OT: Munich

[Evan Kubota]

"Tarkovsky probably didn't care about his audience at all, which is ok with me, but directors who do, don't necessarily make bad movies."

He actually does, if you read his book. It just manifests itself differently than you might expect...

"Having something to say alone is no excuse for a work of art, and even less a justification."

Of course not, but a valid work of art does not *need* to be entertaining, in any medium.

"Vermeers paintings are a good example for this. In the first place, they were excellent paintings."

Were they entertaining paintings, though? I have a lot of respect for visual artists who can create technically accomplished, compelling images without necessarily making them 'entertaining' in the current sense. I looked up 'entertainment' in the dictionary and found:

"something diverting or engaging"

IMO a movie does not need to be diverting, but it should ideally be engaging (not in every case, though).

I think what you're referring to by "entertaining" is in the immersive, compelling sense, not in the sense of cheap, gory exploitation that 'entertains' prurient or morbid interests (although these can be a lot of fun). If you use 'entertaining' to mean 'compelling', I generally agree, although there are certainly films that I don't find compelling but still recognize as possessing artistic merit.

[MovieStuff]

Besides, Roger, your point is moot... Munich is not entertaining, either.

Why would that make my statements moot? As I said, I am not a fan of every movie Spielberg ever made. I am defining the reality of the medium the commercial director works in, not redefining the director based on how dissapointed I am that he failed to create "art" where art is not demanded.

As such, anyone that judges the work of a film director based on artistic merit really needs to have their own work in front of a paying audience more often.

This is the one of the most absurd statements I have ever read on this forum. Do you realize the problem with saying that?

I guess I don't. However, I am quite certain that when backers contract a director to make a movie, none of them state, " We don't really care if this makes any money. Just make sure it's artistically satisfying to the minority audience that like artsy films."

What else should films be judged by, the number of seats sold?

I'm not saying that films can't be appreciated for other things but those "other things", such as artistic value, are just frosting on a very expensive cake. How the cake is paid for is based on the number of seats sold, not the number of critics impressed.

"... movies are commerce, not art, and the measure of success is ticket sales, regardless of what I or critics think."

If you go by that yardstick, I guess there's no point in even discussing whether inherent "quality" can even be quantified.

If you put up 100 million dollars to make a film, I can guarantee that is the yardstick you'd be most interested in first.

Now, if someone makes a film that they pay for themselves and never charge admission for it and don't care if they make any money on it then I would say that might qualify as art, whether the end results are good or bad. But Spielberg isn't doing this based on alturism, even if he is passionate about his work.

I have a different measure of success...

Then enjoy the frosting. The rest of society can just eat cake. ;)

roger

[Evan Kubota]

Why would that make my statements moot? As I said, I am not a fan of every movie Spielberg ever made. I am defining the reality of the medium the commercial director works in, not redefining the director based on how dissapointed I am that he failed to create "art" where art is not demanded.

My argument was that since Munich was not satisfactory from a commercial, strictly narrative point of view, I tried to believe Spielberg wanted something different from the film, maybe artistic validity? I couldn't find it.

I guess I don't. However, I am quite certain that when backers contract a director to make a movie, none of them state, " We don't really care if this makes any money. Just make sure it's artistically satisfying to the minority audience that like artsy films."

That quote does reveal something... why do you assume that backers always look for a director and not vice versa? Strictly in the Hollywood system, this is probably the case for the majority of films (Cheaper by the Dozen 2, The Mask 2, Air Bud, etc.) In many other countries, at least for a time, directors were able to solicit independent backing for their own projects, frequently in international collaborations. In the US, Hollywood effectively negates any need to do that, since so much money is available concentrated in one place. That also removes the role of the director's collaboration with the producer as a vaguely creative partner - the director is just another position to be filled in the business enterprise. The other thing to consider is that what pass for "foreign art films" in the US are actually fairly mainstream in their countries of origin. Tarkovsky was certainly not a minority director in the Soviet Union, and his films were seen (if not completely grasped) by what would be considered the 'everyday moviegoing audience' in American terms.

I'm not saying that films can't be appreciated for other things but those "other things", such as artistic value, are just frosting on a very expensive cake. How the cake is paid for is based on the number of seats sold, not the number of critics impressed.

Why is this any of my concern as a viewer? I have no personal interest in whether a film is profitable for its distributor, except in the general sense that I hope films that I enjoy are profitable enough to fund future projects by that director.

"... movies are commerce, not art, and the measure of success is ticket sales, regardless of what I or critics think."

What is art? I guess painting was commerce, not art, in the Renaissance when most work was commissioned. The best artist is the one who attracts the largest commissions... right? Music is commerce, not art, and therefore album sales are the measure of success. Literature is not art. It's commerce. Oprah's book club is the ultimate goal of any writer, since it ensures their book will sell at least a million copies. That is true success.

Do you see the problem? Separating film from any other medium because of its admitted mass-audience nature is absurd. The artistic potential of cinema is no less than any other medium. The fact that it costs quite a bit to have a film shot on 35mm and distributed widely does not affect the potential for artistic expression.

If you put up 100 million dollars to make a film, I can guarantee that is the yardstick you'd be most interested in first.

Who says all films need to cost $100 million? It's perfectly feasible to make an independent production for, say, $2 million, even with name actors (not Russell Crowe or Tom Cruise).

Now, if someone makes a film that they pay for themselves and never charge admission for it and don't care if they make any money on it then I would say that might qualify as art, whether the end results are good or bad. But Spielberg isn't doing this based on alturism, even if he is passionate about his work.

Again, what is art? Were commissioned works by great artists in the Renaissance not art, since the amount of money they cost was considered enormous at the time? A $25 million production can be art, as can a $2 experimental film made in someone's basement. I've yet to see a sterling example of the latter, but the fact remains that just because something is produced in a business environment and marketed as a product for consumption, it can't be disqualified as "art." Tarkovsky's films were generally quite expensive for Mosfilm, especially "Solaris." It was fairly widely seen by Soviet audiences. I doubt any reasonable film viewer would claim it was not art because the studio hoped to make a profit from it.

Then enjoy the frosting. The rest of society can just eat cake. ;)

Despite your implication, it has nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with personal expression. A film, to me, is successful when it expresses something of its creator that is significant enough to merit the expression.

[MovieStuff]

Why would that make my statements moot? As I said, I am not a fan of every movie Spielberg ever made. I am defining the reality of the medium the commercial director works in, not redefining the director based on how dissapointed I am that he failed to create "art" where art is not demanded.

My argument was that since Munich was not satisfactory from a commercial, strictly narrative point of view, I tried to believe Spielberg wanted something different from the film, maybe artistic validity? I couldn't find it.

And my argument is that, even if you did find artistic validity, it doesn't reflect the the primary goal of the director, which is to make money. If you are going to talk about yardsticks to measure a film by, the only one that really counts is the one that reflects the intent of the film maker. I can't very well call the corner pocket in a pool game, inadvertantly sink the 9 ball in the side pocket instead, and claim to be in control of the ball. If a commercial film fails to make money, it did not find its audience and did not perform as it was supposed to, regardless of what artistic redeeming value the minority might find in it.

I guess I don't. However, I am quite certain that when backers contract a director to make a movie, none of them state, " We don't really care if this makes any money. Just make sure it's artistically satisfying to the minority audience that like artsy films."

That quote does reveal something... why do you assume that backers always look for a director and not vice versa? Strictly in the Hollywood system, this is probably the case for the majority of films (Cheaper by the Dozen 2, The Mask 2, Air Bud, etc.)

I didn't say that the backers were looking for a director. I said that when a "director is contracted". Whether it is lightweight fair like "Air Bud" or serious like "Shawshank Redemption", it doesn't really make a difference if the director looks for funding or backers look for a director. In either case, there is going to be a contract and you can bet that the underlying conditions of that contract is to produce a marketable product that makes money.

In many other countries, at least for a time, directors were able to solicit independent backing for their own projects, frequently in international collaborations.......

Unless these people put up their money without intent of making a profit, then I really do not see your point.

I'm not saying that films can't be appreciated for other things but those "other things", such as artistic value, are just frosting on a very expensive cake. How the cake is paid for is based on the number of seats sold, not the number of critics impressed.

Why is this any of my concern as a viewer? I have no personal interest in whether a film is profitable for its distributor, except in the general sense that I hope films that I enjoy are profitable enough to fund future projects by that director.

Ahh, but that's the trick, see? For it to be "profitable enough" means that there was enough of an audience that shared your value system when it comes to watching a given film that you liked, regardless of the reason. Thus, ticket sales are still the measuring stick, after all.

"... movies are commerce, not art, and the measure of success is ticket sales, regardless of what I or critics think."

What is art? I guess painting was commerce, not art, in the Renaissance when most work was commissioned.

Absolutely. If you make your living doing it, then it is commercial art, regardless of what we value it as now due to its age.

The best artist is the one who attracts the largest commissions... right?

Of course not. You're confusing skill with success. Rap music makes a lot of money but I would never call its performers artists, regardless of what the record lables call them.

Music is commerce, not art, and therefore album sales are the measure of success.

Afraid so. If you put up your own money, don't care about making a profit and let the art exist for its own sake, then it could be art. If you intend to make money, then it is commercial.

Literature is not art. It's commerce. Oprah's book club is the ultimate goal of any writer, since it ensures their book will sell at least a million copies. That is true success.

Literature is commerce unless the writer does it for the self satisfaction and doesn't intend to make a profit.

Do you see the problem?

Don't you?

Separating film from any other medium because of its admitted mass-audience nature is absurd.

Not really.

The artistic potential of cinema is no less than any other medium.

True. The potential is the same but it is affected by budget in a way that painting isn't.

The fact that it costs quite a bit to have a film shot on 35mm and distributed widely does not affect the potential for artistic expression.

Of course it does, Evan. When you paint to please yourself, you make independent artistic choices. When you paint to please someone else, your choices are always affected by a predetermined goal.

If you put up 100 million dollars to make a film, I can guarantee that is the yardstick you'd be most interested in first.

Who says all films need to cost $100 million? It's perfectly feasible to make an independent production for, say, $2 million, even with name actors (not Russell Crowe or Tom Cruise).

I think anyone that puts up $2 million or works for a cut will still expect to see a profit.

Now, if someone makes a film that they pay for themselves and never charge admission for it and don't care if they make any money on it then I would say that might qualify as art, whether the end results are good or bad. But Spielberg isn't doing this based on alturism, even if he is passionate about his work.

Again, what is art? Were commissioned works by great artists in the Renaissance not art, since the amount of money they cost was considered enormous at the time?

They were as commercial art as a soup lable.

A $25 million production can be art, as can a $2 experimental film made in someone's basement.

If the intent of production was to make money, they are commerce.

I've yet to see a sterling example of the latter, but the fact remains that just because something is produced in a business environment and marketed as a product for consumption, it can't be disqualified as "art."

Of course it is. See above.

Tarkovsky's films were generally quite expensive for Mosfilm, especially "Solaris." It was fairly widely seen by Soviet audiences. I doubt any reasonable film viewer would claim it was not art because the studio hoped to make a profit from it.

More to the point, I doubt any reasonable studio exec at Mosfilm hoped it would be an artistic achievement more than a commercial success.

Then enjoy the frosting. The rest of society can just eat cake. ;)

Despite your implication, it has nothing to do with elitism and everything to do with personal expression. A film, to me, is successful when it expresses something of its creator that is significant enough to merit the expression.

No elitism was intended, Evan. I think Spielberg would be flattered more than anyone if you called him an artist since he makes films for a living. To what degree he values artistic achievement over financial success is obviously reflected in his work. If you find art there in any form, that's great. But to expect it means you are forcing a unit of measure that doesn't reflect the intent of the creator. He doesn't make films for free.

Roger

[jean]

"If you try to please audiences, uncritically accepting their tastes, it can only mean that you have no respect for them: that you simply want to collect their money..."

Evan, thanks for sharing. This one is my absolute favourite, expressing something I always had in mind in some way.

[MovieStuff]

If you try to please audiences, uncritically accepting their tastes, it can only mean that you have no respect for them: that you simply want to collect their money...

As the director, you can't possibly know each and every person in the audience so "respect" is really a non-viable concept that's fun to theorize about but has no real connection with the nuts and bolts process of making a movie, which takes funding. As such, you collect their money in exchange for providing a product they like, whether their tastes are to your own perticular liking. Getting "artsy",not providing the product they expected, but still taking their money, now that's disrespect.

Roger

[jean]

Of course not, but a valid work of art does not *need* to be entertaining, in any medium.

A valid work of art is entertaining by definition. I've yet to encounter a valid work of art that is not entertaining. Anybody who claims to be bored sitting through Tirso de Molina's Don Juan deserves to be kicked out of the theatre and earns the title of being a moron.

"Vermeers paintings are a good example for this. In the first place, they were excellent paintings."

Were they entertaining paintings, though?

I get your point. Certainly not in a way that makes one laugh out loud or stare at some tits, although many famous paintings would satisfy those expectations. Vermeer's paintings are "entertaining" in a sense that they are by any common standard "beautiful" paintings. A certain proof is that even today the tourist, strolling bored through the mandatory museum visit, stops for a second, stunned, and has a second look at those paintings. BTW, the same happens with Picassos. People enter the room, and are visibly impressed and drawn into the paintings.

Entertaining is hard to define relating to art and movies, however..

[Alex_W]

Piero Manzoni, Merda d'Artista, 1961

a most entertaining piece of contemporary conceptual Art :lol:

edit: and by all means commercial

[Evan Kubota]

The lengths of these posts are getting ridiculous, so I'll drop some of the quotes for this round.

"I didn't say that the backers were looking for a director. I said that when a "director is contracted""

My fault - I read it was 'contacted.' Nevertheless, some directors develop their own projects and find funding, not the other way around. It *is* different.

"If you make your living doing it, then it is commercial art, regardless of what we value it as now due to its age"

You changed your definition - you said earlier that movies are commerce, not art. Commercial art is still art.

"Separating film from any other medium because of its admitted mass-audience nature is absurd."

"Not really."

Yes, it is. What particularly merits that separation?

"I think anyone that puts up $2 million or works for a cut will still expect to see a profit"

Someone put up a reported $10 million to fund "The Brown Bunny." I have a feeling Gallo spent relatively little of that on the actual production. As I write this, the film has grossed a recorded $366,301 in the US. Overseas figures were not available from boxofficemojo.com. The movie received very mixed reviews, as well.

By your measuring scale, this was not a 'successful' movie. It probably has not made a single cent of profit, even counting DVD sales. Nevertheless, I felt that it was one of the best films I saw in 2005. Do you think I should take into account the profitability (or lack of) when I state what I thought of the film?

'Oh, I actually loved it, but since it lost money, my tastes must be worse than/different from the majority. The majority is important since judging films by their moneymaking ability is the only valid method.'

"If the intent of production was to make money, they are commerce."

This is kind of ridiculous, IMO. Most art is produced to earn money for the artist or a studio. What are you talking about? When do commissioned works by da Vinci cease to be commerce and become art? When the artist dies? When the patron dies?

"More to the point, I doubt any reasonable studio exec at Mosfilm hoped it would be an artistic achievement more than a commercial success."

That has nothing to do with anything. The fact that art was achieved despite being a rather expensive enterprise shows that art and a high budget are not mutually exclusive.

"As the director, you can't possibly know each and every person in the audience so "respect" is really a non-viable concept that's fun to theorize about but has no real connection with the nuts and bolts process of making a movie, which takes funding. As such, you collect their money in exchange for providing a product they like, whether their tastes are to your own perticular liking. Getting "artsy",not providing the product they expected, but still taking their money, now that's disrespect. "

Taken in context of Tarkovsky's book, he views cinema as a medium with artistic potential. In fact, he argues that artistic expression is the only legitimate goal of the filmmaker, and even conclude with the argument (which I don't fully buy) that it's a religious/spiritual/human duty to produce art, since

"...the one thing that mankind has ever created in a spirit of self-surrender is the artistic image. Perhaps the meaning of all human activity lies in artistic consciousness, in the pointless and selfless creative act? Perhaps our capacity to create is evidfence that we ourselves were created in the image and likeness of God?" (241)

Does the quote make sense considering his perspective? If art has its origins as something which is the sole human activity with meaning, with purpose, then yes, it is a lack of respect to give the audience only what their basest impulses crave. The duty of the artist is to attempt to push the audience's perception and consciousness to a higher level of awareness, whether they want to go along for the ride or not. That's why art doesn't always have to be 'enjoyable' in the current sense, at least not while experienced. I submit that it should be compelling, and all of the art that I've encountered has generally been that way. I'm not saying that Tarkovsky's argument applies to all films - only the ones that have 'art' as a goal of their creators.

"If you find art there in any form, that's great. But to expect it means you are forcing a unit of measure that doesn't reflect the intent of the creator. He doesn't make films for free."

If you could re-read my initial review of the film and subsequent posts in this thread, I made it painfully clear that I did *not* expect 'art' from this movie. I saw it expecting what one generally expects from Spielberg - a well-constructed narrative that doesn't challenge existing convention, but provides an enjoyable and compelling experience. Munich definitely failed in that regard. I did the director a service by attempting, at that point, to consider the possibility that for this film he had pushed up 'artistic achievement' on his list of priorities, and that maybe by evaluating this in the terms of popcorn flicks I was discounting an intentional shift on the part of Spielberg. I tried to look at the film from that perspective. It failed to stimulate me intellectually or aesthetically, so I posted that opinion here. That doesn't mean I 'expected art.' Let me draw a necessarily long-winded analogy.

I go into a local Chinese place that, for whatever reason, never uses enough chili. I order a bland dish, expecting it to be bland, but for some reason, when it arrives it's incredibly spicy. Instead of dismissing it outright as 'not what I expected,' I try it and decide that it's not very good as a spicy dish, either - not well prepared, etc.

You state that I 'expected it to be bland,' and claim that since it wasn't, I didn't like it. That's not the case - I attempted to judge it as a spicy dish, and it still wasn't good. The same thing with Munich - as Spielbergian entertainment, it was not good. I tried to look for an artistic statement - none found. I didn't like the film. Simple enough? That's all I can say. See it for yourself - you might agree with me.

[MovieStuff]

some directors develop their own projects and find funding, not the other way around. It *is* different.

Only if they aren't concerned about making a profit.

You changed your definition - you said earlier that movies are commerce, not art. Commercial art is still art.

I didn't change my definition at all. I could have said "commercial drawings" or "business graphics" but I used the term "commercial art" for your benefit so that you'd know what I was referring to, not because I believe it to be elevated to any level above basic commerce. (I am a trained commercial artist, by the way, with an Associate's Degree in art)

What particularly merits that separation?

Because if your intention is to make money, then your creative decisions will be affected, even subconsciously. It is unavoidable.

Someone put up a reported $10 million to fund "The Brown Bunny." I have a feeling Gallo spent relatively little of that on the actual production. As I write this, the film has grossed a recorded $366,301 in the US. Overseas figures were not available from boxofficemojo.com. The movie received very mixed reviews, as well.

By your measuring scale, this was not a 'successful' movie.

My measure isn't important. The "someone" that put up the $10 million to fund the movie is the only one that can tell you if it was successful or not. What you or I think about it, artistically, is academic unless artistic achievement is all that was expected. If the backer expected to make a profit and didn't, then the movie failed, at least in his eyes. If so, I seriously doubt telling him we think it's pretty will make him feel better after coughing up $10 million.

If the intent of production was to make money, they are commerce."

This is kind of ridiculous, IMO.

Why? What makes that statement untrue? After all, the film industry is just that; "the film industry".

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. As you noted, these posts are getting really long and I don't think we'll convince each other of anything. Been fun, though.

Roger

[Evan Kubota]

The central issue is that you seem fairly insistent on only looking at a movie's performance from the producer's standpoint. Why?

"Because if your intention is to make money, then your creative decisions will be affected, even subconsciously. It is unavoidable."

That wasn't what I was asking - why should movies be placed in a category different from other 'art' when music, paintings, and sculpture also earn money for the artist?

Also, whose intent? Clearly the intention of the person funding a production will be to at least recoup their losses... for the director, it may not be the number one priority. I feel certain that there have been at least a few directors in cinema's over 100 year history who had some other priority in first place above making a profit for the producer.

"Only if they aren't concerned about making a profit."

Which they may not be... cf. the 'Polish school' films of the '50s and '60s. All productions were state funded, and the money was earmarked for films anyway. No one really cared whether the money was recouped since the state operated the theatres as well as paying the wages of people who wound spend the same wages to see the movies! ;)

Off to watch a movie, probably made with profit in mind, but hopefully something else also.

[MovieStuff]

The central issue is that you seem fairly insistent on only looking at a movie's performance from the producer's standpoint. Why?

Because I don't believe that film is art if there is intent on profit. And since the catalyst for this discussion was Spielberg, I was trying to frame the discussion appropriately. If the discussion had been about directors that use their own money and never care about profit because the artistic value is all that mattered, then we'd be having a different discussion.... but we aren't.

why should movies be placed in a category different from other 'art' when music, paintings, and sculpture also earn money for the artist?

I understand your question now. Sorry. Actually, I don't put them in a different category if they are "for profit" endeavors. If your livelihood depends on pleasing someone else, then it is job for hire and nothing more.

I feel certain that there have been at least a few directors in cinema's over 100 year history who had some other priority in first place above making a profit for the producer.

And you can use a wrench as a hammer, if you feel compelled too, but that doesn't make it a hammer by nature. Film was invented for and is still primarily an entertainment tool. Anyone that wants to use it for "art" is welcome to do so but if they are getting paid for their efforts and have to please someone else, then they aren't creating art. They are creating product.

the 'Polish school' films of the '50s and '60s. All productions were state funded, and the money was earmarked for films anyway. No one really cared whether the money was recouped since the state operated the theatres as well as paying the wages of people who wound spend the same wages to see the movies!

I have to admit that is an interesting perspective since it is so "outside" the Hollywood machine.

Off to watch a movie, probably made with profit in mind, but hopefully something else also.

Ha-ha! Have fun.

Roger

[etimh]

Roger and Evan, very interesting dialog, you two. 8)

I was itching to intrude but I'm glad I kept my trap shut and let you two keep it (relatively) clear.

Just wanted to let you know you had an appreciative audience.

Tim

[Actor]

Because I don't believe that film is art if there is intent on profit.

Are you saying that art and profit are mutually exclusive? Surely they are not. William Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Herman Melville, Edgar Allen Poe, Mark Twain, et al, were all motived by profit, a desire to fill their stomachs and possibly get rich. There may be a lot of starving artists out there but starvation is not a prerequisite to being an artist.

In filmmaking I doubt many would dispute that Stanley Kubrick was an artist, yet every Kubrick biography I have read reveals his obsession with making profitable movies. In the 1970s Kubrick became obsessed (for lack of a better word) with making a film that would outdo Jaws at the box office. The vehicle he chose was Barry Lyndon. That's right, he actually thought his three hour slow paced candlelit film had a chance to become the number one of all time. He was alone in this opinion. His backers, Warner Brothers, thought they would be lucky to break even.

I think Barry Lyndon was the only Kubrick film that ever went over budget.

I am quite certain that when backers contract a director to make a movie, none of them state, " We don't really care if this makes any money. Just make sure it's artistically satisfying to the minority audience that like artsy films."

While it's rare that does occasionally happen. Kirk Douglas had to draw the line because Kubrick wanted to give Paths of Glory a happy ending to ensure it would make money. Douglas was the principle backer of the film and is on record as saying he did not expect it to break even. He was right. The film did not become profitable until years later when Kubrick attained iconic status.

[Nigel]

I am sure that Spielberg has talent...People see his movies afterall. I just don't like them and never have. They are always the same kinda shit filled with sentiment and little real substance.

I don't think that Pter Jackson is all that great either...I think he is kind of a freak in his own way.

Good Luck