Odilonvert, I was talking about the basic idea of a filmmaker’s progression. Even if you indulge in rather making short and experimental films, soon or later you will need money to produce more. Otherwise, there is a risk of leaving yourself on the same ground and never really testing your talent with the work of bigger scale.
And, you better read again the title of the thread to keep up with the discussion.
Making art films more commerce-intended and directed at the general audience is a wrong path, in my opinion. However, if talking about where art films are part of commerce, then the answer is ‘they are already’. Majority of films, whethere independent or not, are there to make some money, be sold and bought again and again. It’s a part of film’s other side – business. Nonetheless, I strongly oppose any attempt to make and even force an art film appeal to more general audiences or aimed at making money as the top priority, as this is not the case with art films.
Otherwise, there is a risk of leaving yourself on the same ground and never really testing your talent with the work of bigger scale.
I disagree, and you are not getting my point, so please don’t tell me to re-read the title of the discussion or “keep up” with the discussion. You are pigeon-holing film. A jeweler will never make monumental sculpture. That does not make what he is making non-art, nor does it mean that his work should be taken less seriously. Progression to feature length is not what makes film film.
But ok, evidently you are talking about a very specific format of film. And that is all.
I’ll leave this discussion now.
Dude, I believe you better chill for an hour or two.
here are the solutions:
What do you think of Bourdieu’s thoughts that cultural artifacts that have commercial appeal can’t be critically acclaimed as aesthetically excellent?
he’s a freedom-hating piece of shit. anyone can acclaim anything as aesthetically excellent. it’s a matter of opinion
Thoughts on independent film makers relying more and more on product placement to fund their films and deal with piracy.
i’m neither an independent filmmaker nor an advertising executive so i don’t care at all
Big marketing campaigns around art films, does that taint the film’s authenticity for you or artistic merit?
no, because i’m not fucking retarded
If an art film is only screened in major theaters, does that change the film’s identity?
films don’t have identities because they’re works of art and not sentient beings
What about art films trying to target a mass audiences?
i assume you mean art filmmakers. what about them?
Thoughts on films likes Cosmopolis or Tree of Life being marketed as box office flicks? Do you guys consider those films as art films considering their budgets?
i don’t give even the slightest of shits how a film is marketed
Welcome to MUBI, Clémence.
@ROBERT W PEABODY III
It’s alright, I haven’t gotten laid in a while either, I understand where he’s coming from.
haha – that could be it.
Of course a film doesn’t need to be commercially successful to be a success, but what is the point of all this backlash against films that are commercially successful? Usually it’s just an emotional response to the unfairness that shitty films make more money than more artistically driven films. But that shouldn’t have any bearing on better films that are commercially successful. You should judge any given film the same whether or not it made money, or whether you think the director intended to make money. The film is on the screen, so judge what’s there.
Otherwise you’re just pissing on the people for liking films you consider shitty because you think it’s unfair.
If you think this then you’re an idiot.
If it doesn’t affect the quality of the movie, then who cares?
It’s a movie. No.
Thoughts on films likes Cosmopolis or Tree of Life being marketed as box office flicks? Do you guys consider those films as art films considering their budgets?[
What does budget have to do with whether or not something’s an art movie?
I can’t figure out how to put something in italics or whatever. Why doesn’t this board use HTML like every other board in existence or have buttons you can use to bold and all that? This is like the least intuitive board ever.
“If you think this then you’re an idiot.”
Bourdieu was not an idiot, just saying. Maybe he is just operating from a different standard. I think the older European guys have higher standards than us. After all, he didn’t grow up eating McDonald’s ;-) He also grew up in an era where i think that, to some extent, it was perhaps easier to ‘bash’ mass culture.
“But that shouldn’t have any bearing on better films that are commercially successful. You should judge any given film the same whether or not it made money, or whether you think the director intended to make money. The film is on the screen, so judge what’s there.”
The two aren’t separate though Jirin. What’s ‘on the screen’, as you say, is often the result of a director’s motivation, or a producer’s motivation. If the motivation is to make a film for broad mass appeal, then obviously things will be included that will be left out in a niche ‘product’ etc.
Anyway, very few ultra successful films have any real artistic worth, and most people on this site arguing otherwise know this. They are simply railing against the idea in principle.
“Anyway, very few ultra successful films have any real artistic worth, and most people on this site arguing otherwise know this.”
If people enjoy a movie, then it has artistic worth.
I wonder if Bourdieu actually meant whether we could consider low-budget/indie films as art if they were simply released in major theatres for mass audience only, therefore pushing them as mainstream.
This would definitely confuse the majority, since it’s an absolutely different, even contradicting, tactic in promoting art films. However, this should not hurt the film itself. I mean if an excellent art film is promoted to general audience as a mainstream film, then the marketing strategy is wrong, not the film.
Somehowe, this scenario reminds meof what happened to several films which fell victims to the wrong decisions implied by studios in promoting them. I especially recall when Universal greenlight the adaptation of Hulk when superhero/comic book films were just rising in their popularity. However, they took unexpected turn in choosing Ang Lee as the director. Lee is primarily famous for making art films in particularly the genre of period dramas. Possibly, his Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon could have an effect in their decision, but even that film relied more on beautiful setting and atmosphere, ratehr than action. Universal went on to promote the film as another summer blockbuster, while Lee’s vision was pretty much opposite of their intentions. He had a different approach, making Hulk almost an art film, which spent more time on studying the character than pushing fast-paced action scenes. Lee did a great job at unfolding Banner’s story and introducing the idea that a superhero film can be far more than just a 2-hour action flick. The result, though, was disastrous, when the film bombed in box office. This was due to three reasons:
1. Universal’s misleading marketing
2. Lee’s different approach
3. Mass audience, disappointed in having to sit for over 2 hours just to witness not even 30 minutes of the action they were looking forward to
This is how a well-done film, in my opinion, was a victim of the flawed connection between the director’s vision and studio’s promotion tactics.
Ang Lee made art films? When? where?
The Ice Storm
Eat Drink Man Woman
Maybe The wedding banquet that transfer him to America….and that was made way before these 3. Personally when i think of art film Ang lee has never come to mind. He’s a good “storyteller” a good filmmaker. He knows how to craft a story that will make money but an art film? Not to me at least.
I must say there is certainly some ambiguity and subjectivity when trying to define what an art film is. I mean not every art film has to be in the manner of The Tree of Life.
Lee’s films tend to be both critically and financially successful in spite of their low budgets. He often was nominated and occasionally winner of not only Oscar, but also Golden Lion, Cannes, BAFTA, etc. Most of his films spend considerable time on exploring and developing characters, while visuals are there to give the right atmosphere fitting in the mood of scenes. His films are often set in a particular period and he does a great job at depicting the times in which his stories take place. He may not be the most experimental filmmaker, but this doesn’t mean his films are not pieces of art, at least in my opinion.