Art Cinema and Hollywood Cinema

Art Cinema and Hollywood Cinema

Art cinema is a term that is quite blurred when it comes to categorizing films in general. Several scholars tend to agree when the term get used to classify any production that is outside the typical Hollywood or “mainstream cinemas.” The emergence of “world cinema” in recent times has fuzzed what “art cinema” means even further.  The takeover by “world cinemas” did not come with any set conceptual boundaries to separate it from what was previously known as “art cinema.” The contemporary scholarly work is under threat since the popularity of world cinema is increasing on the one hand, and on the other hand, art cinema is continuing its prevalence. Producing thorough scholarly analysis will, therefore, be under jeopardy. In an attempt to clear the fuzziness, I would use Louis J Gasneir’s Reefer Madness and Alice Rohrwacher’s The Wonders to explain the shift in the current status of art cinemas in Hollywood and also explain how art cinema has become mainstream.

David Andrews, in his book Theorizing Art Cinema, tries to define what art cinema entails. He argues that what is conventionally known as avant-garde, cult, or mainstream cinema each has a component of art cinema (141). One of the author’s primary goal is to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate art cinema. This need for clarification is essential as he puts forth that there have been numerous overlaps between the several genres. David Andrews, therefore, uses substantial research to examine the matters of auteur theory, the current relationship between art movies and avant-garde, and analyzing the effect of technology in explaining these definitions.

The discussion of the difference between Hollywood and art cinema is one that dates back to generations ago. What exists is a broad categorization of art cinema as films that have an in-depth philosophical point of view and very close to what is happening in the day-to-day. Often, art cinemas are closely associated with advanced cinematic acting and unique directing approaches. Hollywood productions regularly referred to as just entertainment for the masses and nothing much. However, this categorization is shallow and does not help in distinguishing art cinema from the various incarnations.

Similarly, various distinct characteristics make art cinemas “art cinemas.” These different characteristics distinguish the art cinemas from the mainstream and Hollywood films. However, clearly stating these differences is quite challenging. Movies that deal with deep insight, those with deep political inclination, and the ones that speak about life on a deeper level  get termed as of art-house cinema. One characteristic that differentiates art films from other genres is that it speaks in deep relation with what happens in the world surrounding us. They are hardly influenced by what the masses want or the delivery the masses wish to work. Also, what gets popularly termed as art cinema is not heavily influenced by commercialism, unlike Hollywood productions. They are not limited by what’s popular, what the latest trend in terms of taste, the style of production, or the popularity the work is potentially able to draw.

Hollywood films are widely known for the sole purpose of entertaining the masses. Often, Hollywood films get created in a way that is agreeable to a more significant portion of the population. Unlike art cinemas, the motivation behind the creation is not typically insightful or with deep meaning relating to day-to-day life. Hollywood films are often referred to as commercial movies in the way the video gets produced with an end goal of bringing in massive revenue. Other than to maximize profits, Hollywood films are also provided in a way to entertain and gain popularity. One can quickly pinpoint Hollywood films such as The Terminator in the way the movies racked up millions of dollars in the box office. However, art cinemas are not regularly associated with the millions they rack in the box office. These art cinema films are instead associated with the artistic interpretation of the work and with no commercial value in mind.

These inherent differences between art and Hollywood cinema are not any close to reality. Some artistic cinemas may gain significant amounts of fortune. On the other hand, Hollywood films could have a great extent of exquisite flavor, be it in their aesthetics, narration, etc.  The above is the new shift in most of the recent Hollywood productions; this is to say that some films could reap massive commercial benefits, be entertaining, be famous, and have depth from the philosophical point of view that it is trying to share. Briefly, it is almost impossible to redefine the difference between art cinemas and mainstream cinemas having this new shift.

To distinguish amid art film and Hollywood, scholarly research analyses the aesthetics, reception, and institutional studies, among other things. According to Galt and Schoonover (2010), defining the boundaries of art film has always been a problem due to the vague ideas about art. What’s more, the genre has highly gotten associated with foreignness. In that, films that are not from Hollywood, are often termed as part of art cinema. Over time, art cinema, in general, has varied between realism and formalism.

The popularity of movie classic Reefer Madness makes it hard to distinguish it as either mainstream or art cinema. Andrews argues that cult, avant-garde, and mainstream films have at one time gotten referred to art cinema.  This argument shows the difficulty in separating art cinema from the other modes of filmmaking. Ndalianis notes that the modern auteurs have turned it more robust to distinguish art cinema from Hollywood or mainstream through by their co-optations of aesthetics of art cinema (7). The initial attempt to try to expound on the characteristics and components of art cinema was in 1979 by David Bordwell.

Bordwell, in his thoroughly researched composition, notes the difference in the narrative style as one of the fundamental distinguishing factors between art cinema and Hollywood (162). Although Bordwell focused more on the textual components of the art cinema, other researchers who came after him have approached this distinction from a different angle. An example is Neale, who came only two years later, examined the difference by refereeing to the history of the mode of filmmaking. The two works formed a basis for further research over the years that followed.

Alice Rohrwacher’s work The Wonder is a simple argument for and a subtle argument against the changing way of life. The embrace of ambiguity in the setting and clothing style shows what many consider as art cinema. The foreignness of the work also adds to the classification. Rohwarchers’ work is by far close to day-to-day reality, close enough then what many directors in Hollywood have managed. Further, the film is very artistic in the way it shares an objective political statement. In a very harmonious way, the film maintains its documentary feel and lacks the Verite aesthetics of Hollywood. The film is a soft reminder of an era that we may have blinded passed over.

In the film, Reefer Madness, Bordwells argues that the film offers a unique angle to view the movie (172). According to him, Reefer Madness has a narrative framework, and cinematic style does not follow the conventional Hollywood style. This film utilizes the unique Art House style through its cutting techniques, a form of narrative, the composition of each shot, and the movements of the camera. The conventional way of Hollywood narration often involves a story told with definite starting and ending points, which are usually easy to follow through. Although the beginning of the film Reefer Madness is quite clear, the end of the movie does not communicate a precise conclusion of a storyline. This style is way different from what we expect when we watch Hollywood movies.

The new wave of Hollywood production, often referred to as New Hollywood, has a greater artistic depth. Unlike the previous Hollywood era, this new era gives the director of the film an absolute authoritarian rule rather than the studio. Others may define this new age Hollywood production in terms of the movement and what it is bringing or the period.

However, classifying this new era of Hollywood in terms of the period is flawed with debates, some authors argue that the period happened concerning several historical movements. The outstanding characteristic of new Hollywood productions is the way it deviates its narration style way of from the conventional styles. This deviation brings Hollywood cinema and what has usually been considered art cinemas close. The rise of TV and the disappearance of the studio style has somehow reduced the financial success of films (De Valck 40).

Unlike the old era films, new Hollywood films have dangerous in-depth views that purport to a niche market with the vast populace. Although art cinemas have significantly got associated with its ability to speak for profound artistic viewpoints, new Hollywood accommodates this feature in the way it tries to not seek after profits as much talk to a close philosophical view (De Valck 42). Further, the new Hollywood has an intense artistic, aesthetical course which may not be highly commercialized. Besides, the latest Hollywood films contain contents that may have previously gotten seen as unsymbolic or unconventional.

Several film scholars have argued that films produced in Hollywood for mass consumption often neglect the sophisticated audience. This group, in return, turns to movie critics who then help move Hollywood productions toward what had previously got termed as art cinema.

To fix the disconnect between the audiences, those who are into popular cinema and those into profound, insightful works, directors, and producers have gotten driven to create films of highly symbolic content in a way that appeals masses (Schatz 32). By movie critics offering a critical artistic analysis of Hollywood films, the audience gets influenced to view the movie with a different, often artistic view (Schatz 33). When views watch films with gore creative components, they do not quickly jump into attacking the unpopularity of the film but rather appreciate the imaginative realism presented in the movie.

Works Cited

Andrews, David. Theorizing art cinemas: Foreign, Cult, avant-garde, and beyond. University of Texas Press, 2013.

Bernardoni, James. The New Hollywood: What the movies did with the new freedoms of the seventies. McFarland, 2010.

Bordwell, David. “The art cinema as a mode of film practice.” Poetics of Cinema. Routledge, 2012. 163-182.

De Valck, Marijke. “Supporting art cinema at a time of commercialization: Principles and practices, the case of the International Film Festival Rotterdam.” Poetics 42 (2014): 40-59.

Schatz, Thomas. “New Hollywood.” Movie blockbusters. Routledge, 2013. 27-56.