Reminder that to be art a film has to:
have no non-diegetic music
have only location audio
have no narration or VO
use only available light
be shot on location
have no dialogue
have no CGI
be apolitical
You can use this convenient set of criteria to test if your favourite film is art or anticinematic plebeian garbage!
No hard feelings!
c'mon you fags have better film discussion than /tv/
>this arbitrary list of "rules" will make me seem intellectual!
shut up retard
it's based on extensive research of art and film theories
>arts has rules
lel read a book
oh damn, guess i'm the retard, didnt see the "have no dialogue" rule, you're right user
>not understanding why that's there
absolute brainlet
you too
>being this brainwashed by a pleb board
wew
brainwashed regarding what and by which board
sorry darling we can't engage in dialogue for this to be art
typical brainlet
>darling
Waugh?
some of the greatest films ever made have everything opposite of your list
citizen kane
vertigo
even Metropolis
looks like they fail the test then
>on Veeky Forums
>not a huge orson welles
gtfo newfig
welles is trash
My favourite film is Satyricon di Fellini
It has dialogue, non-diegetic sounds, (though not quite what i'd consider music) uses voiceovers (in the form of overdubbing) and uses artificial lighting.
Tell me that film isn't art even if masturbatory.
it isn't
neither are most of my favourite films
the point of the criteria isn't to make ourselves feel good about films we like
but to finally define when exactly a film is and is not art, regardless of our personal preferences
name some films that are Art.
the medium of film offers so many options however though by your standards it seems to be compared more closely to painting.
by your definition what would it take for a play to be "art"?
the dogme 95 rules are the only acceptable rules for movies
Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).
The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot.)
The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted.
The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).
Optical work and filters are forbidden.
The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)
Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)
Genre movies are not acceptable.
The film format must be Academy 35 mm.
The director must not be credited.
BNSF
medium specificity and the universality of communication that stems from it
hard to be a god
it sounds fine and dandy until you watch one of the films.
I understand placing some limitations on yourself for the sake of the film, otherwise you get hollywood, but I'm not convinced entirely that productions needs to be quite so barebones to make a beautiful and artistic work.
Just by using film as a medium, something so unnatural and strange on its own really makes projects like dogme95 seem quite a waste. To truly follow their train of thought it seems one would want to also not film and perform as a piece of unrepeatable "art".
I have bad english but am trying to say that just the fact of filming these things cheapens them if you are attempting to produce in a style like dogme or in the OP
My man!
aye my fellow german fans
khrustalyov or htbag??
quite on the contrary, the point in the OP is to reduce a film to its absolute purest state of the medium
literally opens with VO.... YA CUNTS
i'm not the guy who rec'd it, i just like German