by making an artful movie, does that mean it's a sensible opinion?

>I see your point, but to me, it was a spectacular movie
>experience. Purely subjective of course, but everyone I know
>who actually saw it in the theater was really impressed.

spectacular how? impressed with what? seriously, I'm just asking, cuz on my part I'm not seeing it.


>"Artful" is a difficult thing to explain though, isn't it?
>What makes one movie "more artful" than another? Is it even
>necessarily a good thing?

not really. the movies I think are artful I can at least explain to some degree or express some sense of what I thought was artful about it. and it's not about comparing one movie as "more artful" than another, just saying what you found artful about the movie on its own terms.


>Example - I recently saw Werckmeister Harmonies, which is
>incredibly artful, but wasn't very entertaining so I didn't
>enjoy it. Other folks, like Sponge and Deebot (?), loved the
>shit out of it. And that's fine.

I'm not equating artful with entertaining though.


>I thought both Grindhouse flicks were artful as hell for their
>own genre and in their own way, but isn't it a lot harder for
>a horror / thriller / action movie to be "artful" than a
>drama? It's a different scale. And one could almost call Death
>Proof a "slasher" movie, except that the killer uses a car
>instead of the usual implements. In which case, it's
>incredibly artful compared to most slasher flicks.

again, it's not about comparing its "artfulness" to Citizen Kane or something. just asking, on it's own terms, what is artful about it?


>So when is it okay to say that a movie actually DID elevate
>the genre, or was a work of art? You see where I'm going?

when you can actually articulate a good case for it.

>So anytime a movie genuinely does elevate the genre or achieve
>high levels of "artfulness" - and someone makes such a
>statement - you could call them a fanboy...

not if they can actually articulate how it elevates the genre or achieves high levels of "artfulness"

>"Fanboy" is a pretty meaningless term, really.

depends.

>>Clearly what it's trying to imply is that the person doesn't
>judge the work on its merits, but rather, based on who made
>it.

well, that shoe does fit sometimes though.

>And that's a nearly impossible thing for a third party to
>determine, isn't it? Unless the person admits it ("I will
>always love anything so-and-so does, even if it sucks"), or
>the entire world comes to a consensus that the work is a piece
>of shit that only "fanboys" can enjoy.

or if they keep proclaiming the greatness of its artistic merits , but can't articulate how or why.


>Which rarely happens, and is certainly not true for either
>Grindhouse, Death Proof, or any other Tarantino movie, all of
>which have strong critical approval as well as fan support.

I don't put too much stock in critical approval really. but Grindhouse got trashed by alot of critics too. and it seems to have diehard fan support, but not much general fan support though. I like most of Tarantino's movies and I thought it sucked.