Film as Art

[speed]

As traditional forms of art (painting, sculpture, literature, poetry, symphonic, jazz and folk music), become less and less important and impactful on man's daily life, it seems film has become ever more important. For the average Joe, film has filled the gap left by these other artistic forms. Persons young and old, rich and poor, discuss and critique the latest movie they saw.

However, there is a huge problem with film. One that's been much discussed in recent years by directors/screenwriters. Its the fact that film is no longer controlled by the director or the screenwriters. The creative context of the film is now left to producers and businessmen. Scorsese and Almovodar--two of top directors alive--both claim they cannot make a movie in Hollywood anymore. Almovodar refuses to ever make even one movie in Hollywood, as his attempts to do so, have been hijacked by Hollywoods demands over creative control; Scorsese also states that even he cannot get adequate funding for movies he wants to make and retain creative control. Paul Schrader writer of Taxi Driver, and director, states that since the 70's, there is not, and there may never be any more classic movies. He states such due to the fact that every film is now under the creative control of the studio, unless it is a small-seen-by-few -people independent movie. Hence, the opinion of these great directors, is that movies are now entirely profit-driven entertainment, run by business not art.

What are the implications of a society in which the primary form of art consumed is made not for creative and artistic reasons and expression, but for nothing more than profit?

 

[10293847]

What are the implications of a society in which the primary form of art consumed is made not for creative and artistic reasons and expression, but for nothing more than profit?

The Media controls society. What we see is what we want and what we do. Monkey see, Monkey do.

There is no love in Populi$t Art. No love = No honesty = Garbage

When the goal is outside of the art itself, it's valued by something that cannot understand it's intent.

 

[NegativeVolume]

However, there is a huge problem with film. One that's been much discussed in recent years by directors/screenwriters. Its the fact that film is no longer controlled by the director or the screenwriters. The creative context of the film is now left to producers and businessmen. Scorsese and Almovodar--two of top directors alive--both claim they cannot make a movie in Hollywood anymore. Almovodar refuses to ever make even one movie in Hollywood, as his attempts to do so, have been hijacked by Hollywoods demands over creative control; Scorsese also states that even he cannot get adequate funding for movies he wants to make and retain creative control. Paul Schrader writer of Taxi Driver, and director, states that since the 70's, there is not, and there may never be any more classic movies. He states such due to the fact that every film is now under the creative control of the studio, unless it is a small-seen-by-few -people independent movie. Hence, the opinion of these great directors, is that movies are now entirely profit-driven entertainment, run by business not art.

I'm curious as to a few things:

1) When did Scorsese say he can't keep creative control? Was this after his latest flick? I'd imagine so. I haven't seen it, but I heard it's pretty cool.

2) Isn't there an independent film about this sort of thing? I can't remember the title off the top of my head, but I saw the trailer...something to do with an investigative dude out looking for the secret group of people who really control the movie industry. Something like that, I can't really remember.

But does this whole corruption of mainstream film as art really come as a surprise? The mainstream music industry is definitely a far cry from the Led Zeppelins and Rolling Stones of yesteryear. Just like the music industry these days, if you're looking for the art in film ya gotta dig dig dig.

 

[judas69]

Businessmen have their public strongest in mind, wanting a movie that appeals to an audience large enough to insure them a return on their investment.

Directors on the other hand may have their message closest to heart but they surely aren't making a conscious effort not to appeal to some aspect of the public otherwise, who are they making this movie for?

Put it this way, the hardest part is getting them to create the movie in the first place. If and when that hurdle is passed, creative control usually becomes a non-issue, especially when you're an established director. If you happen to be a smug established director however, no one is stopping you from raising the funds yourself or getting it made in another country.

That said, directors cuts are usually loaded with more profanity and vulgarity anyway. It's a fair trade-off for both at the end of the day, if any real trade-off took place at all.

 

[speed]

Businessmen have their public strongest in mind, wanting a movie that appeals to an audience large enough to insure them a return on their investment.

Directors on the other hand may have their message closest to heart but they surely aren't making a conscious effort not to appeal to some aspect of the public otherwise, who are they making this movie for?

Put it this way, the hardest part is getting them to create the movie in the first place. If and when that hurdle is passed, creative control usually becomes a non-issue, especially when you're an established director. If you happen to be a smug established director however, no one is stopping you from raising the funds yourself or getting it made in another country.

That said, directors cuts are usually loaded with more profanity and vulgarity anyway. It's a fair trade-off for both at the end of the day, if any real trade-off took place at all.

So, you dont have any problems with art purely for the sake of money and mass-appeal? Surely, 99% of hollywood movies follow this formula, and 99.99% of movies really have almost no artistic merit. Check your local multi-plex now, the only thing even remotely decent is Scorsese's The Departed, and a few independent movies probably playing on one screen. I mean The Grudge II, Jackass II, Gridiron Gang, Employee of the Month, The Guardian, Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Aside from a few movies pre-Oscar season, were talking about some serious shit here.

Well I dont know where you get these opinions from on moviemaking judas69. They're contrary to every single interview/article Ive read. And directors cuts are not a good way to look at this. First, only a few directors even have the power to choose the casting and script of the next movie they wish to make, if it is a big studio film. Second, even if they have this power, if the studios dont like the cut or the story, they will demand changes. Now i agree some of the directors cuts to a great deal of movies add little; however, the point is, the movie and casting itself, is probably not what the director had in mind.

Like literature, movie making has split into two camps: 1) pop-trash; 2) little seen artistic movies/literature--many of which arent very good, but at least they make an attempt.


I 'm quoting or paraphrasing a number of interviews and articles that have recently been published.

 

[judas69]

So, you dont have any problems with art purely for the sake of money and mass-appeal?

Making money won't take away from the message. Infact, it is the driving force behind it; movies aren't cheap.

Surely, 99% of hollywood movies follow this formula, and 99.99% of movies really have almost no artistic merit.

People watch movies for the purpose of entertainment. If a person wants to become a popular and successful director, artist, author etc ..he must appeal to the majority of his audience, that's how it works.

First, only a few directors even have the power to choose the casting and script of the next movie they wish to make, if it is a big studio film.

You gain notoriety, you gain freedoms. As far as scripting goes, popular actors will draw in a larger crowd; these are superficial details. Besides, it's no coincidence that movies with renowned actors fair much better than those casting unknowns.

Aside from that, you're assuming that a true work of art is necessarily in conflict with the business model and public taste in general; this surely is not the case. Many great movies have been made that satisfied everyone involved, including the director. Give the audience some credit.

Second, even if they have this power, if the studios dont like the cut or the story, they will demand changes.

Cuts and changes are made with the audience in mind; a director can still compromise and make his point. I've yet to hear of a director who wanted to make movies most people don't like, or most were offended by.

The reason that the businessman and the director don't always see eye-to-eye, is precisely because the businessman is the businessman and the director is the director, not that their intentions are at odds in any way. Instead, they both have differing perspectives on the process, the audience and the best way to please ..and still make a buck.

 

[speed]

Making money won't take away from the message. Infact, it is the driving force behind it; movies aren't cheap.

Perhaps your real issue is with the capitolist system?



People watch movies for the purpose of entertainment. If a person wants to become a popular and successful director, artist, author etc ..he must appeal to the majority of his audience, that's how it works.

Remember, it's not the fault of the movie industry that the public prefers fast action thrillers over artsy dramas.



You gain notoriety, you gain freedoms. As far as scripting goes, popular actors will draw in a larger crowd; these are superficial details. Besides, it's no coincidence that movies with renowned actors are much better accepted.



Cuts and changes are made with the audience in mind; a director can still compromise and make his point.

I've yet to hear of a director who wanted to make movies no one liked.

I think the issue here is that to you, film is not art, it is popular success and entertainment. Good movie= successful movie; good director=successful director of money making films. This was my question, whether film can be art. I stated that Schrader no longer felt it was possible in the current business climate--no more Lawrence of Arabias or Casablancas could be produced--and that Scorsese and Almovodor felt that pandering to success and making as much money as possible, was done at the expense of creativity and art. You've stated popular success is the most important aspect of film, and there is nothing wrong with making action thrillers cast with famous actors; and eventually, a director will gain the freedom to do more personal and artistic films. I dispute this contention, as this rarely ever happens (even Ridey Scott, Scorsese, Coppola, still are restrained by the studios for any decently budgeted film they wish to make).

You've therefore answered quite clearly in this post, you do not believe film to be art.

 

[judas69]

[I made some changes to the above before your reply, re-read]

I most certainly think film is art. You however, come across with the idea that there is only one kind of art when I'm saying, intetion and art need not conflict with success or popularity.

I think the assessment of art, beit movie and otherwise, is done on many levels. Just because a movie falls into a certain genre, or one genre is more popular than another genre, doesn't mean you should cator to the unpopular, nor does it mean that the popular genre is not art.

 

[Karasu]

I think film as a whole is art. But things like "explosive" blockbusters and summer sequels, I would be tempted to put in the category of vaudeville, but at least vaudevillians had talent in spades.

But just because something is "popular" doesn't make it high-end art. After all, the Mona Lisa is popular and no one says it isn't art. (Well, some people maybe. I'll exclude them here.)