Is art in movies dying and did Netflix kill it?

[Arrowstormen]

I like the Marvel movies too, I'm more referring to TV here. There's just so much mediocre writing in TV right now, the recent walking dead seasons are a perfect example.

Watch better TV?

[belfpala]

Video killed the radio star. (It's a song, kids)

Why would we be concerned about this?

It sounds like it's Netflix original productions that are at the crux of this discussion. But really, great movies are coming out. Watch them. Maybe not through Netflix's platform.

[Bigbazz]

Never enjoyed pretentiousness anyway. Let "art films" die.

Birdman - Saw 5/5 reviews, 91% rotten tomato... Absolute fucking waste of my time, fucking artsy fartsy films really don't do anything for me. That said, if they aren't too self indulgent they can be alright, Tarentino makes some amazing films that find the balance. I don't think "let art films die" is a good thing, they have their place so long as I don't have to watch them, some people like them.

It's like Jazz music, some of it is so over indulgent it can only be enjoyed by those who drown themselves in that world. Try listening to Allan Holdsworth guitar music, the guy was a legend but his music is unlistenable pretentiousness to most, but it's good it exists for that niche and for the development/diversity of the industry.

[Dougie Cooper]

millennials killed art in movies just like they killed breakfast cereal

Well if eating before 10 am didn't make me feel like my stomach was going to explode, maybe I could have helped save Big Cereal.

Okay I have a really bad habit of replying to earlier posts before seeing how long the thread is. On topic, I don't think Netflix is killing art in movies. In fact, I'd say it's helping it thrive. If Netflix could get more classics on it, then it would be a perfect way to show new generations some really great movies.

[Kujako]

Go see the Shape of Water and then check back with us.

[Dougie Cooper]

Go see the Shape of Water and then check back with us.

Holy crap that movie was beautiful. Probably my favorite movie of 2017.

[Yvaelle]

Anyone who starts off an interview with, "I have never had access to the thing we're about to discuss, but listen to me blame it for perceived wrongdoings" - instantly loses an argument to me, before they even begin.

Like most human beings whose opinions are worth considering on the planet, I like his work - but he's talking out of his ass here. He's never had Netflix? Cool, then he's not at all qualified to comment about it.

Netflix has tons of small movies on it, it's going to become a better platform for getting people access to indie films than any movie store of the past: particularly the big and useless chains like Blockbuster he held up as an example.

They still don't have the indie film support scene perfected yet - but I think it's inevitable that Netflix becomes the Steam of film: a global digital distribution and marketing system. There are already lots of indie films on Netflix, but once people can submit their work, barring a vetting viewing process - it will completely revolutionize access.

Also, Apple TV has tons of indie and arthouse work on it too.

[Pipboi]

Watch better TV?

I try, but that involves me having to ignore 99% of the shows on TV because it's all garbage. Which is exactly the point I was making, which seems to have gone soaring over your head.

[oxymoronic]

Like most human beings whose opinions are worth considering on the planet, I like his work - but he's talking out of his ass here. He's never had Netflix? Cool, then he's not at all qualified to comment about it.

guess u missed the part about the movie channels? recording things never watching it? its all the same shit and its not even a big deal that he has this opinion. people getting all fired up over nothing.

[Najnaj]

<Insert somewhat relevant quote that reflects more the opinion of the quoted than actual support of the argument here>



Your point being what? The analysis of what was compromised on is also important for the field of art criticism.



And this, kids, is really the meat of the argument; the idea that material gain and artistic endeavour are mutually exclusive. Either you are an artist producing something higher than such 'base concerns' as money, or you are a sell-out to "the man, man". I'll point out the irony in this as auteur theory was created precisely as a means to distinguish European arthouse cinema from the Hollywood studio system.

Anyway, no. The idea of 'art for arts sake' is a relatively recent idea and discounts the reality that for most of history artists have been producing their works in return for financial compensation; it also ignores the fact that a lot of art pieces, particularly sculptures or paintings, have often been produced in studios where 'the artist' acted as a supervisor and coordinator for the finished work.

Considering that one of the important aspects of art criticism is discussing social context, that films are produced to meet market demand is a mark in favor of them being art pieces, not a mark against them.

- - - Updated - - -



I'll give you a hint; a lot of the 'art' that we as a society value in historical terms either wasn't produced for the majority of the population or wasn't widely consumed due to restrictions like class and wealth. The internet, like the printing press, has made it vastly easier for arthouse films to obtain popular attention.

As for this 'inevitable crash', it's a reductionist view of society that isn't supported by history.

Do you even read the posts you are replying to and do you think at all about your response?

Your response, besides having nothing to do with the quote, varies from the incredibly obvious to so incredibly wrong that it makes my head hurt. Did you really think that you needed to point out that the internet has made media distribution easier? I also think that you will find that economic cycles are very much supported by history.

.. and don't talk about reductionism when we are having a political debate in 2 lines or less on a gaming forum...lol

[Nellise]

If Netflix could get more classics on it, then it would be a perfect way to show new generations some really great movies.

There is the streaming service Filmstruck which contains the criterion collection. It's got tons of great art-house and foreign films and it costs the same or less than Netflix. But I think you have to already be looking to watch stuff like that or be a major cinephile to pick up that service since that's all it is. I did the trial but I can only stand watching those type of films now and then so wasn't worth it for me.

[Yvaelle]

guess u missed the part about the movie channels? recording things never watching it? its all the same shit and its not even a big deal that he has this opinion. people getting all fired up over nothing.

Movie channels really aren't anything like Netflix. There are lots of things that people purchase access to and never take advantage of, that's not new or unique. That was true then as it is now.

The shift in the level of commitment I don't think is lost at all, or rather - I don't think it was ever significantly better than it is now. His example in the movie store where the clerk sells you on something arthouse - I do that to myself flipping through Netflix and reading descriptions, or when others are over and we're flipping through together - the same sort of discussions occurred, perhaps better now, than at the movie store: because it's bespoke to your friends or family, it's not a random clerks view.

Nor do I necessarily agree that less commitment by the audience is what kills art in movies. Even if we take the assumption as true that the audience has no commitment anymore because they don't want to drive back to the video store the same night and find something else - but they will exit their movie and flip through Netflix for something else - I don't think this is what kills art in movies. Art shouldn't require a gruelling commitment to grudgingly endure a movie that you haven't seen before - simply because it is the only movie in the house you haven't seen.

If anything kills art in movies, it is the power of modern advertising. We are all inundated with the latest summer hits, the next MCU movie, the next kids animated movie, the next decent looking sci-fi thriller. We are also aware of the sort of 'mainstream art' - the movies that win Oscars: Moonlight, Hacksaw Ridge, La La Land, etc. So it's easy for people who - wanting to watch something a bit more artsy than the MCU - decide to watch Moonlight because they 'heard good things' or 'it won all the awards' or etc. That's what prevents people from watching new directors with avant garde approaches, scripts by unknown writers, and entirely no-name casts.

Netflix doesn't prevent us from watching the other stuff out there, it often enables it - you can go watch The Bad Batch to see a relatively unknown director pushing the envelope, on Netflix. Or, you can catch up on that DCEU movie you skipped over when it came out, or tv series your friend or coworker has been raving about, or Oscar-winning movie you we were never in the mood for but figure you probably need to watch at some point.

It's not the medium we watch on that is the issue - it's the backlog and the prioritization we use that disincentivizes artsy work and incentivizes whichever gets the most tv spots or word of mouth.