The Intellectual Picture
Arthouse is an alternative that allows art moviegoers’ to differentiate their status from “regular” moviegoers, such as the big-screen cinema in the odor of the renaissance. However, it is offering a more intellectual picture of the film experience. Attached to the image is the idea of high culture and art. Apart from supporting the notion that arthouse operators offer prestige and status, arthouses are also an intellectual and artistic recreation.
Films considered art films tend to be from outside the mainstream film industry in the United States. An “independent” industry rose to serve the market and created a space for itself alongside the conventional film industry in the late 1940s.
Films such as …And God Created Woman, 8½, Bicycle Thieves, The Red Shoes, Wild Strawberries, and many others illustrate the potential of “alternative” films. In the mid to late 1950s, Hollywood found a potentially thriving market and seized it as its own, producing adult films such as The Man with the Golden Arm, Paths of Glory, and The Defiant Ones, for discerning audiences. In the 1960s and 1970s, many of the themes and techniques of 1940s and 1950s art films were taken up in mainstream filmmaking.
In addition to influencing the practices of the renaissance industry, arthouse, as an alternative cinema, affects how people think about what the odor status of film is. Arthouse emerged from and impacted a changing conception of the value of film as an art form, the cultural role of motion pictures, and the legitimacy of films censorship. A case in 1952 concerning the exhibition of an Italian film entitled L’Amore in the Supreme Court is determining: it is unquestionable when motion pictures are a significant medium for communicating the idea. The decision began to chain court rulings into the 1950s and 1960s, extending protection under the Constitution’s first and fourteenth amendments to films.
It reversed the 1915 court decision, which deemed motion pictures “a business pure and simple, originated and conducted for profit.” Arthouse influences the audience’s understanding of what cinema should and could be. For example, the image of prestige and culture associated with films by the art cinema industry. Especially arthouse theaters, it helped elevate cinema to the level of an art form and encouraged people to think of film as more than “mere” entertainment. To understand how and why arthouse positioned themselves within the cultural hierarchy is also to know how and why motion pictures came to be studied in college courses.
Reconceptualizing the Cultural Hierarchy
The reconceptualization of cinema by academics in scientific writing requires that people distinguish between the meaning of the terms arthouse as a theoretical construction and as a pragmatic industrial commodity embedded in a particular historical context. The term is such a concept, and people can break down the terms in an academic and industrial sense. It is tempting to discuss art films as if they were static concepts with fixed meanings. Certain films by certain directors that display certain qualities are called art films. However, an examination of the notion of film art in the late 1940s reveals the different ways that films operate within the film industry and have meaning for industry insiders and film audiences.
It becomes apparent when the term film art as a practical and commercial concept in the film industry is ambiguous and flexible. In artistic artistry, as in classical Hollywood cinema, cinematic texts influence and develop from certain industrial and social relations. In other words, art films as film texts do not merely determine the function and meaning of cinema. On the other hand, arthouse has a synergistic odor status in the renaissance cinema. It is industrially very complex and its aesthetics and functions contribute to creating an art house.
The Thematic Similarities
One characteristic that people generally agree on is that art films are not mainstream Hollywood films despite the contradictions in their attempts to refine the boundaries of art films. Art films are often not defined by their thematic and formalistic similarities. However, it is more different than Hollywood movies. Arthouse describes itself explicitly against classical narrative modes and especially against the cause-and-effect relationships of events.
Therefore, it is important to examine arthouse films to understand film as an alternative to mainstream Hollywood cinema. Not only in formal differences, but also in terms of production and distribution systems. Examining art cinema as “reprogramming” raises questions. One is how and why art cinema functions in the United States.
People began to combine the term arthouse with independent film in the United States. In addition to sharing many of the same stylistic features, Miramax began to distribute independent and commercially viable films. When the major film studios noted the unique appeal of independent film, they created a particular division. Dedicated to non-mainstream fare, film critics have debated whether films from Focus Features or Paramount Vantage are independent films. Apart from that, they get financial backing from big studios as well.
Camille Paglia, in her article entitled Art movies: R.I.P. in 2007, argued that apart from The Godfather series, by Francis Ford Coppola, with its deft flashbacks and sharp social realism, not a single film produced over the past 35 years has arguably had the same philosophical weight or execution skill as Persona or The Seventh Seal directed by Ingmar Bergman. The young people of the 2000s were not patient for long and slow as deep-minded European directors once did. An approach provides lavish scrutiny of the tiniest facial expressions or cold sweeps of sterile spaces or gloomy landscapes.
The Prestige of Arthouse
In some cases, the arthouse is gone. However, what once seemed suggestive and profound now feels tortured and pretentious. Why do very sophisticated people have to drive their cars off bridges or run across highway crossings in Truffaut’s Jules and Jim? All the great European directors suffered a setback in the 70s. People, for example, have little interest in the late Fellini or Tarkovsky, which seems to regress to pastiche and parody. It is also possible that people have little interest in Lars von Trier or Paul Thomas Anderson. However, why should every artist have to contend with their prime?
On the other hand, aspiring young filmmakers are pushed toward a simple rejection of religion based on liberal bromide. People no longer appreciate religion as a metaphysics or cosmic vision. For a specific case, in the New Wave movement which is still firmly held, they consider the excesses strange. Therefore, idealistic thoughts force them about whether to criticize the evils of capitalism or regard modernism as the cheapest ideology. It was these formulas that exploded in an artistic renaissance where prestige was far greater everywhere.