Talk:Art film

Untitled

CHHAILU SINGH HADA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.189.191.204 (talk) 01:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Definition

"They are generally not American, not with a large budget and usually not an English language film. "

Is this some kind of official definition? There are plenty of American and English language "art films". This article seems to imply that "art film" is synonomous with "non-American film". [[User:Aranel|Aranel ("Sarah")]] 20:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Further, this article's definition of 'noncommercial' film is not sustainable. Isn't the festival circuit commercial? There is a huge market for art cinema and these films are produced for that market. The art cinema tradition itself grew out arguably from the pressure of Hollywood films that forced the European producers into a niche market. Please weight your definition taking into consideration experimental and avant-garde traditions. These films could claim 'noncommercial' production mode. Absolutely not art film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.87.240 (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Time line of Great independent films

It would be best to not have more that 7 or 8 films per decade. !! please some one respond!!!Grosscha 20:30, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This article needs even more additions to its list of Art film directors Paradiso 16:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I am concerned about this subtitle. The first part "Timeline" is good. But the second part "Great" i am worried about, because it is a subjective, vague term. I argue that the encyclopedia has to have a factual, balanced tone (therefore "notable" is a better term). And finally, I am concerned about the term "independent films". The article is about art movies. Yes, art movies and independent movies overlap, but they are not the same thing. If Kurosawa made a $100 million dollar movie produced by Sony, and it was all filled with bizarre hallucinogenic images, deep philosophical questions, and experimental montages of images and colour, it would probably qualify as an art movie EVEN though it was done through a major studio for lots of $$$. For these reasons, I suggest a more "neutral" title such as "Timeline of Notable Art Films"Nazamo 03:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You guys also never mention Rainer Werner Fassbinder even though he was the main person involved with the German New Wave film movement for his entire working life. 60.242.249.235 (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

The German notion is "Programmkino", an article in German Wikipedia. Stephanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.128.45.239 (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Ill Conceived

The article itself is ill conceived. Art film is not a genre with specific characteristic, it's at best an umbrella term and at worse a characteristic like "emo", where it really does not define the works it represents but the perception of certain traits as part of a whole. To put it in another way, very few, if any, directors would claim to make art films. Instead of trying to define what an art film is, the article should acknowledge that its just an umbrella term, a perception of certain movies not perceived as traditional or Hollywoodesque. --Clementduval 23:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The art film may not be a genre but not being a genre it is something more general. It can be defined in terms of narration and style; or by looking closely at various governments measures to protect their domestic market. If art film is 'at best an umbrella term' then what is it umbrella term of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.87.240 (talk) 10:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

merge

One month passed with no comments at all. Obvious concensus in favor of a merge. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 16:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

removing link to life of a tenis ball; seems irrelevant to greater theme, and there are surely better art films than that to link to. cheers, --zachjones4 17:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Criteria

There seems to be a tendency to include films into the Examples section solely because they contain subjective realism, such as Adaptation, Annie Hall, and Barton Fink, none of which occur to me as art films (I've removed Annie Hall due to my convictions).

I think this page should distinguish between art avant-garde film (works by Barney, Brakhage, Deren, Warhol) and arthouse cinema (films with limited appeal that play to smaller audiences, including popular films released to foreign markets) which, while sometimes overlapping, are quite distinct. Jonathan F 02:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree they are distinct. Paradiso 06:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree too, and there was a page on arthouse films which was redirected to art film earlier this year. An art film is a film meant to be art. An arthouse film is any film that plays arthouse cinemas (but those are most likely to be foreign films, art films, cult films, controversial films, banned films and non-mainstream films). Although I have not read it, Sure Seaters: The Emergence of Art House Cinema - Barbara Wilinsky seems to be a good source for the arthouse film phenomenon. Overlap may occur in the pages on art film and experimental film . Two notable American arthouse theaters were the Elgin Theater and the Brattle Theater.

--Jahsonic 08:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• I also agree, and I believe that there should (again?) be a seperate page for "art house". The term "art house" itself is in wider use than "art film" when describing the films and directors listed in this article, etc. There is also a seperate and distinct history to the term "art house" (referring to art house cinemas or theaters as mentioned above). An example of this would be the DVD boxed set to be released soon from Janus Films, containing 50 films and labeled "Essential Art House: 50 Years of Janus Films". This boxed set contains a great number of the films listed in the examples section of this article.

Zeroism 00:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• • Sure, art house could have its own page since the emergence and history of venues that play art films is of encyclopedic interest. Also, it would do to have this page finally focus on the art film (Bergman, Antonioni, whatever) to the exclusion of avant-garde film (Deren, yadayadayada), which has its own page (experimental film). Jonathan F 08:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Art House (type of films)

I have attempted to have the "art house" (from RIT) page link here. Should I have missed something in the format please do fix it up! Yottabite

Very Ill-Conceived

This is simply to reinforce the points made by Clementduval which seem to me entirely just. Cinema is an art. The notion of a non-art film is to say the least problematic and therefore the notion of an art-film similarly so. Any list of supposed "art films" presents immediate problems. Kubrick's 2001? Scorcese's Raging Bull? Lee's Brokeback Mountain? (but no Citizen Kane, one notes). If such popular mainstream Hollywood films are included, then why not the films of Ford? or Peckinpah? Why not Fantasia? Why not Bambi? There is no way in which one establish any kind of objective meaning for the term and I don't suppose there is a single film-director who would accept its validity. As Clementduval points out it is simply a convenience term with which says something only about popular perceptions of cinema. To attempt to display it as an objective criterion is confusing and misleading. The relationsip to the more critically respectable French term, widely used in Europe, "film d'auteur" is not made at all clear (and cross-reference to it produces a somewhat bizarre "List of auteurs"). As for "arthouse" this is surely something different. The term is a local American one with barely any currency outside the United Staes and, if I understand it rightly, refers to the cinematic fare provided (more or less exclusively) by certain kinds of movie theatres. Speaking as a non-American, to whom the word has little or no meaning, I would find a rather more specific and objective explanation of this phenomenon very welcome. Agantuk 17:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Agantuk, thank you for your comments. First of all, I would like to remind you that this is an article "in progress." It still needs lots of work, additions, and research, preferably from editors with a MUCH greater knowledge of films and cinema than my own.................. You said "Cinema is an art." Sure, for Citizen Kane, but what about the Die Harder series or the Lethal Weapon movies? I think that you could argue that different films are on a continuum that runs from pure entertainment at one end and pure art at the other end. Let's say we pick Resident Evil: Apocalypse as a good example of pure entertainment (this movie has every mistake and misstep you could imagine...plot holes, poor acting, poor dialogue, etc....but a lot of stuff blows up, and there are some cool costumes and weapons, so if you put your mind in neutral, it is sort of fun), and then you could put a film such as Kurosawa's Dreams (1990), with its bizarre images, hallucinogenic sequences, etc, as a pure art film................. You said "Any list of supposed "art films" presents immediate problems." I agree. The list was already here in the article when I first started trying to improve the article. The list is a crazy mixed bag of popular films, experimental films, auteur films, etc, reflecting the interests of different editors. Along with others, I have been trying to categorize the films by year/director. Now that this is done, I think that people interested in this article can vote/discuss on the talk page for which films/directors should be in, using references to external experts' opinions and reviews...........As far as there non being "any kind of objective meaning for the term," the new edits have tried to acknowledge this by showing that there have been varying definitions, some of which are very vague....... Now, as far as your comment "...I don't suppose there is a single film-director who would accept its validity."...this may be true, but a respected film theorist(cited in the article) has defined art films, in terms of how they are different from mainstream films..........The relationship with the "...critically respectable French term, widely used in Europe, "film d'auteur" is not made at all clear"... I agree. More work is needed. As far as your comment on "arthouse", this is a good point... the article should be clearer that this is a US term, which is used very loosely. Please contribute or edit, as you have many good points and ideasNazamo 19:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. My comments were not aimed at anyone in particular and we are not in fact as much in disagreement as might appear. I do not really dispute the continuum between films that have little artistry and those (in the case of Kurosawa's wretched Dreams - quite his worst film in my view) that arguably have too much. Hence the 'convenience' use of the term in a world where we all fight shy of using subjective words with relatively clear meaning like 'serious' and 'trivial' or 'entertaining' and 'thought-provoking'. In effect it is a purely judgemental term masquerading as an objective one - a sort of positive euphemism. But, whatever it is, 'art film' is clearly not any sort of fixed, determined category and the first thing that surely ought to go is the list because a list is totally inappropriate for a category that has no fixed sense. It's a bit like concocting a list of 'nice food' or 'beautiful women' or indeed 'serious films'. It seems to me the article should be reduced to a reasonable minimum that simply recognises the use of the term, explains the problems of definition with it, clearly indicates its relation to other related or similar terms and - here I am not in dispute with you - gives a brief account of critical attempts (however misguided) to give it an objective definition (on the lines of "For Critic X, an "art-film" is defined as....For critic Y...."). In effect to give a brief (and it only deserves 'brief') critical history of the term. I do not really want to meddle myself because I don't have sufficient knowledge of the critical history (which is the crucial thing) and also because I dislike the term too strongly and that is not a good basis for editing. "Arthouse" I think should be a separate entry. It has a meaning that is distinct and that is I would have thought, in its origin, even fairly objective (films shown by arthouse theatres)even if nowadays it is also used loosely as a synonym for "art film" (cue for cross-reference). This is not the case either with 'art film' or 'film d'auteur' (that's another list that ought to go) which are both inevitably matters of subjective judgement. Sorry to bore on like this, but it seems to me in its way quite a testing, if not test, case. I actually have no difficulty in imagining the sort of definition that would satisfy both of us and be useful to any enquirer (it would be extremely interesting to know for instance when people first started talking about 'art films' and what specific developments in cinematic history or perhaps rather in the history of film-advertising or film-distribution lie behind the fact that they did). The difficulty as ever is getting there. Agantuk 23:04, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This professor of art history and film studies completely agrees that the term is itself contentious, too region-specific, and borders on being downright offensive. It is itself part of a particular discursive set up by film studies people like Bordwell who approach everything in terms of the film industry and economics and then plot the deviation from that. The variant term ART-HOUSE FILM at least made more sense, in that it specifically referred to the exhibitionary location in which this broad category of works would be shown. I wish I had the time to contribute more, but I just saw this and thought I'd add my two cents. Glad people are working on this though. The main point is that this is a contentious labelling. I recall one faculty hire at another school where someone was not hired specifically because he gave the WRONG answer to the question - is the avant-garde film a genre? The correct answer was no. Obviously, someone like Bordwell would probably disagree. Hence the problem. 98.14.118.111 (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Can we develop a consensus on how to trim the list of films?

Hi, Encyclopedias normally don't have long lists of examples, whether of types of books, types of movies, or examples of a genre. They explain the type or genre, and then give the most widely-recognized, widely cited examples. In the case of this article, though, there is a bit of a problem...The term "art film" is used in many different ways, and so there is no convenient top 10 list of films that all major critics/film writers have agreed upon. The term "art film" is often used to mean "underground film," "auteur film," "independent film," "experimental film," etc. This makes things tricky. One solution would be not to list ANY film names. This is appealing, but I think that it would be "throwing the baby out with the bathwater."...........I have tried to make the list a little more justifiable by putting a disclaimer at the top, saying that this isn't a definitive list, it's just a sample. As well, the disclaimer points out that these films MAY have SOME art movie characteristics...No one is claiming these are 100% pure art films (that is a joke : )........I argue that the list serves a valid purpose: it points people in the direction of films that have been called art films, so that they can learn more, and make their own decisions. To get to the main point: If we accept that the list is a necessary "evil", how can we trim it. I suggest that we only allow one entry per decade per director, preferably their most-acclaimed film. Ideas? Suggestions?Nazamo 21:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the pruning of examples in the "Notable Films with Art Film qualities" section has started, since no other editors have given suggestions on how to proceed. As you can see from the "History" section, the approach has been to give each director one entry per decade. If a director had 2 or 3 films, the most influential or most-acclaimed (festivals,awards, etc.) film was picked, and the other films are listed in a footnote. In some cases, when a director had 2 or 3 films in a decade the one film that was picked was selected because it is the most well-known film to audiences (e.g., it had a wider distribution or more showings in festivals). The 2000s section arguably has too many examples. More concerning, though, is the large number of 2006 examples. Based on what i've read about "art films," the conferring of the status of "art film" is partly based on the content of the film (ambiguous moral qualities in protaganists, meandering plot, experimental shooting techniques, etc.), and partly on the judgement rendered by leading film critics and cultural commentators. If the film only came out in 2006, I argue that there has not been much time for professional critics to evaluate and debate the film. How do readers feel about waiting until a "critical mass" of reviews and columns are available on films before putting it in the list?Nazamo 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S., another guiding principle which I am trying to use is to have a good representation of non-Western films in the lists (films from India, Iran, China, South Korea, Japan, etc).Nazamo 17:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to convert "notable films with art film qualities" lists into paragraphs (with discussion/context etc)

Hi, the lists of films with art film qualities are growing. This is a natural part of lists on Wikipedia. If you start a list of "Notable jazz guitarists" and it starts with Wes Montgomery and George Benson, pretty soon there are 100 names, some minor figures, some are obscure, and some are people's uncle who plays at the local wine bar. In the electric bass article, for example, a decision was made to eliminate ALL lists of notable people, because of their propensity for unchecked growth. I would like to propose that we convert the list of "notable films with art film qualities" to decade-by-decade paragraphs. That way, directors from the same "school" or continent can be grouped together, and general observations can be made about "French New Wave" directors or "Asian films". I argue that converting the lists to paragraphs of text will make the information more useful to readers. As well, it acts as a "brake" on unchecked growth, because then contributors have to integrate their new proposed films or directors into the text, which is harder than adding a bullet. Please indicate if you agree with this proposal, or give comments...Nazamo 14:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)P.S. I also propose that the list of directors, which will probably grow to 100 names if it is left as a list, be combined into the proposed "narrative timeline of films and directors".Nazamo 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A week has passed without comment or input, which I will assume means that other editors concur with this proposal. Accordingly, the list of films and directors will now be converted into a paragraphs.Nazamo 01:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:The Apu Trilogy.jpg

Image:The Apu Trilogy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I Am Curious

The line - and especially the link to the pornography article - make the film sound like a pornographic film:

"In the 1970s, the term was used to describe sexually explicit European films with artistic pretensions such as I Am Curious (Yellow)".

I Am Curious is far from a porn film. It has some sex in it and broke ground for that but it isn't pornography and the US High Court even ruled that it was not pornography. _ Anon

Fair use rationale for Image:The Apu Trilogy.jpg

Image:The Apu Trilogy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kurosawasdreams.jpg

Image:Kurosawasdreams.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Last year marienbad.jpg

Image:Last year marienbad.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rationale added to image article. Johnmc (talk) 11:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removal of images

I have removed every image in this article for improper use of fair use images. In order for a fair use image to be used in this article, it would need to illustrate aspects of the genre. A screenshot of an iconic art house scene (and a description on why it is iconic) helps the reader understand the genre, but a poster of a iconic film does not. Also, free use images should be used instead of fair use images whenever possible. I'm sure there's some art house film that is public domain, use images from that.--SeizureDog (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag on Kurosawa pic

Hi, I am wondering why there is a "speedy deletion" tag on the Kurosawa photo in the lede. The photo is a free, public domain image from the Wikimedia Commons. Thanks. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Apu Pather1.jpg

The image File:Apu Pather1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Cremaster1.png

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

All films are art, so all films are art films

Hi, This idea has been proposed by several editors. The argument goes like this: "Film is art, therefore all films are art, therefore the term "art film" has no meaning." As was pointed out above by Nazamo, the claim that "all films are art films" would mean giving Resident Evil:Apocalypse the same status as Citizen Kane. Resident Evil had plot holes, poor acting, poor dialogue,, etc...Citizen Kane has been hailed by a large number of critics for its artistic qualities. Thus rather than arguing "all films are art films", it would seem that films are on some type of continuum of artistic-ness. Sure, it is hard to rank films and determine where they are on the continuum...the article acknowledges this several times. But just because there is a large grey zone between art films and non-art films it doesn't seem that the solution is to throw out the entire distinction. Anyway, this isn't a debate between two anonymous editors...this is Wikipedia so it is reputable cited source VS. reputable cited source...and let the reader decide which has the better argument. The article cites a number of film scholars and critics to explain the definition of art film and how inclusion in the category is determined. If those editors who wish to propose the "all films are art, therefore all films are art films" have a reputable source for this argument (a film scholar, film historian, cultural studies theorist, whatever, who has published an article on this topic), then put in your source and let the readers decide. Otherwise, if you don't have a source, then the "all films are art" is a personal theory, which could make it Original Research (an original theory),which is not suitable for Wikipedia (according to Wikipedia rules).OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Sean O'Casey and The Informer -- Correction

"In the 1930s and 1940s, Hollywood films could be divided into the artistic aspirations of literary adaptations like Sean O'Casey's The Informer (1935) and Eugene O'Neill's The Long Voyage Home (1940), and the money-making "popular genre films" such as gangster thrillers."

Sean O'Casey has no connection to The Informer. The film, directed by John Ford, is based on a story by Liam O'Flaherty.

Abenr Abenr (talk) 15:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ari Folman

Hi, I am relocating this Ari Folman section here. It is sourced from IMDB, which is not a reputable enough source for WP. It is a user done source, like Wikipedia, so we can't rely on it. Please find a reputable source (e.g., a film journal, a magazine, a film critic) to include this, plus you need a stronger rationale for including it in this art film article. A stronger case for including it would be if a reputable film critic called it an art film, or if it won an award such as a Cannes Prize.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• In 2008 internationally unknown director Ari Folman released the animated feature Waltz With Bashir, which is about a veteran from the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. The documentary-style film mixes in real footage of the war using a dark, shadow-filled shooting process.

Albin H-L (talk) Despite the fact that most of the sources are based on the users own editings, it still gets checked very thoroughly. It can take up to two weeks until what you have added or corrected actually appears. Therefor, the chance of the material being feigned, is very small. Maybe we should reconsider if IMDB is an unreliable source... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albin H-L (talk • contribs) 21:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Off point, I must say that the Cannes prize was a bad example. Most directors in this gengre are against these sorts of award-shows. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albin H-L (talk • contribs) 21:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Sorry, I did not mean to say that only a film with a Cannes prize deserves to be in the article. I just meant that I think that we should have some sort of standard. Perhaps this could be that the film has been given substantial coverage by a highly respected film journal? It is just that if we don't have some sort of reliable, third-party sources and standards, we will have cases where a guy will put in an article about non-notable films and non-notable filmmakers--- his cousin Bob's experimental home movie. This happens a great deal in other articles, such as in articles about bands, where many non-notable garage bands and teenage bands that have only played at a local pub want to have an article or be in articles. To my humble understanding of Wikipedia rules, Ari Folman would have to have articles about him and his films in mainstream, reputable publications before we can have include information about him or his films.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

References

Satyajit Ray Picture

I changed Ray's picture, the other one was creeeeepy!TheZGDK (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Why 2 history sections..duplication???

Hi, if you are reading the article, you may have the impression that there are 2 history sections. Ideally, the 2 sections are supposed to have a different goal. The first section is supposed to describe, chronologically, the different film movements (Cinema Pur, French New Wave, etc), schools of cinema ("Parallel cinema", auteur film) and the reception and production of art films. The second section (the timeline of films) gives you a sense of the important films and the narrative, cinematographic, etc developments at the level of the film. These are the goals. In practice, I admit that there is crossover between the 2 sections. This can be corrected by volunteer Wiki-editors in the future.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Camille Paglia?

so the section on art film in 1980 - 2000 first speaks of a fairly US-centric conflation of independent film and art film, then goes on to cite a proclamation of death of art film by a certain Camille Paglia, who doesn't seem to be primarily a film critic and seems a controversial author. Being just a fan of good movies, I can hardly imagine a period where directors like Wenders, Kar Wai, Kiarostami, Haneke, von Trier to name a few, made significant works be defined merely by '"hyperactive" special effect-filled films' so surely this is just a provocative opinion of a colorful figure? Aryah (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am just a volunteer Wikipedia editor, and I do not have the time to go to libraries to look up film journals and film books and I can't afford to subscribe to film journals. All I have is mainstream newspaper and magazine articles that are available free on the Internet, and, in some cases, books that are available free on Google books. I have not tried to make a US-centric article with my contributions, and nor am I trying to create a soapbox for Ms. Paglia. I am just presenting what I find while searching Google with the keywords "art film", "art cinema" etc. I would be happy to add some balancing sources from European, Asian or African magazines if you could send the links to the articles. In a broader sense the weaknesses of my research approach (being limited to free Internet content in English) are part of a broader structural weakness for the overall Wiki project. Given that we are all volunteers with day jobs, families, and community responsibilities, etc., most of us are limited to using the materials that are free and in our language (There are some exceptions...some people such as academics have access to their university library and some editors can read several languages). A professional, paid researcher, of course, would do inter-library loans and get the best books from a number of libraries and get access to a broad range of subscription-only journal articles.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 00:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Federico Fellini.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Federico Fellini.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests May 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Satyajit Ray is Not Creepy.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Satyajit Ray is Not Creepy.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Bronenosets Rodchenko.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bronenosets Rodchenko.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

An IP has attempted to remove large sections with the only justification being that they do not align with one scholar's idea of what constitutes an art film. There's not much to say, really. The IP refuses to discuss it, the page is now protected and the original version restored. One scholar does not represent a universal understanding (obviously). If his ideas are contrary to established consensus, then a brief mention could be added, with caution. But the wholesale deletions are unwarranted and disruptive. This is clearly not an editor who wants to collaborate, just push his POV. Ray Carney is an established scholar certainly, but he is hardly "the world's foremost authority on film" as claimed by the IP. Of course, no one is and that essentially is the IP's problem. He or she is a bit immature and believes one man's scholarship represents some sort of universal idea of film. Carney mainly concentrates on American mainstream cinema and as well appears to be an expert on John Cassavetes. That hardly makes him the last word on what is or is not an art film, a difficult concept to begin with. freshacconci talk to me 16:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've been warning the IP of the same thing, but as you say, he's only interested in pushing his own view that Carney is the high authority of anything art film. I've given him another warning, and protected the page, FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd note that the same IP editor went through dozens of articles a couple of weeks ago removing the words "art film" and "arthouse" with no explanation, but presumably under the same undiscussed criteria of "Ray Carney doesn't think this is an arthouse film". I fixed a couple of obvious mistakes where removing the word didn't even leave a coherent sentence, but the rest are unchecked. --McGeddon (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

(I've now reverted the rest of these unexplained and arbitrary-seeming deletions.) --McGeddon (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot about that. I should have done that after his first block... Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

And there you go... freshacconci talk to me 17:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Brief Encounter

….. a passionate love affair between an upper class man and a middle class woman …

Without questioning whether the film belongs to art or to commerce, this description seems misleading on two counts. First, though intense, the affair is unconsummated and that is what makes the story so resonant. Second, any class difference between the man and the woman is imperceptible and has no relevance to the story. --Hors-la-loi (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Relocated "Film form" section to talk page

I removed this section on film form from the "Related concepts" section. This material is very general and seems more suited for an article on film in general or an article on film structure. At least in its present form, this section does not elucidate the relationship between film form and art film.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Film form

In general, film form is the total amount of relationships between the different elements within the entire film, and the way in which they interact with one another to create art and understanding. It includes the general concepts and principles that structure a film. Form plays a very important role in the audience’s experience using various elements that stem from the concepts and principles.

The concepts of film form are as follows: Structure, audience expectations, conventions and experience, formalized feeling, meaning, and evaluation. The structure of a film is the elements we perceive. Narrative is a very important element, as it creates the film’s overall, ongoing story. Narrative aids in the audience’s identification of the characters, the plot, understand significance of camera angles and movements, scene coloring, costumes, dialogue, mood, music, etc. It has a close relationship with all elements within the film, but the subject matter it addresses may become different depending on the preferences of each filmmaker.

Audience expectation, also referred to as formal expectation, is used to “guide the audience’s activity”. When a film begins, the audience starts to form their own perceptions and hypothesis’ for the ending which may or may not be accurate. Formal expectations also create “fresh ways of hearing, seeing, feeling, and thinking” that the viewers may not have come up with on their own. It is not uncommon for the story to go in otherwise unnatural ways. For example, if A is the first event in a series, the next event would be B. But in the case of film form, C would not necessarily come third. A viewer’s expectation limits the amount of possible outcomes, but film form does the opposite. When unexpected situation occurs in a film, the audience then begins to participate and formulate their own hypothesis.

Conventions and Experience is very much related to audience/formal expectation. It essentially states that any hypotheses or conjecture the viewers create, and any events the filmmakers plan, are based primarily on prior experience, either personal or derived from other popular works. This is why, in certain genres, films generally follow the same outlines, whether it is loosely or closely. For example, a mystery film would typically follow the pattern of DABC (where D is the end result and ABC is how they got there), and an average horror film would follow the pattern of ABABC (where AB are victims and/or events that occur, and C is how the issue is resolved). Each genre has its own set of rules, or conventions, as does each film. These conventions are learnt throughout the story when the audience is active and not passive.

Formalized feeling is the feelings and emotions displayed in the film by the characters. There are two types of feeling; consistent with character, or emotions represented, and consistent with genre, or emotional response felt. When a character cries, it is a represented emotion and it may evoke a similar feeling from the audience. But if the film is comedic in genre, then the audience may have a different emotional response, such as amusement. Emotions that are represented are very important to the narrative and audience expectations, they can tell us which characters we could assume to be evil, and which we could assume to be good based on their emotional reactions in different circumstances.

Alternatively, but just as important, formalized meaning is the meaning that is created by the audience. An active audience is always seeking a larger meaning when watching a film, and there are four different kinds of meaning they are able to find; referential, explicit, implicit, and symptomatic meaning. Referential meaning is tangible meaning that builds the plot. The audience would find their meaning in things like location, or time period, and would refer to facts that are already widely known. Explicit is the overall meaning and/or message of the plot. Taking into consideration the conflicts and hardships the main characters have to face throughout the film, it becomes easy to guess what the main message is supposed to be. Contrarily, implicit meaning is interpretative and metaphorical. Interpretations become different with each viewer based on their own personal beliefs and previous experience. Lastly, symptomatic meaning is derived from particular social ideologies and values.

Simply put, evaluation is based on personal taste, evaluative judgement, and whether or not the audience was satisfied with the form of the film. Evaluative judgement is typically based on a criteria created by the person evaluating the work in order to be objective and give an educated opinion.

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Art film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.futurism.org.uk/cinema/cinema.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.brynmawrfilm.org/08_French_Cinema_NEW.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Art film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861685559/art_film.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120118070623/http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/2659/year/1969.html to http://www.festival-cannes.com/en/archives/ficheFilm/id/2659/year/1969.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.parajanov.com/main.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/reviews/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003639817

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Art film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861685559/art_film.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061216054527/http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics.html to http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/critics.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:32, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Reads like an essay.

This article reads like somebody's essay, with several shoehorned quotes and other awkward things. I'd like some help with cleaning this up, if anyone's willing. OrangeYoshi99 (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Roma (2018)

I added a little paragraph under the "Timeline of Notable Films" because I believe the movie deserves to be here. Im not sure what belongs there amd what doesnt so if anyone could tidy up the paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:BA80:6A00:3:B5D5:AA6B:39B3 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Alexander Sokurov

I think it's a shame that none of Alexander Sokurov's films are mentioned in this article. Previously, Russian Ark was mentioned, but not anymore. What's the reason? He has made films such as Mother and Son, Father and Son as well as Russian Ark that are pure art in my opinion. Taddah (talk) 07:37, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Smulumba22 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Smulumba22 (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)