I assume you refer to gritty realism, which is of course what came after the golden age of hollywood, with the new wave hollywood of the 60's and 70's, with great films like Bonnie And Clyde, and that is great, the rules need to be broken and they still have artistic value, but then you had the Scorceses and Spielbergs to an extent coming along and they have stayed there and so has everyone that came after and it is where we are still right now, and realism is very shocking and really draws you in, but the more one delves into art, the more you realize that realism in and of itself, is not art. So you see these films years later and I often wonder what was good in them in the first place. It seems, style, and art, ages way better than the haughty, snobby gritty realism that came after like Pulp Fiction or whatever, that looks down on the well made, artistic and beautiful film. But those stylish, beautiful and AESTHETIC FILMS, can still take people's breaths away, even the ignorants'. Casino and Pulp Fiction? Not so much anymore. Hell, I don't think even the youngsters of today are impressed by them, so why is the ignorant fanboy press still talking about them? It's weird.
reply
share
TaRaNRoD (1579)
6 years ago
"and realism is very shocking and really draws you in, but the more one delves into art, the more you realize that realism in and of itself, is not art."
Wait... What?? This is the dumbest shit I've read in a long time.
Many paintings and sculptures are realistic. Do you consider they are not art either??
A movie director expresses himself with a camera and from the moment his ideas are put on screen and are shown to the lublic, it is art. Filmmaking by itself is an art. Make a movie involves creative process, and art is all about creativity and expression.
A director can chose his way to share his vision, and if he wants it to be realistic... He has all the rights. Saying that it's not art is totally ignorant statement.
Btw, it seems like this retarded arguments is used more and more. I don't know on how many pages of different movies I've seen post with people saying "this is no art".
You know Uwe Boll? Is he a genious? No. Are his movies awful? Certainly. Will we talk about his movies in 20 years? Maybe to mock them. Are they still art? Yes. They are not on Leonardo Da Vinci's level of art, but they still are.
If you want go and check the Cambridge Dictionary's definition of art (because I can't copy text on their website from my phone and too lazy to retype it here). I think that pretty much makes your argument fail.
reply
share