I am arthouse...I am not arthouse

[Taxi]

We're having an interesting discussion in our admin forum regarding "film as art" vs. "film as entertainment". (Not that those need to be mutually exclusive... bear with me.)

I was just curious about what the larger audience (that's you guys) think about this issue.

Do you consider yourself a "film" fan? (Assuming everyone will answer yes to that one.) And if so, what about "Art" film? (See the poll above.)

Also, everybody likely defines "arthouse" differently, so if you answer the polll, please take the time to post your definition of what constitues an "art" film.

[Astrakan]

I surprised myself by answering No.

I tend to think of myself as someone who enjoys all kinds of films, but when answering the poll I made myself think for a minute about what kind of film the term "arthouse" conjures up in my head.

And what sprung to mind are experimental films, where the visuals and the mood are more important than the plot, and those are not the kind of films that I enjoy. Hence the "No" vote.

If by "arthouse" one means films that have artistic merit, and not just entertainment value, then my answer would've been Yes.

KM

[Pirate]

We must first define what the term "arthouse" means. It will most likely differ from person to person. Keeping in mind that I feel definitions and excess labels are dangerous for most forms of artistic impression, I would say that arthouse films are generally smaller, lower-budgeted films that are concerned with content over box office. I also think an arthouse film is something that experiments with boundaries, normality and conventions. This doesn’t mean that the film can’t be popular or successful. For example, I would very much consider Taxi Driver to be an arthouse film.

We could also get into a class war and talk about films that appeal to the educated, and whether or not they could be considered arthouse. If I went by my local arthouse cinema, then we’d have to include Dan in Real Life, No Country for Old Men and The Kite Runner. Are those genuine arthouse films? I would consider Atonement, even though its advertising seeks broader audiences, to be an arthouse film.

It’s like finding the difference between real grindhouse cinema and grindhouse-esque cinema.

And to answer the larger question, I have yet to find a genre of film that I loathe in all its forms.

P.S. Sorry for repeating some of your original post, Taxi.

[Iguana Man]

I'm not sure what the hell you folks are talking about but if I read the first line of the first post correctly, I'll pick: Film as entertainment.

Entertain me. Done, I like you.

Art? Shit. That's way to complicated for me. This of course is overall. There are some things I find artistic like Nature flicks but I rarely think of a film as "artistic'.

[Pirate]

Originally Posted by Iguana Man

Art? Shit.

That damn near made coffee spew from my nose.

[SilentBob]

I voted "I'm Not Sure" because i find it too hard to define what "arthouse" is. I tend to think of it as a movie going for look and substance then overall box office success. Something that plays to smaller movie theater audience then a big budget/thousand+ screens for an opening weekend to rake in the money. So what i would consider art house would be something like Elephant and Gerry (both by Gus Van Sant) No big stars and just something different then the average big budget action/drama/horror/comedy. It has no real plot to it but a journey to follow from beginning to end.

Do i like these movies? Some i do but i don't see myself watching them again and again like say Batman Begins. They are nice to see once but like most art museums i await the next new exhibit to show up to see.