his representation of ideas (or so I've heard).

Pure art is a myth in general. Applying it to only one person in cinema is not only arbitrary but meaningless.

I really like arthouse films both out of an emotional and intellectual stimulation. More often than not they are playing with the technical aspect of cinema. The narrative isn't always that clear cut, so you can often dive into the same movie and discover new things. Some of my favorite movies ill often have an urge to revisit it, just after that i have seen it. Sometimes because i don't fully understand it.

I love artistic films but i also enjoy more conventional films which are mostly plot driven. For instance on a danish forum they disregard Hitchcock completely because he is too conventional. I really love seeing good plotdriven films of the likes of Francis Ford Coppola and Hitchcock.

I've always seen the movies of Carl Theodor Dreyer. His basically canonized here in Denmark. But the real venture into art house movies was when i saw Caché by Michael Haneke, Werckmeister Harmonies by Bela Tarr and The Mirror by Andrei Tarkovsky. Before that i was really in love with horror movies, but also slightly surrelist horror movies like Santa Sangre, Un Chien Andalou, Videodrome and Eraserhead. Werner Herzog with Stroszek, Aguirre: The Wrath of God, Nosferatu and Even Dwarfs Started Small have also been an influence on me.

Im not quite sure what you are into but i would try some different directors, namely those i have already mentioned. But you could also venture into the territory of Jim Jarmusch or for instance Ingmar Bergman.

Of newer discoveries i think Kiarostami, Lopushansky, Hou and Satayit Ray are the most important for me.

__________________
TokeZa's Top 100 Movies through Space and Time

TokeZa's inane ramblings about film

Letterboxd profile