538 replies to this topic

[Harmsway]

Spielberg mentioned wanting to direct a Bond in the late 1970's. Cubby Broccoli was not even thinking along those lines. It is not quite the same as being brought on board.

Your point being...?

Be careful when suggesting those directors are in a different league to Spielberg when all their work straddles the same creative, artistic sensibilities Stevie-boy has done since DUEL.

Explain. Particularly in reference to Fellini and Godard.

[Loomis]

And to do what Spielberg does (and not just the blockbusters - a term invented for JAWS, I believe) requires great artistry.

Indeed it does. Which is why his films usually turn out to be crap.

[Harmsway]

And to do what Spielberg does (and not just the blockbusters - a term invented for JAWS, I believe) requires great artistry.

Indeed it does. Which is why his films usually turn out to be crap.

[Zorin Industries]

And to do what Spielberg does (and not just the blockbusters - a term invented for JAWS, I believe) requires great artistry.

Indeed it does. Which is why his films usually turn out to be crap.

Then the further thoughts you asked for Harmsway are a bit redundant then. No worries.

[Safari Suit]

I don't get it.

[Zorin Industries]

I wasn't so sure how sincere Harmsway would be to me continuing my argument. Life's too short and all that.

But I will add that Fellni and his ilk stated by a previous poster as a counter-argument against Spielberg's credentials all played up to the crowds as much as Mr Amblin does. Also, it is worth remembering that the likes of Fellini and Kurosawa may be easily bracketed as 'art house artists who are the oppposite of Spielberg', but mainstream, wider audiences lapped up their own work in their home countries. Also, it takes great artistry and ability to make a feature like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK or MINORITY REPORT which demonstrate a different sort of artistic restraint and sensibility as evidenced in the likes of MUNICH and THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS (the latter of which is as good as Goddard's BREATHLESS, and touches upon similiar themes).

So when someone says Spielberg is no Fellni or Kurosawa I do feel compelled to - once again - put a perspective on a discussion that doesn't begin and end on internet forums.

[Safari Suit]

Indeed. Not on the same level perhaps, but Paul Verhoeven is always suprised when people say he moved from making "art films" in his homeland to "popcorn movies" in America, because as far as he knew he was making popcorn movies in his homeland, and the 27% of the Netherlands that went to see Turkish Delight seemed to agree with him.

[Trident]

I wasn't so sure how sincere Harmsway would be to me continuing my argument. Life's too short and all that.

But I will add that Fellni and his ilk stated by a previous poster as a counter-argument against Spielberg's credentials all played up to the crowds as much as Mr Amblin does. Also, it is worth remembering that the likes of Fellini and Kurosawa may be easily bracketed as 'art house artists who are the oppposite of Spielberg', but mainstream, wider audiences lapped up their own work in their home countries. Also, it takes great artistry and ability to make a feature like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK or MINORITY REPORT which demonstrate a different sort of artistic restraint and sensibility as evidenced in the likes of MUNICH and THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS (the latter of which is as good as Goddard's BREATHLESS, and touches upon similiar themes).

So when someone says Spielberg is no Fellni or Kurosawa I do feel compelled to - once again - put a perspective on a discussion that doesn't begin and end on internet forums.

Art house is one of those labels that don't really get the point right. Every director wants his work to be viewed by as much people as possible, wants recognition and success. For that matter any Cameron, Spielberg, Nolan can be as artistically demanding as a Fellini, Bertolucci or Goddard. It always depends on the material they are working with, their intentions and approach to a certain story. Of course Spielberg/Nolan/Cameron/insert-any-'mainstream'-director-name isn't Kurosawa/insert-any-supposed-'Art House'-name. But this is more due to the respective backgrounds these directors have than to any artistic licence or ability they supposedly have or don't have.

[Harmsway]

I wasn't so sure how sincere Harmsway would be to me continuing my argument. Life's too short and all that.

Very sincere, in fact. I chuckled at Loomis' retort, but I'm actually much kinder to Mr. Spielberg than Loomis is.

But I will add that Fellni and his ilk stated by a previous poster as a counter-argument against Spielberg's credentials all played up to the crowds as much as Mr Amblin does.

Fair point (though that's definitely a bit of a generalization when one considers all the names). Regardless, Fellini and his ilk produced a more beautiful and inventive brand of cinema than the kind of cinema Spielberg has produced over the course of his career.

Also, it takes great artistry and ability to make a feature like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK or MINORITY REPORT which demonstrate a different sort of artistic restraint and sensibility as evidenced in the likes of MUNICH and THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS (the latter of which is as good as Goddard's BREATHLESS, and touches upon similiar themes).

I'd never deny that it takes artistry for Spielberg to do what he does, and the fact that there aren't many Mr. Spielbergs running around is a testament to that fact. His career has its share of notable work, and demonstrates a solid variety of styles.

That said, I'd never thought I'd hear someone make the astonishing and bizarre claim that Spielberg's THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS--of all films--is the equal to Godard's BREATHLESS. But hey, this is the internet.

[Zorin Industries]

I wasn't so sure how sincere Harmsway would be to me continuing my argument. Life's too short and all that.

Very sincere, in fact. I chuckled at Loomis' retort, but I'm actually much kinder to Mr. Spielberg than Loomis is.

But I will add that Fellni and his ilk stated by a previous poster as a counter-argument against Spielberg's credentials all played up to the crowds as much as Mr Amblin does.

Fair point (though that's definitely a bit of a generalization when one considers all the names). Regardless, Fellini and his ilk produced a more beautiful and inventive brand of cinema than the kind of cinema Spielberg has produced over the course of his career.

Also, it takes great artistry and ability to make a feature like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK or MINORITY REPORT which demonstrate a different sort of artistic restraint and sensibility as evidenced in the likes of MUNICH and THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS (the latter of which is as good as Goddard's BREATHLESS, and touches upon similiar themes).

I'd never deny that it takes artistry for Spielberg to do what he does, and the fact that there aren't many Mr. Spielbergs running around is a testament to that fact. His career has its share of notable work, and demonstrates a solid variety of styles.

That said, I'd never thought I'd hear someone make the astonishing and bizarre claim that Spielberg's THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS--of all films--is the equal to Godard's BREATHLESS. But hey, this is the internet.

Similiar subject matter...similiar free-hand and style....both films have nothing to prove, but make a vital stamp in their directors careers...both films launched their lead actors... both films wowed Europe... both films were a reaction to their country of origin's politics and attitudes to the young...and both films leave a bleak aftertaste.

I will disagree about Spielberg's artistry. He laces most of his film with symbolism, restraint, iconography and more importantly a point. His films suggests worlds and arenas beyond their constraints. A letter box in THE COLOR PURPLE becomes a beacon of hope and a link to an unseen Africa...EMPIRE OF THE SUN is a searing look at childhood and how it can be an adult construct in the wrong hands...ET is a nativity of sorts with the mother Mary entertaining a newcomer arriving in a lowly shed before the children of the neighbourhood bring their gifts and the faceless authorities come knocking.... JAWS was a subtle look at the America of Watergate with its corrupt but affable Mayor versus the law abiding cop...MUNICH is a very complex, brave and honest look at the Jewish condition in America and CLOSE ENCOUNTERS is as near to cinematic perfection as you can get (even Francois Truffaut, that other arty director) plays a key role.

[Loomis]

I wasn't so sure how sincere Harmsway would be to me continuing my argument. Life's too short and all that.

Very sincere, in fact. I chuckled at Loomis' retort, but I'm actually much kinder to Mr. Spielberg than Loomis is.

Well, I was being harsh, I admit. INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL still leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

However, one cannot completely ignore the Spielberg of EMPIRE OF THE SUN, AI: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, MUNICH (flawed though those films are) and, of course, SCHINDLER'S LIST.

Still, I cannot view Spielberg as true artist to rank alongside the likes of Bertolucci, Fellini, Satyajit Ray or even Tarantino (whose INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS has, I believe, lifted him into the ranks of the all-time greats).

Spielberg will certainly go down in film history, but chiefly as a champion moneymaker. As a filmmaker, he rates on the whole as a competent craftsman but no more than that.

[Odd Jobbies]

...it takes great artistry and ability to make a feature like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK or MINORITY REPORT which demonstrate a different sort of artistic restraint and sensibility...

Well said. It's all too easy to bash the likes of Spielberg (of which there are few). There are plenty of lowest-common-denominator filmmakers out there imitating his style with virtually no understanding of what really makes it work. For me that illusive ingredient is simply his love of films; his good taste in films; his passion to make films he'd love to watch.

It's ironic, yet obvious, that great films aren't made to make money - that's why they make money. Films that are made according to a money making formula (most of the summer blockbuster) are.... ...hmmm.... ......

.......Damn, well i guess here i wanted to say they don't make money, but look at Transformers 2! They certainly do, so i guess there's no accounting for taste, or sense.

Not saying Mr S is perfect - he seems to have went through a phase of adding an unnecessary act to the end of his films (Minority Report, A.I.), and giving him the reigns of Bond now is a risky proportion. But, like Tarantino, it could potentially give us the greatest Bond ever. However, i doubt either will ever get the gig.


WARNING: INDIANA JONES SPOILER AHEAD!!!

IMO Spielberg made a cardinal sin in the finale of Indiana Jones 4: the title character played no decisive part in effecting the events - he simply said 'Lets get out of here', or words to that effect. So events in the Alien/Pyramid finale would've turned out pretty much the same had he not been there. One could blame writer Koepp, but it's ultimately a director's medium. I'd hate to see a Bond finale take that direction.

SPOILER OVER

But i'm still a big fan of Spielberg, because, like QT, his love of cinema jumps off the screen and i respect him for that.

Art house is one of those labels that don't really get the point right.

It's basically any movie that doesn't aim to make money. It's when a film, or an element of a film is film for film's sake.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 03 September 2009 - 01:23 PM.

[Trident]

Art house is one of those labels that don't really get the point right.

It's basically any movie that doesn't aim to make money. It's when a film, or an element of a film is film for film's sake.

But that doesn't mean they don't aim to be watched. Film for film's sake, not for the sake of the director's ego. I'm not sure that doesn't get mixed up sometimes. And I fail to see why a director's artistic aspirations seem to qualify as a bad thing with some people. Granted, sometimes they are misguided, sometimes they backfire. But sometimes it may just be that I, for whatever reason, didn't get the point of them. Which does not mean there hadn't been a point in the first place.

[Odd Jobbies]

Trident,

Absolutely right, ego is a big part of art (believe me, i'm a fine art grad so i know how big our egos can be). And the separation made all to often between Art and Craft (Art House and Mainstream) is a tenuous and blurred devision.

The best art house films have Mainstream sensibilities. They understand that communicating the narrative/meaning to the audience is imperative, or else it's rhetorical, thus less effective (good artist want their work to be a conversation with the viewer - to ask questions - not to just lecture the viewer with their own opinions and statements).

The best Mainstream work has Art House sensibilities: Subtext, meaning, style, originality.

So you see, when Art House films, and Mainstream films are made well, they both have a balanced proportion of Art and Mainstream, thus they are difficult to tell apart. Some may think Spielberg can be art house for this reason. others may think Fellini mainstream for this reason.




'Art House' is really a term created by critics in order to help catorgarize, however that's not to say that filmmakers themselves don't endeavor to make 'Art House'. Our 'Pop' culture is one that regurgitates it's old ideas - recycles them. So one day Spielberg is annoyed at being told he has at house pretensions, the next day he tries to make an art house film. It's a 'chicken & egg' relationship.

'Film for films sake' is what i see as the simplest, most fundamental way to define what's meant by 'Art House'. Certainly all filmmakers want their work to be seen by as many people as possible, but that's subtly different to wanting to make as much money as possible.

Perhaps they add up to the same thing, but i wonder how many filmmakers would like the opportunity to show their films for free, relinquishing profits? they'd be true hardcore Art House. Likewise, how many artists would give their work freely to museums? How can they then be 'true artists', free of ego? So how come there work is still 'Art'? Well as you said Trident, Art & ego are really the same thing.

My point is that trying to quantify and define 'Art House' is treacherous ground, so simplicity is best.

'Art House' is (IMO):

1/ When a film does something that contradicts the formulas of traditional mainstream cinema - something unnecessary to the plot, action etc.

2/ Something that presents a standard element (dialogue, action, exposition, style, narrative) in way that deviates from the normal commonly used convention (the more it deviates, the more art house it is.

How unnecessary these elements are, or how much they deviate can be highly subjective and so the confusion between one man's Art and another's begins.

CASINO ROYALE's Shower scene qualifies in this context as it deviates from the formula in several ways. As does the shaky POV shots after Bond has been poisoned - not the way the action, or character is normally presented in Bond. Likewise with the B/W pre-titles.

For me these are the elements that raise CR above previous Bonds, so i hope there's more Art house intrusions to come. As for QoS, the Opera scene/shoot out was highly stylized and a high point in the franchise's history.

The art house debate will go on, but in the meantime, hiring art house directors may not be such a bad idea.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 03 September 2009 - 02:17 PM.

[Judo chop]

Don't think much of EMPIRE OF THE SUN.

It looks Spielberg enough, but doesn't seem as if his heart was in it.

[Trident]

Trident,

Absolutely right, ego is a big part of art (believe me, i'm a fine art grad so i know how big our egos can be). And the separation made all to often between Art and Craft (Art House and Mainstream) is a tenuous and blurred devision.

The best art house films have Mainstream sensibilities. They understand that communicating the narrative/meaning to the audience is imperative, or else it's rhetorical, thus less effective (good artist want their work to be a conversation with the viewer - to ask questions - not to just lecture the viewer with their own opinions and statements).

The best Mainstream work has Art House sensibilities: Subtext, meaning, style, originality.

So you see, when Art House films, and Mainstream films are made well, they both have a balanced proportion of Art and Mainstream, thus they are difficult to tell apart. Some may think Spielberg can be art house for this reason. others may think Fellini mainstream for this reason.




'Art House' is really a term created by critics in order to help catorgarize, however that's not to say that filmmakers themselves don't endeavor to make 'Art House'. Our 'Pop' culture is one that regurgitates it's old ideas - recycles them. So one day Spielberg is annoyed at being told he has at house pretensions, the next day he tries to make an art house film. It's a 'chicken & egg' relationship.

'Film for films sake' is what i see as the simplest, most fundamental way to define what's meant by 'Art House'. Certainly all filmmakers want their work to be seen by as many people as possible, but that's subtly different to wanting to make as much money as possible.

Perhaps they add up to the same thing, but i wonder how many filmmakers would like the opportunity to show their films for free, relinquishing profits? they'd be true hardcore Art House. Likewise, how many artists would give their work freely to museums?

My point is that trying to quantify and define 'Art House' is treacherous ground, so simplicity is best.

'Art House' is (IMO):

1/ When a film does something that contradicts the formulas of traditional mainstream cinema - something unnecessary to the plot, action etc.

2/ Something that presents a standard element (dialogue, action, exposition, style, narrative) in way that deviates from the normal commonly used convention (the more it deviates, the more art house it is.

How unnecessary these elements are, or how much they deviate can be highly subject and so the confusion between one man's Art and another's begins.

CASINO ROYALE's Shower scene qualifies in this context as it deviates from the formula in several ways. As does the shaky POV shots after Bond has been poisoned - not the way the action, or character is normally presented in Bond. Likewise with the B/W pre-titles.

For me these are the elements that raise CR above previous Bonds, so i hope there's more Art house intrusions to come. As for QoS, the Opera scene/shoot out was highly stylized and a high point in the franchise's history.

The art house debate will go on, but in the meantime, hiring art house directors may not be such a bad idea.

Some splendid points and I wholeheartedly agree! Difficult waters, this distinction. I'd also see a hiring of such 'art house' directors and a carefully balanced inclusion of their more aspiring ideas as a huge enrichment of the series and a chance rather than a risk.

[Quantumofsolace007]

Trident,

Absolutely right, ego is a big part of art (believe me, i'm a fine art grad so i know how big our egos can be). And the separation made all to often between Art and Craft (Art House and Mainstream) is a tenuous and blurred devision.

The best art house films have Mainstream sensibilities. They understand that communicating the narrative/meaning to the audience is imperative, or else it's rhetorical, thus less effective (good artist want their work to be a conversation with the viewer - to ask questions - not to just lecture the viewer with their own opinions and statements).

The best Mainstream work has Art House sensibilities: Subtext, meaning, style, originality.

So you see, when Art House films, and Mainstream films are made well, they both have a balanced proportion of Art and Mainstream, thus they are difficult to tell apart. Some may think Spielberg can be art house for this reason. others may think Fellini mainstream for this reason.




'Art House' is really a term created by critics in order to help catorgarize, however that's not to say that filmmakers themselves don't endeavor to make 'Art House'. Our 'Pop' culture is one that regurgitates it's old ideas - recycles them. So one day Spielberg is annoyed at being told he has at house pretensions, the next day he tries to make an art house film. It's a 'chicken & egg' relationship.

'Film for films sake' is what i see as the simplest, most fundamental way to define what's meant by 'Art House'. Certainly all filmmakers want their work to be seen by as many people as possible, but that's subtly different to wanting to make as much money as possible.

Perhaps they add up to the same thing, but i wonder how many filmmakers would like the opportunity to show their films for free, relinquishing profits? they'd be true hardcore Art House. Likewise, how many artists would give their work freely to museums?

My point is that trying to quantify and define 'Art House' is treacherous ground, so simplicity is best.

'Art House' is (IMO):

1/ When a film does something that contradicts the formulas of traditional mainstream cinema - something unnecessary to the plot, action etc.

2/ Something that presents a standard element (dialogue, action, exposition, style, narrative) in way that deviates from the normal commonly used convention (the more it deviates, the more art house it is.

How unnecessary these elements are, or how much they deviate can be highly subject and so the confusion between one man's Art and another's begins.

CASINO ROYALE's Shower scene qualifies in this context as it deviates from the formula in several ways. As does the shaky POV shots after Bond has been poisoned - not the way the action, or character is normally presented in Bond. Likewise with the B/W pre-titles.

For me these are the elements that raise CR above previous Bonds, so i hope there's more Art house intrusions to come. As for QoS, the Opera scene/shoot out was highly stylized and a high point in the franchise's history.

The art house debate will go on, but in the meantime, hiring art house directors may not be such a bad idea.

Some splendid points and I wholeheartedly agree! Difficult waters, this distinction. I'd also see a hiring of such 'art house' directors and a carefully balanced inclusion of their more aspiring ideas as a huge enrichment of the series and a chance rather than a risk.

I agree. To Me Casino Royale and Quantum Of Solace were amazing bond films and I want the level of coolness (for lack of a better term) to continue. I became Much more of a diehard bond fan After watching and enjoying these films (though i do own all 22 bond films as well as Cr 67 and NSNA)

we have the right people scripting it as far as i'm concerned now all we need is an amazing Director and the right cast


I am curious as to when bond 23 rumours will begin and be a bit more serious.

[Zorin Industries]

I am curious as to when bond 23 rumours will begin and be a bit more serious.

Aren't rumours the exact opposite of serious...?

[Harmsway]

Spielberg will certainly go down in film history, but chiefly as a champion moneymaker. As a filmmaker, he rates on the whole as a competent craftsman but no more than that.

Agreed, if we really take into consideration that "on the whole." You and I both agree that he's certainly had his brighter moments (though we certainly have our disagreements on what his brighter moments are), and it's true that he's had far brighter moments, and more of them, than most directors ever manage.

Anyway, back to the discussion. Who should direct BOND 23? I'm not quite sure. Hopefully somebody who can balance character, style, and fun in equal measures, and that's not easy to find. Campbell did reasonably well on ROYALE, and in my opinion, Forster didn't do quite as well on SOLACE (though I think SOLACE's primary problem lies with the screenplay, not with Forster's direction).

[Trident]

I am curious as to when bond 23 rumours will begin and be a bit more serious.

Aren't rumours the exact opposite of serious...?

Perhaps 'substantial' would be the term needed here. But it would seem to me the rumour-season has already started. Just wait for the weekend, tabloids will shoot a new one with every issue...

[Zorin Industries]

Trident,

Absolutely right, ego is a big part of art (believe me, i'm a fine art grad so i know how big our egos can be). And the separation made all to often between Art and Craft (Art House and Mainstream) is a tenuous and blurred devision.

The best art house films have Mainstream sensibilities. They understand that communicating the narrative/meaning to the audience is imperative, or else it's rhetorical, thus less effective (good artist want their work to be a conversation with the viewer - to ask questions - not to just lecture the viewer with their own opinions and statements).

The best Mainstream work has Art House sensibilities: Subtext, meaning, style, originality.

So you see, when Art House films, and Mainstream films are made well, they both have a balanced proportion of Art and Mainstream, thus they are difficult to tell apart. Some may think Spielberg can be art house for this reason. others may think Fellini mainstream for this reason.




'Art House' is really a term created by critics in order to help catorgarize, however that's not to say that filmmakers themselves don't endeavor to make 'Art House'. Our 'Pop' culture is one that regurgitates it's old ideas - recycles them. So one day Spielberg is annoyed at being told he has at house pretensions, the next day he tries to make an art house film. It's a 'chicken & egg' relationship.

'Film for films sake' is what i see as the simplest, most fundamental way to define what's meant by 'Art House'. Certainly all filmmakers want their work to be seen by as many people as possible, but that's subtly different to wanting to make as much money as possible.

Perhaps they add up to the same thing, but i wonder how many filmmakers would like the opportunity to show their films for free, relinquishing profits? they'd be true hardcore Art House. Likewise, how many artists would give their work freely to museums? How can they then be 'true artists', free of ego? So how come there work is still 'Art'? Well as you said Trident, Art & ego are really the same thing.

My point is that trying to quantify and define 'Art House' is treacherous ground, so simplicity is best.

'Art House' is (IMO):

1/ When a film does something that contradicts the formulas of traditional mainstream cinema - something unnecessary to the plot, action etc.

2/ Something that presents a standard element (dialogue, action, exposition, style, narrative) in way that deviates from the normal commonly used convention (the more it deviates, the more art house it is.

How unnecessary these elements are, or how much they deviate can be highly subjective and so the confusion between one man's Art and another's begins.

CASINO ROYALE's Shower scene qualifies in this context as it deviates from the formula in several ways. As does the shaky POV shots after Bond has been poisoned - not the way the action, or character is normally presented in Bond. Likewise with the B/W pre-titles.

For me these are the elements that raise CR above previous Bonds, so i hope there's more Art house intrusions to come. As for QoS, the Opera scene/shoot out was highly stylized and a high point in the franchise's history.

The art house debate will go on, but in the meantime, hiring art house directors may not be such a bad idea.

"Art house" does not exist. It is a term and construct used by people who avoid what they think is art house. Other people who are less streamlined in their tastes just accept a wider palette of films.

I completely disagree that SOLACE and ROYALE have "art house intrusions". It is just perhaps a more astute level of direction not seen in a Bond film. Let's be blunt here. The Bond films are not the most elaborate films (in a lot of ways). So the shower scene in ROYALE is less about art house and just a directional, written and performed flourish that is DIFFERENT to what Bond films can and have fed their audiences with in - perhaps - their staler moments.

Is KILL BILL art house? It features a labyrinthine plot that deliberately twists in on itself to stunning effect. Is that still art-house when the likes of BLEAK HOUSE and WUTHERING HEIGHTS were doing exactly that in the mid-19th century on the written page and were considered (when word got around) to be widely consumed classics?

You cannot quantify and detail something that doesn't exist. As soon as you suggest a pattern or model, there are millions of films out there that some people would class naively as "art house" (because they follow a different set of narrative, visual and directional decisions than what the Odeon provides) but are actually as structurally and creatively similiar to "mainstream cinema" as you can get (itself a dangerous phrase to throw at discussing cinema as there is no such thing as mainstream in any walk of life).

[Odd Jobbies]

Zorin,

My point was that in reality there's 'Art House' and mainstream tendencies in almost all films. Dividing one from the other is subjective and the work of critics, rather than filmmakers.

you say that CR's shower scene "...is less about art house and just a directional, written and performed flourish." Well yes, exactly - it has artistic flourish. Art house cinema in it's purest form is pure artistic flourish, so it's fair to say that CR has an art house tendency to it - an art house flourish.

I'm guessing you don't think this is art, but directorial craft. Honestly, there's not a lot of difference. I've worked with many artists and craftsman in film as well as other mediums and these are labels applied to them by an industry that requires people to be pigeon-holed in order to fit a system.

I find it a little offensive that some films are decided to be art house, since it suggests that the rest are not Art. There's little difference to me between an artist like Warhol having his minions create screenprints, or Michelangelo bringing the epic elements of the sistine chapel together and say, Coppola finding Apocalypse Now in the epic madness of making that film. IMO they are all Art.

Therefore Art is visible in filmmaking and i define 'flourishes' as Artistic strokes, and so 'art house', for me is present in both CR and QoS. In fact they're the best bits.

BTW, excellent comparison of WUTHERING HEIGHTS and KILL BILL, though i'd say the plots are very straight forward, while the narratives are presented out of sequence, giving them that labyrinthine quality, plus added nuance. Pulp Fiction does the same thing, but with more flourish than Kill Bill, IMO, since the plot is slightly more complex.

As you'll guess, yes i do see both WUTHERING HEIGHTS and KILL BILL, as well as Pulp Fiction as having strong art [house] elements.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 03 September 2009 - 06:28 PM.

[Zorin Industries]

Zorin,

My point was that in reality there's 'Art House' and mainstream tendencies in almost all films. Dividing one from the other is subjective and the work of critics, rather than filmmakers.

you say that CR's shower scene "...is less about art house and just a directional, written and performed flourish." Well yes, exactly - it has artistic flourish. Art house cinema in it's purest form is pure artistic flourish, so it's fair to say that CR has an art house tendency to it - an art house flourish.

I'm guessing you don't think this is art, but directorial craft. Honestly, there's not a lot of difference. I've worked with many artists and craftsman in film as well as other mediums and these are labels applied to them by an industry that requires people to be pigeon-holed in order to fit a system.

I find it a little offensive that some films are decided to be art house, since it suggests that the rest are not Art. There's little difference to me between an artist like Warhol having his minions create screenprints, or Michelangelo bringing the epic elements of the sistine chapel together and say, Coppola finding Apocalypse Now in the epic madness of making that film. IMO they are all Art.

Therefore Art is visible in filmmaking and i define 'flourishes' as Artistic strokes, and so 'art house', for me is present in both CR and QoS. In fact they're the best bits.

BTW, excellent comparison of WUTHERING HEIGHTS and KILL BILL, though i'd say the plots are very straight forward, while the narratives are presented out of sequence, giving them that labyrinthine quality, plus added nuance. Pulp Fiction does the same thing, but with more flourish than Kill Bill, IMO, since the plot is slightly more complex.

As you'll guess, yes i do see both WUTHERING HEIGHTS and KILL BILL, as well as Pulp Fiction as having strong art [house] elements.

Yes. We are sort of coming at the same ideas from different angles. Though I will stand by my thoughts that "art house" does not exist. It is a lazy label and a lazy construct (NOT that you are doing this here by any stretch). So do we say ET has "art house" flourishes when the death of ET is projected onto the wilting pot plant or BRAVEHEART is "art house" as it makes the artistic choice of conveying the emotional progression of the main characters almost exclusively through James Horner's score?

Regarding WUTHERING HEIGHTS... I am not sure if I agree that the plot is solely linear and thrown out of sequence for effect. I would also like to suggest that the plots may be straightfoward, but where HEIGHTS (and to a lesser degree, KILL BILL) excels is in its characterisation, tone and attitude. HEIGHTS is such a rich, realistic tapestry of apparent types that make way for great spotlights on all facets of the human condition - something which is only conveyed through Bronte's very specific narrative structure (which allows the book to show its characters changing, developing, retreating and remaining unchangeable to great effect).

I find it a little offensive that some films are decided to be art house, since it suggests that the rest are not Art. There's little difference to me between an artist like Warhol having his minions create screenprints, or Michelangelo bringing the epic elements of the sistine chapel together and say, Coppola finding Apocalypse Now in the epic madness of making that film. IMO they are all Art.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Even McG (that Happy Meal director if ever there was one) makes an artistic decision every time he chooses where to put his camera. They are not the right decisions, but they are still artistic ones.

Off the record, thanks for providing a bit of decent debate round these shores. Zorin Industries plc respects that and will cross you off the list for our next airship based 'round the table' meeting.

[bond 16.05.72]

I wouldn't at all mind seeing a Christopher Nolan type tackle a Bond film. But I don't consider that kind of director among the real great cinematic artists. It's my stance that Bond doesn't need remarkable, thoughtful artistes anyway. What Bond needs are elegant entertainers.

Fair enough. Bond doesn't need a Michelangelo. But if such a director were brought on, do you believe that would be bad for Bond? Or only bad for the film that didn’t get made as a result of the time spent on Bond?

Incidentally, Nolan, I’m coming to believe, is becoming an obscenely overrated director who has a knack for good, solid, action fare and as such, probably would meet your criteria… as long as he didn’t try to do to much, which is exactly when the foible at the core of his overratedness rears its ugly head.

It seems to have come fashionable of late to have a go at Nolan or call him overrated but for me he's produced nothing but quality product, Insomnia I would probably count as his worst but it's still better than most Hollywood fare.

Memento & Prestige I would argue are 2 of the best films of the decade and Begins was more than we could of expected of the Batman franchise after Schmacher had raped and pillaged it. I still think TDK was a superb film and are not joining the lets slag it off because it's fashionable group.

I happen to think TDK is superior to any Bond film and would agree that Inglourious Basterds is as well, I think it was easily was the best films of the summer and has only Let The Right One In & Che Part 1 & 2 as any real competition in 2009 so far.

I would agree that a director like Nolan or QT shouldn't waste their time on Bond, I'd much rather see them put their creative impulses into some of their own
work.

a capable but talented director is fine for Bond as they need to work within the constraints of the series, something I can't see big name directors lending themselves to.

[Odd Jobbies]

Yes. We are sort of coming at the same ideas from different angles. Though I will stand by my thoughts that "art house" does not exist. It is a lazy label and a lazy construct (NOT that you are doing this here by any stretch).

Yep, i think we're trying to tie down the reasons why it's daft to use 'art house' as a blanket term. Not identifying the artistic merits individually is indeed lazy.

So do we say ET has "art house" flourishes when the death of ET is projected onto the wilting pot plant or BRAVEHEART is "art house" as it makes the artistic choice of conveying the emotional progression of the main characters almost exclusively through James Horner's score?

Finding the art in something is all about who's looking for it, as much as it was about the filmmakers intent to be 'artistic'. If i'm looking, then i find Braveheart's simple storytelling that uses the score to exposit emotion to such great effect more artistic than ET.

Regarding WUTHERING HEIGHTS... I am not sure if I agree that the plot is solely linear and thrown out of sequence for effect. I would also like to suggest that the plots may be straightfoward, but where HEIGHTS (and to a lesser degree, KILL BILL) excels is in its characterisation, tone and attitude. HEIGHTS is such a rich, realistic tapestry of apparent types that make way for great spotlights on all facets of the human condition - something which is only conveyed through Bronte's very specific narrative structure (which allows the book to show its characters changing, developing, retreating and remaining unchangeable to great effect).

I'll concede to your authority on WUTHERING HEIGHTS, as i've never read the text [blush]. It was definitely brave/stupid of me to call it simple, but i hope you got the gist of my idea about how clever editing can make something far more interesting than it was before.

...Even McG (that Happy Meal director if ever there was one) makes an artistic decision every time he chooses where to put his camera. They are not the right decisions, but they are still artistic ones.

If they're bad decisions, then i don't call them artistic. Every filmmaker has the opportunity to be artistic - it's about the choices they make. Without analyzing it, it's fair to say that McG has as much artistic flourish as McD's. But even a stop clock's right twice a day and by sheer chance T4 has more appeal than Mostow's T3; i guess it's unfulfilled ambitions were loftier, while T3 succeeded at meeting it's low ambitions to be a superficial retread of 1&2.

Off the record, thanks for providing a bit of decent debate round these shores. Zorin Industries plc respects that and will cross you off the list for our next airship based 'round the table' meeting.

Likewise, i've enjoyed the debate. It's always good to flesh out the ideas that swim around every now and then. And thanks for tearing up that invite, i'm not good with heights...or trap doors

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 03 September 2009 - 08:01 PM.

[crheath]

I just saw Inglourius Basterds and I've changed my mind about Quentin Tarantino. I think he would do a great job on Bond 23...

He'd be good, but i think he'd have the same problem as Christopher Nolan, he's a director who likes to have free reighn on his films, whilst the Bond films have always been very producer lead productions. I'm not confident the two would gel.

******* Spoiler Warning***********
The scene I loved in IB was the scene at the underground bar, where the German officer is drinking with the spies and he finally says, "My hand is on my Walther revolver pointing at your testicles now." The spy then says, "That makes two of us because I have had mine pointing at you ever since you sat down."

After that scene I said, "Tarantino can do Bond".

Edited by crheath, 03 September 2009 - 09:48 PM.

[Odd Jobbies]

The scene I loved in IB was the scene at the underground bar, where the German officer is drinking with the spies and he finally says, "My hand is on my Walther revolver pointing at your testicles now." The spy then says, "That makes two of us because I have had mine pointing at you ever since you sat down."

No offense, but how about a nice big *SPOILER WARNING* next time.

I've seen IB, but there's probably at least one poor sucker here who now won't be enjoying the delightful surprise of that scene.

Cheers

BTW, i agree - great scene and he could do a great Bond movie.

Edited by Odd Jobbies, 03 September 2009 - 09:06 PM.

[Judo chop]

It seems to have come fashionable of late to have a go at Nolan or call him overrated but for me he's produced nothing but quality product.

Nolan is who he is. I don’t mean to have ‘a go’ at anybody, but if I am, it’s at those who would overrate him. I’m not at all concerned with what’s fashionable on either side of the debate.

I still think TDK was a superb film and are not joining the lets slag it off because it's fashionable group.

Good for you. Stick to your guns. Likewise, I’m not going to join the “Let’s defy the ‘Let’s slag TDK™’™” group simply because that’s becoming the next fashionable trend.

Word of advice: if you want to enter a conversation in which your opinion will be respected, don’t start the conversation off by baselessly discounting the other guy’s. 100% of the time people won’t like that. And I'm a person.

[crheath]

The scene I loved in IB was the scene at the underground bar, where the German officer is drinking with the spies and he finally says, "My hand is on my Walther revolver pointing at your testicles now." The spy then says, "That makes two of us because I have had mine pointing at you ever since you sat down."

No offense, but how about a nice big *SPOILER WARNING* next time.

I've seen IB, but there's probably at least one poor sucker here who now won't be enjoying the delightful surprise of that scene.

Cheers

BTW, i agree - great scene and he could do a great Bond movie.

Done. Thanks for pointing out...

[Loomis]

Also, it is worth remembering that the likes of Fellini and Kurosawa may be easily bracketed as 'art house artists who are the oppposite of Spielberg', but mainstream, wider audiences lapped up their own work in their home countries.

Fellini and Kurosawa may have had their domestic blockbusters (back in the days, let's not forget, when there was no home video or internet or nothing, and probably not even a telly in most homes, and Joe Public or Giuseppe Publico had to take his film viewing pleasure where he found it), but it would be foolish to assume that all directors designated here in the United Kingdom as "arthouse" or "world cinema" directors are hitmakers at home. The masses of India do not spend their hard-earned money on films by directors like Satyajit Ray - they vote with their wallets overwhelmingly in favour of Bollywood fare. And while I'm no expert on the Hong Kong box office, I suspect that some of the more avant-garde offerings from that darling of Western critics Wong Kar-Wai have been comfortably outgrossed by locally-made kung fu and action titles.

If, at the end of a hard day, Hong Kong's Wong Chun Chuen prefers to seek entertainment in THREE KICKS TO THE HEAD PART III, how are such directors as we're discussing here not "art house artists who are the oppposite of Spielberg"? I remember trying to find films by Mizoguchi on the bugger's home turf in aircraft-hanger-sized Japanese video rental stores and it was what our friend Mr Tree would call a virgins and maternity wards scenario.

I mean, you'll concede, I presume, that there's such a thing as non-mainstream cinema. Epitomised in Britain by the likes of Derek Jarman. I'd agree that the term "arthouse" is used far too liberally (e.g. some posters here dubbing Marc Forster and Paul Haggis "arthouse filmmakers", when they're clearly nothing of the sort), but it would also be silly to pretend that "arthouse" is something that doesn't exist at all.