Mike's Musings: Art Film vs Independent Film
Film exists in various forms, from the short films that few people are able to see and the blockbusters that everyone sees. But there are two types of films that are grouped together that are really two different types of movies: independent films and arthouse films.
Before I start, I'm going to say that even though it may seem like I'm bashing mainstream movies, that is not my intent. I have very mainstream tastes; I love "Titanic," "Avatar," and most everything that Jerry Bruckheimer has produced. Of course, there are mainstream movies that I hate (the recent "One for the Money," "Killer Elite" or "Soul Plane" for example), but just because it's shown in a multiplex doesn't mean it's a terrible movie.
Now...people group independent and arthouse films together when they're really two different kinds of films, and it's not fair to either one. It's an understandable tendency, after all they do show in the same theaters.
Art movies are exactly what they sound like: art. These films belong in museums like MoMA (Museum of Modern Art) rather than a movie theater. Plot and character are of secondary importance to the images that director is showing on screen, either to illustrate some greater truth or because they look good.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of these. I'm sure some of them are good, but the few that I've seen are films that didn't care for. "Hunger," "Far North," those are arthouse movies.
Independent films are simply movies that lack huge budgets or big stars (unless they are willing to work for less money). Some of these are from countries not called the USA or Great Britain. Rather than special effects or formulas, these films rely on acting, character development and storytelling.
Why do I find this distinction important? Because I think a lot of people are turned off by the word "independent" or "foreign" because they think it'll be something extremely artsy like "Hunger," when it's really no different than any other movie they see.
The lesson is, when you're telling someone about a movie, be careful how you describe it.
Before I start, I'm going to say that even though it may seem like I'm bashing mainstream movies, that is not my intent. I have very mainstream tastes; I love "Titanic," "Avatar," and most everything that Jerry Bruckheimer has produced. Of course, there are mainstream movies that I hate (the recent "One for the Money," "Killer Elite" or "Soul Plane" for example), but just because it's shown in a multiplex doesn't mean it's a terrible movie.
Now...people group independent and arthouse films together when they're really two different kinds of films, and it's not fair to either one. It's an understandable tendency, after all they do show in the same theaters.
Art movies are exactly what they sound like: art. These films belong in museums like MoMA (Museum of Modern Art) rather than a movie theater. Plot and character are of secondary importance to the images that director is showing on screen, either to illustrate some greater truth or because they look good.
Personally, I'm not a huge fan of these. I'm sure some of them are good, but the few that I've seen are films that didn't care for. "Hunger," "Far North," those are arthouse movies.
Independent films are simply movies that lack huge budgets or big stars (unless they are willing to work for less money). Some of these are from countries not called the USA or Great Britain. Rather than special effects or formulas, these films rely on acting, character development and storytelling.
Why do I find this distinction important? Because I think a lot of people are turned off by the word "independent" or "foreign" because they think it'll be something extremely artsy like "Hunger," when it's really no different than any other movie they see.
The lesson is, when you're telling someone about a movie, be careful how you describe it.
Comments
Post a Comment