What is an art film? Is it a film that leaves a resounding effect on the viewer? Is it a film that makes people leave thinking 'What the hell did I just see?' Is it a film that just doesn't fit the bill as a blockbuster?
The theater in my town has recently started to incorporate movies that don't receive a nationwide, every-theater release and call it 'CinéArts.'
Don't get me wrong; I love movies that are considered 'independent' or 'art.' But I'm beginning to wonder if the film industry has started to blur the line between 'art film' and 'not a blockbuster.'
Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider Juno to be an art film. Albeit, it is different from your typical cinematic release, it is not an art film. While I did enjoy Juno, I think the only thing that makes it any different from other movies is the anti-folk soundtrack and the (sort of overwritten) script.
So what's my point? I'll tell you.
I'm beginning to wonder why movies like Juno or Charlie Bartlett and No Country for Old Men are so easily cast aside and released with the silly caption of 'CinéArts.' Is it just that these movies explore something a little bit deeper than Cloverfield? Is it because they feature some actors that may not be your run-of-the-mill hot new actress or Oscar winner?
I think my point is getting all garbled up. What I'm trying to say is just because a movie is different from Pirates of the Caribbean or because a movie doesn't star Jessica Alba isn't a reason to cast aside movies that are good and can appeal to a large audience, even if they are a little atypical.
And really, if a theaters are going to call anything 'CinéArts' they should be showing movies like The Diving Bell and Butterfly or Snow Angels.
Like music, films are hard to judge what classifies as "art" or another category. I feel like it should be why the film was created: art for art's sake obviously qualifies it, but films for profit are disqualified. However, just because a film was wildly successful does not mean that it wasn't art...Just because a film defies the formula shouldn't discredit it.
Juno was not art, however. It was a movie that aspired to be so, but lost itself in trying to deliver its message too strongly. I hate the fact that any offbeat movie created by an unknown director or somebody notably odd (Tim Burton, the Coen Brothers, or Quentin Tarentino) is instantly classified as art. Honestly, I leave it up to the critics and personal opinion. After all, just because something is called artsy doesn't mean that it's good. And films oustide the artistic circle can be fantastic. (Watch This Is England, and you'll see what I mean.)
Cheers from Union Jane
"I have only ever made one prayer a very short one: "God, make my enemies ridiculous." And God made it so." --Voltaire
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt
I definitely believe that...well, a majority of everything is art. But in terms of 'art films,' I think a lot of what are being called 'art films' nowadays are just...not. Which doesn't mean that these films or movies like Transformers are not as good. It's just silly that a majority of films that are at all different are being left out of theaters based on the fact that they are 'art films.'
Most of what can be considered art films don't sell. It's a sad truth, but art films receive poor advertisements, and even then, most people don't want to spend money on movies with any concept that are not straightforward. Theaters have little reason to how art or independent films. Luckily, I think most cities (or at least mine does) has a movie theater in the cultural mecca of town that shows indie movies. There is a market for them, it's just a terribly obscure one.
I don't know--perhaps it depends on the film's budget that factors into classification. I wouldn't depend on a company or corporation to decide what is art and what is not. It's one of those issue where, like you seem to be saying, just because it happens doesn't make it right.
Cheers from Union Jane
"I have only ever made one prayer a very short one: "God, make my enemies ridiculous." And God made it so." --Voltaire
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt
What makes an indie film classified as "indie," is entirely based on the production company that backs it. If it isn't produced by one of the big major names (even though most of the big major names own at least one indie company), the movie is considered independent. Some of those movies (like Juno), take off and become successful with a mainstream audience, but that has nothing to do with where its roots are. Some indie films are good, others are not. It's a matter of opinion, but has nothing to do with whether or not the film is independent.