Why Art Films?

A lot of people ask me why I like art films better than the mainstream Hollywood pics. Here are some of the reasons why:

1)Art Film directors are given fuller rein or freedom in expressing their artistic vision.
2) Most art films do not follow Hollywood formula for success.
3) Art films mirror the gritty reality of human life better than star-studded Hollywood flicks.
4) Art films make you think, ponder what you've just seen.
5) Art films are not bothered whether they will make profit or not.

How about you?

I agree with you, bookmonster. Independent films are less likely to pander to what the mainstream considers beautiful.

This is all true. But I find it even more interesting that as time goes by those thing that are once deemed to be the markers of an "Art" or "indie" film move to the mainstream and become what people consider quality film. Steven Soderbergh is the perfect example of this. His career started with Sex, Lies, and Videotape which definitely qualifies as indie and now he has brought the same style and sensibility to several mainstream well received films.

I don't know about Soderbergh though. But, I think people who do make some of the best movies find it hard to do a mainstream movie, although some of them succeed, but most of the time they don't. I think Art Film directors are stubborn to the end that they won't sacrifice what they believe in.

What indie stands for? Independent movie making ergo financing? If so then let's not confuse art and independent financing.
Producing a film that has artistic value has nothing to do with its financial background. In fact several big names from Hollywood have small production companies, quietly financing art films, so-called "indie" movies - are they really qualified to be called 'indie'?
OTOH most of the critical European art movies - or rather movies with artistic value - between 1960-1990 have been almost exclusively sponsored by state and governmental founds.
Let's not forget that indie filmmaking, in terms of today's meaning of "indie", was completely impossible until the late 80s - early 90s, until the video era, due to its enormous financial requirements.

As a personal note: I really don't care about indie - I only care about the art. :)

Really interesting discussion here. I live in Montreal and work in the film industry, and here without the help of the goverment there wouldn't be a film industry. In the recent years, Quebec cinema (in french) has gone from 5.2% of the annual box-office to almost 23%. This increase is largely due to great films but also a better understanding of the marketing process. With the success of LES INVASIONS BARBARES (who won the Oscar for best foreign film) and C.R.A.Z.Y., there is more place for other things that your usual american pop-corn flick.

So i agree in part with SZLEVI for the financing but let's not forget that before the 80's, many countries had a great cinema industry (french, italian, british, russian and many others). With the decline of foreign films in their own market and the blockbuster power of american films, smaller markets had to regroup to become more powerfull. In France, the tv station Canal + help a lot of french, belgian, italian, spanish and others with their budget. In the USA, it was the mighty Miramax who bought many Oscar contenders (think LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL, AMELIE or TALK TO HER). So it is harder today to create a film without thinking about the financial result. Here in Quebec, producer who get a box-office hit receive a bonus for their next film. So they are more eager to make an adaptation of a classic novel than a risky first feature of a young director.

But i'm still impress and please to see that many Art house film director like Sokurov, Almodovar, Haneke, Bela Tarr, Nanni Moretti and many others can continue to make us think, feel, and love the light appearing on the big screen.

I tend not to be impressed by explosions.

I too appreciate a good indie film, but I don't avoid hollywood films either. I've known a few people that are art/indie film supporters that even if an indie film sucks beyond belief, they still hold that film up on a pedestal because of their art/indie taste. Case in point, the above mentioned 'Les Invasions Barbares'. It had big publicity because its an indie Quebec film, and won Oscar. Well no amount of sugarcoating can make me change my personal opinion that its an overrated sack of crap about a grumpy womanizing man rambling on about his life's conquests. I mean, take 'Children of Men', for example. Now technically, its a british film, not a hollywood film, but it had big publicity, big explosions, big actors, yet its one of the most perfect films i've seen. Certain types of films an indie industry simply cannot achieve, so it would be a shame to lock yourself into only art/indie style movies only because you've become jadded by the 100% crap that's out there such as Hulk or Spider-Man.

In the original post, number 1 and 3 for me are the main reasons.

Let's get this up, it's a good subject.:)
I found it telling that this year's biggest Oscar nominees - NCFOM, TWBB etc - all have been flopping at the box offices... perhaps more and more members of the Academy decide to forget those explosions?

I find art movies very entertaining. They have flavor, and are very interesting and unique.

Hmm, haven't I heard the name Reka before? Weird.

Loyd Kaufman's films are definitely indie but I wouldn't call them art films. Well, some of them at least.

"Posted by Dracokage Sasaki: 2 weeks, 3 days ago at Feb 3 9:45 - Hmm, haven't I heard the name Reka before? Weird."

It's an ancient Hungarian (female) first name but probably originated in Hun times as the wife of Attila the Hun a.k.a. "Scourge of God" (the Khan of the Huns) was called Réka. :)

Oh, thanks szlevi ^^