Tyler Purcell Sustaining Member Share Posted February 16 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Satsuki Murashige said: Um, so what is the difference, then? "An art film is typically a serious, independent film, aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience. It is "intended to be a serious, artistic work, often experimental and not designed for mass appeal, made primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than commercial profit, and contains "unconventional or highly symbolic content". A normal film is something to make money with, for a mass audience. Edited February 16 by Tyler Purcell 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Satsuki Murashige Sustaining Member Share Posted February 16 1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said: "An art film is typically a serious, independent film, aimed at a niche market rather than a mass market audience. It is "intended to be a serious, artistic work, often experimental and not designed for mass appeal, made primarily for aesthetic reasons rather than commercial profit, and contains "unconventional or highly symbolic content". A normal film is something to make money with, for a mass audience. ‘Art’ or otherwise, still ‘a film’ though, surely? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tyler Purcell Sustaining Member Share Posted February 16 9 minutes ago, Satsuki Murashige said: Art’ or otherwise, still ‘a film’ though, surely? Eh, meh, maybe? I mean I don't consider "entertainment" to be "art". Tho, there are instances where "art" can be "entertaining". My point, if it wasn't clear enough, is that big blockbuster popcorn fodder "films", are made an entirely different way, for a different audience than artistic poetry visual media. So when I hear of big Hollywood films, having dramatically different cuts, I always say to myself; "what was the filmmaker thinking". They are so precise, storyboarded to death, prepared for months, sometimes years, they get to set and they literally shot what's on the page. Editing comes down to pacing, rather than complete re-tools of the original product. In the case of Justice League, it's well published what happened. But when you look at other films like "Rogue One", which was a finished film before they started reshooting what, 40% of it? I mean that sorta shit just sucks and it ruins what could have been. Everyone cuts down product for pacing and time. But not everyone has another full feature worth of content sitting around. Unless of course it's an ad-lib comedy like "Anchorman", which they shot enough material for, to make 2 released films, one direct to DVD. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Satsuki Murashige Sustaining Member Share Posted February 16 26 minutes ago, Tyler Purcell said: Eh, meh, maybe? I mean I don't consider "entertainment" to be "art". Tho, there are instances where "art" can be "entertaining". My point, if it wasn't clear enough, is that big blockbuster popcorn fodder "films", are made an entirely different way, for a different audience than artistic poetry visual media. I think this is a gross generalization, and an oddly polarized point of view. From my perspective, most films fall somewhere in the middle of your two ideals; very few filmmakers go into a project with a complete disregard for what the audience may think, and similarly very few go in without any intention of self-expression. At least for me, whether I’m shooting a toothpaste commercial or a self-financed passion project, I’m thinking of both things to some degree. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Tyler Purcell Sustaining Member Share Posted February 16 1 hour ago, Satsuki Murashige said: From my perspective, most films fall somewhere in the middle of your two ideals; very few filmmakers go into a project with a complete disregard for what the audience may think, and similarly very few go in without any intention of self-expression. I don't think that's what I was inferring. I was simply referring to the different processes in making "art" vs making a common "film". I think you understand there is a pretty substantial difference. 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Manu Delpech Share Posted February 16 14 hours ago, Justin Hayward said: Ever notice the aspect ratios that were meant to provide a "bigger" experience are now providing a smaller one? 2:39 was meant to be a "wider" viewing experience in theaters. You swapped to the scope lens, the curtains would open, and the screen would get physically wider. Now they just letterbox it... even in a lot of chain theaters, but always on home viewing which is all we get now, so the 2:39 image is actually smaller than if you had just shot 16x9. Lately IMAX movies shoot 1:33 for a much taller/bigger image in the theater than 1:85 or 16x9, but this movie isn't going to IMAX, it's going to HBO Max where it will be pillar-boxed to literally be the smallest aspect ratio we could possibly watch it in. If I ever get to make a movie I think I'll shoot 4:3, then letterbox it to 2:39 so there'll be a small rectangle in the middle of your TV. Then I'll recommend you watch it with binoculars for the full viewing experience. 🤓😁 It might get an IMAX limited run, Zack has posted images of it being shown in IMAX where it of course looks massive and it's been teased. It's his choice, that's it. I would have chosen 1.66 or 1.85 for home video but he knows what he's doing. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Satsuki Murashige Sustaining Member Share Posted February 16 1 hour ago, Tyler Purcell said: I don't think that's what I was inferring. I was simply referring to the different processes in making "art" vs making a common "film". I think you understand there is a pretty substantial difference. I think you are conflating budget and studio financing with directorial style. One thing does not necessarily correlate with the other. Some directors like to have a tight script and storyboard every shot before going into production. Are they always ‘entertainment’ directors? No. Others like to improvise as much as possible and don’t like to stick to the shooting script (if there even is one). Are they always ‘art’ directors? No. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Drysdale Share Posted February 16 Regarding 4 hour films "Lawrence of Arabia" is a near as makes no difference at 3hours 48 minutes. There are films which are longer than four hours: https://screenrant.com/best-movies-over-four-hours-ranked-imdb/ I gather the longest film ever made is a Swedish film "Logistics" which lasts 35 days and 17 hours, which sounds more like an art installation. The discussion seems to moving into movies v films. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Stephen Perera Sustaining Member Share Posted February 18 tech specs: Aspect Ratio 1.37 : 1 Camera Arricam LT, Leica Summilux-C Lenses Arricam ST, Leica Summilux-C Lenses Arriflex 235, Leica Summilux-C Lenses Arriflex 435, Leica Summilux-C Lenses Negative Format 35 mm (Kodak Vision3 50D 5203, Vision3 250D 5207, Vision3 500T 5219) Cinematographic Process Digital Intermediate (4K) (Master Format) Super 35 (source format) Printed Film Format 35 mm (Kodak) DCP 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.