Miami Vice Movie

Jon-Hebert Barto · August 12, 2006

Its funny that Mr. Mullen mentions DUNE.

I was reading an old article where Lynch said Dino kept coming up to him and saying, "Please, David, less ERASER HEAD and more ELEPHANT MAN."

I feel thats very insightful....

Max Jacoby · August 12, 2006

Cinema Paradiso, Downfall, Amalie, etc. are but a few of too many to list superb foreign "art house" films that I dare say couldn't be made in the United States, where there's far more emphasis on "reaping the teen coin".

I wouldn't necessary call 'Amelie' an art house film. It is very commercial, very geared towards pleasing the audience and not an art film just because it's in French.

Obvioulsy everyone's definition of an art film is different, but to me it's a film which goes more in direction of contemporary art than narrative-driven cinema. Films by the likes of Tarkovsky, Bela Tarr, the latest Gus Van Sant's, some David Lynch's.

Dan Goulder · August 12, 2006

I wouldn't necessary call 'Amelie' an art house film. It is very commercial, very geared towards pleasing the audience and not an art film just because it's in French.

Obvioulsy everyone's definition of an art film is different, but to me it's a film which goes more in direction of contemporary art than narrative-driven cinema. Films by the likes of Tarkovsky, Bela Tarr, the latest Gus Van Sant's, some David Lynch's.

The reason I included "Amelie" on the list was because in the U.S., it was put on the art house circuit (limited distribution) along with most works of the filmmakers you've mentioned. It is interesting, however, that you've pointed out what passes for commericial in Europe is often treated as something more 'eclectic' or 'obscure' when presented to an American audience, which has more of an addiction to mindless violence for entertainment's sake.

Tom Bays · August 12, 2006

I consider "The Warriors" and art film.

Dan Goulder · August 12, 2006

I consider "The Warriors" and art film.

"The Warriors" was a wide-release, non "art house" film. (I liked it, too.) It wouldn't be any kind of stretch to refer to "Natural Born Killers" as "arty", either. Filmmakers from Sam Peckinpah to Jim Jarmusch have employed "stylized" violence. Movies are, by definition, an art form. So, of course, short and even sustained moments of "art" can be potentially found in any movie. I believe we were referring to films that are distributed in limited form primarily through the art house circuit, which in the U.S. is generally what constitutes the definition of "art film".

Jason Maeda · August 12, 2006

Let's not argue about what is "art" and what is not, especially if we are going to resort to ridiculous notions of differing degrees of national "culture". To call American culture "lowbrow" as someone did on this thread (I'm sorry do lesbian schoolgirl undercover task force fantasy films count as Lowbrow?) is just silly and factually incorrect. Nations from all over the world produce great and terrible films every year. I've been stuck in enough cities all around the world on jobs to have seen some really crappy television and film.

Hollywood is an enormous industry center. The studios which comprimise Hollywood are obligated to earn profits. When the entire world stops throwing money at hollywood, they will make different films. When people in France, Korea, Belgium, Brazil, South Africa, India, Switzerland and the rest of the culturally superior world grow tired of horror/torture flicks, then Hostel 2 will lose it's enormous funding. (was there already a Hostel 2?)

In the meanwhile we should strive to support our local short run film houses. I live at them here in Manhattan and I've got to say, it's alarming how empty they are. There's nothing quite as sad as driving for four hours to Cambridge to see Mizoguchi at the Harvard film Archive, expecting long lines and excited intellectuals, only to find about 12 people in the whole theater, most of whom leave dissapointed because they think Japanes film means Kurosawa, which really means American film. I mean, my own father, who is a brilliant man and quite cultured (for an american...ha ha ha) didn't know who Ozu was until I said "Tokyo Story".

Film has the disadvantage, like television, of being an entertainment form for the masses. In this wonderful democratized culture we must bear with many products aimed at a very wide swath of the population. Other options are all around us, but it is our job to seek them out and support them. Even in Maine where I grew up people are constantly complaining about the lack of cultural opportunities. These people are wrong and I prove it every time I go home. Hell, I saw Cache in Portland. That film is all "highbrow"! Christ it's only highbrow: highbrow at the expense of substance! Uh oh I think I've gone too far again!

Happy hunting,

jk :ph34r:

David Mullen ASC · August 12, 2006

I'm sorry do lesbian schoolgirl undercover task force fantasy films count as Lowbrow?

Err... most of the time?

Dan Goulder · August 12, 2006

Let's not argue about what is "art" and what is not, especially if we are going to resort to ridiculous notions of differing degrees of national "culture". To call American culture "lowbrow" as someone did on this thread is just silly and factually incorrect.

In the meanwhile we should strive to support our local short run film houses. I live at them here in Manhattan and I've got to say, it's alarming how empty they are.

Yeah, that's because most filmgoers are up the street watching "mindless violence" at the local multiplex, just like I stated in my "silly" reference to "lowbrow" American culture. At least you're not stuck waiting in long lines.

Jason Maeda · August 12, 2006

ha ha ha...thanks David!!!

Seriously, though. We are all victims of lowbrow work, and we are all culprits as well (well, I am and I know a lot of others are...heck I don't know anyone who isn't). I saw Miami Vice, I know it's crap but I loved it. Seriously the original trailer was like a hundred times better than the film and I gave them (whoever "they" are) 25 bucks for two tickets plus the phone order charge, and still walked away without regret.

I just think if we want to "demand" anything from hollywood we have to do it by either asking the government to get involved (no thanks) or by running a studio ourselves or by refusing to buy its products.

Me? I can't stop myself!

"At least you're not stuck waiting in long lines." That's a really good point. And when did they turn the AC down in chain theaters? If I have to sit through Lord of the Rings part III or whatever I want my outer extremities to be blue when I walk out!

jk :ph34r:

Edited August 12, 2006 by jasonkollias

Dan Goulder · August 12, 2006

(I'm sorry do lesbian schoolgirl undercover task force fantasy films count as Lowbrow?)

not when they include "blue outer extemities"...

Edited August 12, 2006 by dgoulder

Jason Maeda · August 12, 2006

"most filmgoers are up the street watching "mindless violence" at the local multiplex, just like I stated in my "silly" reference to "lowbrow" American culture."

All I'm saying is that they're waiting in long lines for sex and violence all around the world. You guys are going to have explain where all this "highbrow" culture is being celebrated in the streets.

jk :ph34r:

Andy_Alderslade · August 12, 2006

I wouldn't necessary call 'Amelie' an art house film. It is very commercial, very geared towards pleasing the audience and not an art film just because it's in French.

Obvioulsy everyone's definition of an art film is different, but to me it's a film which goes more in direction of contemporary art than narrative-driven cinema. Films by the likes of Tarkovsky, Bela Tarr, the latest Gus Van Sant's, some David Lynch's.

The notion of what is an art film varies considerably and doesn't necessarily apply only to a short list of directors.

In a discussion on A.I. in Sight & Sound several years ago a writer refered to an art-film as being a film which is more succesfull with critics and writers than it is with the box office, and thus referred to A.I. as being Speilberg's first art film, as it was a film that let its audience satisfaction suffer for the sake of its artistic and philosophical ambitions.

If you agree with that example or not, it doesn't matter as it shows very commerical directors can have almost art-house ambitions - Hitchcock is another example for instance.

The problem is that foreign language films are often dumped in the art-house slot as many people see the effort of seeing a subtitled film as a venture from the normal, so films like Amelie which is essentially a very well made inventive and imaginitive romantic comedy gets put in that pile, when perhaps it shoudn't.

'Y Tu Mamma Tambien' in its home country was treated as it is, a superior teen comedy road movie, which was enjoyed by a large young audience. As a story it takes risks with its style, content and characters but remained to stay part of the narrative mainstream. By the time that film gets to the english speaking world, the necessity for subtitles is just enough to push over the edge into art-house or alternative cinema.

'The Piano Teacher' is another example, behind the pervecity its actually a very plain film with a very strong target audience.

US films like that of Paul Thomas Anderson are also lumped into the category despite the fact these films actually have a strong target audience too - the more serious film goer or wanna-be intelectuals, they answer a need from a certain type of people that want 'issues' in their films. The irony being these films don't actually deal with issues properly and are far from arty.

I guess real art house films could be descibed as films that either devide an audience or require an extra level of patience and that could be from Kubrick's 2001 to Derek Jarman's Blue.

Dan Goulder · August 12, 2006

Maybe "art" can be defined as something that comes from the "heart". We can argue and intellectualize all day about which works qualify under that definition. Let's just say, you know it when you're being exposed to a "labor of love", as opposed to an assembly line product that you know in your gut was just designed to separate filmgoers from their money. With the understanding that it's nearly impossible to describe a subjective observation in objective terms, we know beauty when we see it, without having to put it into words.

Maybe the most important, direct gauge of a movie's "worth" would be: When you leave the theater, does anything positive stay with you, or do you just feel a couple hours older and lighter in the pocket?