What do you think the main turnoff is for most people have toward "arthouse" movies?

[rebbons]

What do you think the main turnoff is for most people have toward "arthouse" movies?

I personally am a fan of arthouse movies but I understand that most people aren't and I want to understand everyone's take on it.


Do you think it's because most people feel detached and unrelated to the characters and atmosphere? Because I've been to a few arthouse movies that have had FANTASTIC cinematography (Most good arthouse films are known for their cinematography and symbolism in the setup) and people still walked out saying the movie was boring while I was sitting there studying the characters, studying each frame for symbolism, and studying the environments to give me extra clues on hidden plot pieces in the story.

A few arthouse movies I can name from the top of my head that you probably know of are:

Stanley Kubrick's "Barry Lyndon"
Nicolas Winding Refn's "Drive"
Nicolas Winding Refn's "Only God Forgives"
Sofia Coppola's "The Bling Ring"

Now I really loved all of these movies but in Drive, after the first 15 minutes of the intense heist opening scene, like 2 people fell asleep in the theater as soon as the ambient music started appearing and the awkward dialogue started emerging between the characters. I, for one, thought the awkward dialogue, ambient soundtrack, and practically everything in this film was brilliant but most people left the theater going "Okay that was boring" so I'm just curious what your opinions are of arthouse films


PS: And generally the arthouse films are the ones that divide the critic community from most audiences. If you see a movie that has a viewer rating of a 4/10 by the audience and 9/10 by the critics, the film is most likely an arthouse movie. Most Audiences destroyed "The Bling Ring" while critics raved "The Bling Ring". And please don't mention Wes Anderson and Quentin Tarantino in this. They're good directors, but I wouldn't call their films the "Arthouse" type.


@baoliun yeah that spoof was great XD

 

[mlesemann]

It's not complicated: most people want the exact opposite of the attributes that you listed. They want action, special effects, and dialogue that's easy to follow/listen to. And they have 0 interest in symbolism.

 

[baoliun]

I wouldn't say these particular films are the most hardcore representative's of arthouse movement. However, arthouse is a very undefined term,Kurosawa and Lynch can both be called arthouse directors lol.

That is why it is hard to say which arthouse movie is really good. No common criteria. There will always be people who will find hidden meaning or w/e in the crappiest film. One common trend though that prevails in most arthouse films is slow pace and usually non standard storyline if any storyline at all. This can be frustrating for people used to Hollywood productions.

I think this family guy spoof,summarizes it very well ;p

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q9MMtEc0JU

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Arthouse is such a broad term. Anti-Christ and Rashomon are both classified as art house films, yet they are nothing alike.

 

[directorik]

By definition an “art house” films are personal, experimental,
serious and made for artistic reasons. Just as fewer people
visit museums than visit Disney World, fewer people are
interested in the serious, personal, artistic expressions of a
filmmaker.

You are correct, ribbons; critics, film buffs, films students
general like “art house” films more than the general audience.
The more one delves into film as an art the more they will enjoy
art films. Most people see films as entertainment. As Frank
Capra is credited with saying, “If you want to send a message,
try Western Union.” Most people shelling out close to $50 for a
night out at the movies want to have fun. Critics and film buffs
want to be surprised.

 

[mus]

I think the main reason is simple enough, they suck. No need to find a specific way of saying that, they are just terrible.

Because I've been to a few arthouse movies that have had FANTASTIC cinematography

Why does that matter? The most important thing in film is the story. Why would I watch a terribly written story just because the cinematography is good? Would you watch a terribly written movie just because it has FANTASTIC sound? Films have to nail every aspect of the production, not just cinematography.

people still walked out saying the movie was boring while I was sitting there studying the characters, studying each frame for symbolism, and studying the environments to give me extra clues on hidden plot pieces in the story.

There's the problem there... the movie decided not to tell a good story, but rather have you piece one together yourself. It's nice if films make you think, hell every movie I watch makes me think, even ones I wouldn't expect but I want some entertainment too. Look at movies like Shaun of the Dead or At World's End. FILLED with symbolism and hidden plot. Does that mean they remove any shred of entertainment? NO They make it a part of the entertainment.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

I think the main reason is simple enough, they suck. No need to find a specific way of saying that, they are just terrible.

What about "L'age d'or" or "Le Sang d'un poete"? Those films barely have stories, but they certainly dont suck. In fact, many would consider them close to cinematic masterpieces.

I can understand why people who go to the cinemas for entertainment though just want a story that is entertaining and easy to follow. There is a time and a place for arthouses films though, I think you often just have to abandon your pre-conditioned ideas about what a film 'should' be.

The most important thing in film is the story

Says who?

 

[harmonica44]

Personally I am not turned off by arthouse movies per say, but there are a lot I don' like, as well as some I do. 2001: A Space Odyssey for example is one of my favs. Does A Clorkwork Orange count as one? That one I don't care for, but a lot of people do like it for an arthouse film, if it counts.

It really depends on the movie, and it's context and structure. And arthouse movies follow no trends or rules so I have to judge them each individually and cannot develop a bias towards them in general. I think some people just love formula movies, and cannot get into anything else.

Drive was very popular for an arthouse movie though, and I like that one as well, but it's not the masterpiece a lot are making it out to be.

 

[mus]

I can understand why people who go to the cinemas for entertainment though just want a story that is entertaining and easy to follow. There is a time and a place for arthouses films though, I think you often just have to abandon your pre-conditioned ideas about what a film 'should' be.

In other words, abandon everything great about movies, you get an arthouse film.

 

[Alcove Audio]

The biggest problem with "Art House" is that too many so-called directors make a really bad film and then try to pass it off as Art House - and that deception really turns off a potential audience. Then there's the flip side where directors make a film as a sort of movie masturbation; they get off on it but no-on else does; again, the potential audience is not into watching someone observing someone else jerk off. That leaves the one in 50,000 films labeled "Art House" that is really worth something; an artistic personal vision to which an audience can relate. But they have been so often disappointed by the other two kinds of "Art House" they do not want to waste their money on another disappointment. And let's face it, most audiences go to the movies as an escape; they do not want to be educated or preached to, they want some fun escapist entertainment, and Art House has a reputation for being a real downer.

Of course, the general public is pretty shallow, so have a hard time recognizing real, quality art. Very few go to museums to look at a picture or a sculpture; and let's face it, there's a lot of over rated garbage amongst the genius even there.

 

[Doghouse Reilly]

a story that is entertaining and easy to follow

That is not to say a film that is not easy to follow can't be entertaining too. But most people who go to the movies would rather watch one that is.

In other words, abandon everything great about movies, you get an arthouse film.

Yes certainly in other words.

Unless you are saying that "everything great about movies" is that they are easy to follow forms of entertainment? But why can't something that isn't easy to follow be great also?

 

[mus]

But why can't something that isn't easy to follow be great also?

It can be, but that isn't how I would define arthouse films.

Family Guy said it best "People of France: A good-looking depressed guy smoking a cigarette is not a movie!"


Like I said above, films can be thought-provoking without lowering their entertainment value. The plot can have no discernible formula without lowering entertainment value. And, even movies that you wouldn't expect to have deeper levels, or to make you think can do so as well, all without lowering their entertainment value.

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

Like all genres and types of movies (actually, all art for that matter) , there are good and bad films. There are also many different kinds of art-house films. Like I said in a post above, Rashomon and Anti-Christ have very few similarities. One being a complicated non-linear drama about human nature, and the other a disturbing story about two characters' psychological descent in madness and self destruction because of tragedy and isolation. Art house films, to me, are films that do not listen to rules, and rather tell the story they want how they want - often experimenting and pushing boundaries. Just because a film is considered "art-house" does not mean it contains symbolism, is hard to understand, and is slow. That is a common cliche for art house films. The only reason art house films are classified as that is because many hard to understand and slow films either become unknown or become popular in the art house circuit. There are hyper realistic, fast paced art house films that look like the cameraman was having a seizure, and the editor just threw random clips together. Of course, there are also slow art house films that take time to develop (Turin House, Eraserhead). But there are also terrible art house films made by pretentious filmmakers who want to film a tree for ten minutes, and edit it together with a dripping sink and a yogurt commercial and pass it off as "experimental surrealist cinema", using those words blindly without knowing what they are taking about, and just throwing around words that they heard in an article on some lesser-known director then getting mad and saying that critics are "too mainstream" when criticized. This discussion reminds me OP's past thread, Does anyone else HATE new movies?. There are horrible, horrible older films. Like Zensteve had pointed out in that thread, terribly made older films usually fade into obscurity and disappear completely. Same goes with art-house films, the good ones float to the top and the poorly made ones float down the bottom, rarely discovered again.

Audiences don't like art house films because they usually don't want to watch something they are not used to, they want to watch something fun that they feel comfortable with, which is the basic three act formula. I'm sure a family or a group of friends don't want to discuss symbolism later. They want to sit down, enjoy the film, share their thoughts online, and wait a month until another popular movie comes out. We, as filmmakers and cinephiles, have much more dedication to this craft. Because of the internet, and the other ways we can communicate and access media quickly, people have shorter attention spans, hence why people want to watch formulaic and often fast paced films.

When a director can make a film that appeals to both mainstream audiences and film fans, you've hit gold. The most recent being Gravity. It's a film filled with symbolism, and metaphors, but the film can be viewed many different ways. You can see it as a literal journey through space, or a symbolic journey showing a woman having to deal with the gravity of her emotions. You can hear my and others thoughts here:

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=50810

To sum things up: Audiences usually like formulaic fast paced films because of short attention spans, film fans usually have a longer attention span and can appreciate what they're seeing, art house films can be great and absolutely terrible, and occasionally they are great films that find a balance between both.

 

[Cracker Funk]

I think the very nature of this discussion is rather derogatory to a lot of people, audiences and filmmakers alike. It's as if we've agreed that movies made for the masses are popular because they allow people to turn their brains off. I couldn't disagree more.

For me, the best movies are emotionally AND intellectually engaging. It certainly doesn't hurt if they're fun to watch.

And there's the key-word, in my opinion -- ENGAGING!!!

A great movie keeps the audience riveted, grabs a tight hold on the audience and doesn't let go! It keeps them engaged.

Art-house movies usually fail at this most important task. They're fucking boring. You might as well turn them on and leave them in the background while you cook your breakfast, cuz you'll rarely miss out on any important developments.

And on the subject of symbolism, I think it's faulty to assume that most audiences don't like it. I think we need to keep in mind that not all symbolism is created equally. And I'm not saying that one type of symbolism is superior to another; I just think we should recognize that there are different types and different people might prefer one or the other.

Me? I'm not a fan of symbolism that is so open to interpretation that nobody can really say what it means (or even if it's actually intended as symbolism). In my opinion, a filmmaker really isn't saying anything unless the symbolism in their film is readily accessible and can be easily agreed upon by most people.

The symbolism employed by the likes of Terrence Malick, for example, may be great conversation fodder, but has he actually said anything if nobody can really say what it is that he's saying?

Contrast that with the symbolism in Forrest Gump. It's simple and straight-forward. The movie opens and closes with a shot of a leaf blowing in the wind, and you can never guess where it'll blow next. That, combined with the repetitive mantra of life being like a box of chocolates, and it's pretty damn clear that the whole point of the movie is simply to say that damn, life is really unpredictable. That's symbolism, and I like it. Because I fucking get it. Robert Zemeckis could've been more cryptic, maybe he would've gotten more "art-house" credibility, but he wisely chose to actually SAY SOMETHING!!!

And you know what? It didn't hurt that that movie made a b-line to my heart and moved at a pace that kept me engaged for the entire 3-hour duration.

Art-house movies can suck it! Entertain me!!!

 

[baoliun]

Do you like arthouse? Y/N

Y - watch it
N - don't watch it
????
Profits

 

[AudioPostExpert]

I've been to a few arthouse movies that have had FANTASTIC cinematography (Most good arthouse films are known for their cinematography and symbolism in the setup) and people still walked out saying the movie was boring ...

So what should this tell you? It should tell you that cinematography, even FANTASTIC cinematography, is not enough to make a film good (or even interesting!) for most people! That doesn't mean to say you can make a good, interesting film with crap cinematography, just that many filmmakers (and many/most critics) place far more importance on cinematography than do general public audiences. The result of this skewed concept of what makes a film good or interesting is that filmmakers frequently spend a disproportionate amount of their time, effort and budget on the cinematography at the expense of some of the other film crafts.

Contrary to the popular belief of many indie filmmakers, a film is actually made in post production, NOT in pre-production or even production. The pre-production and production phases of filmmaking are only concerned with creating the raw ingredients for the film. As with making a cake though; a cake is only as good as it's raw ingredients but the actual act of making a cake is the mixing of those ingredients in precisely the correct proportions and in the baking! Read most movie critiques (or listen to most indie filmmakers) and they will likely be focused on little or nothing more than the cinematography, the script and the acting, and of course the director responsible for these 3 crafts. The general public however is NOT interested in ANY of these crafts! Indeed, if a general public audience are consciously thinking about any of these crafts while watching the film, then they are by definition not engrossed in the story and their attention is wandering because they are bored. Regardless of how great the cinematography, script or acting, this is in effect a filmmaking failure!! A good film is in essence ALL about the story telling, it doesn't even have to be a good story, it just needs to be very well told ... and that means delivery and pacing!

Filmmakers and critics on the other hand, are often so engrossed by certain filmmaking crafts that they can be seduced by how well those crafts have been individually executed rather than in how well those crafts contribute to the actual art of film which is story telling. To use my previous analogy, critics can be so enthralled by the very finest organic cocoa beans that they may completely miss the fact that the finished chocolate cake may in fact be far too bitter. For whatever reason, film critics tend to focus on only some of the film making crafts, while completely ignoring other vitally important crafts and only partially appreciating how all the crafts combine for purely story telling purposes. This is why there is often a divergence between critics (and many filmmakers) and the general viewing public. The public won't give a damn that a chocolate cake may contain the world's finest cocoa beans if in fact the cake just doesn't taste good!

Art-house films are in essence cakes which use all the favourite ingredients of that individual filmmaker, regardless of whether those ingredients actually work together. I love connoisseur quality espresso, Neapolitan orange dark chocolate ice-cream, fresh giant leaf basil and Garners Pickled Onions but most likely a gourmet cake combining these finest of individual ingredients would not be palatable to anyone except maybe a handful of weird connoisseurs!

G

 

[ChimpPhobiaFilms]

a film is actually made in post production, NOT in pre-production or even production

APE, sure, post production plays a large part in the makings of a film, but the finer and more well chosen ingredients, the better the outcome in end.

A story is the core of a film, and everything else assists that story. Audio, cinematography, acting, VFX, etc. etc. etc. Without a solid story, you are basically putting whipped cream on a pile of crap, or lights and ornaments on a weak tree that can barely hold up. Pre production and production are very important, but I don't think that they are inferior to post production. Post production is refinement and trimming of the visuals and audio recorded during production of a film. But if all you've recorded during production is terrible, no amount of ADR and VFX can save you. That is where many filmmakers go wrong - the "fix it in post" mentality. Going back to your comparison of a film to a cake - what if all the ingredients you have are terrible and won't mix well together? Yes, I agree, critics and movie watchers do often underestimate the importance of many fields of filmmaking, especially those that take place in post. But does that really matter? Film should be made to capture a time in history, get a message across, pay homage to past films, but most importantly - entertain with a good story. The audience usually doesn't care how a film was made, but what they experience.

All elements and ingredients of a film assist the story. People shouldn't be distracted by audio or cinematography, they should watch and be focusing on the characters and story.

 

[AudioPostExpert]

APE, sure, post production plays a large part in the makings of a film, but the finer and more well chosen ingredients, the better the outcome in end.

Not necessarily true ... and that was the point I was trying to get across with my cake analogy. You can source the very finest ingredients on the planet but unless you mix those ingredients in the right quantities you will still end up with a crap cake! The inverse is also true, if you have crap ingredients to start with, the chances of ending up with a very good cake are practically zero but my point is that just creating/sourcing good, great or even brilliant ingredients does not lead automatically to an even edible cake, let alone a good or great one. Also, until you actually make the cake all you have is a pile of ingredients, same with film, when you wrap production all you've got is a pile of ingredients and only some of the ingredients at that! I am not saying that pre-production and production are inferior to post-production because obviously you can't make a cake without any ingredients.

Without a solid story, you are basically putting whipped cream on a pile of crap, or lights and ornaments on a weak tree that can barely hold up.

Again, this is not true ... or at least, not true enough! The actual strength of the story is largely irrelevant. Film is the art of story telling, so obviously you need a story to start with BUT, it's how you tell that story which defines a film rather than the story itself. There are loads of crap films based on the story of the bible, then there's Monty Python's Life of Brian, same story, completely different way of telling it! Again, this is because the story is only one of the raw ingredients. This may sound like an insignificant difference but it's not (!) because it changes the focus of filmmaking away from the script, cinematography or any other individual craft and focuses instead on how the story is delivered to the audience.

The audience usually doesn't care how a film was made, but what they experience.

Exactly, maybe we are on the same page after all!

The danger of course (and the mistake made by most critics and many filmmakers) is that exactly what an audience experiences is manufactured and manipulated in post-production and is therefore not defined by only the script, the cinematography or even an acting performance.

G

 

[RED ROBOT]

While I do sincerely respect and like people involved with sound sometimes I hate how they always talk about how visuals are not important.


Yes , visuals don't make a film with bad story interesting to the audience ,but neither does the sound .

It's a mixture of everything .

 

[AudioPostExpert]

While I do sincerely respect and like people involved with sound sometimes I hate how they always talk about how visuals are not important.

Can you please point out even one single example in this thread, let alone "always", where I said that the visuals were not important or that they were less important than the sound?

G