tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26841407.post6475208547455173962..comments2022-11-05T21:03:01.988+11:00Comments on The Story Department: Is Arthouse Dead?Karelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01894787076761192228noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26841407.post-5304024153217029872008-05-01T21:56:00.000+10:002008-05-01T21:56:00.000+10:00I agree - art house is dead. Doesn't that mean mos...I agree - art house is dead. Doesn't that mean most of Australian cinema is dead too? I think it does. Aussie cinema needs to move with the times. Cinema should be SPECTACULAR. It is this that separates cinema from television. TV produces as good a story as any film used to. So 'spectacular' should be either visual spectacle - a style that can not be reproduced on a small screen - or narrative spectacle. Now that TV spreads story and character arcs over a whole series or more, the latter is getting harder to satisfy in cinema. So that leaves 'visual spectacle'. Films need to embrace this aspect of story telling otherwise people will start asking themselves: why bother going to a cinema when they can get the same or better on TV or Internet.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26841407.post-25993890212489573482008-04-27T10:48:00.000+10:002008-04-27T10:48:00.000+10:00Have to laugh at 'anonymous susan plunkett' - goog...Have to laugh at 'anonymous susan plunkett' - google is being precious :-)<BR/><BR/>I thought this article posted by Alef on AWG very apropos to the ArtHouse topic and other readers here may appreciate it:<BR/>http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/05/12/1021002415421.html <BR/><BR/>For me what ArtHouse is supposed to be about is largely cult or taboo topics (or those rarely raised in mainstream films) and experimental cinematography. But cult, taboo and experiment are going to always, as indicated in the main article, draw very small audiences. I suspect they have their place in the sense of major films sometimes using a contrivance to good effect in a more mainstream work but they wind up becoming cliched and less novel than they hope for in short film. <BR/><BR/>The "indulgence" mentioned in your article Karel really talks about ego very neatly. There is danger in doing what tickles our own fancy unless we are convinced it has the same effect on the greater majority of others. That transferability truly exists.<BR/><BR/>A classic example is the awful humour made at a wedding toast that has the speaker cracking up but everyone else cringing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26841407.post-42659809611150325442008-04-24T17:54:00.001+10:002008-04-24T17:54:00.001+10:00Sorry that was "In the Realm of the Senses". I saw...Sorry that was "In the Realm of the Senses". I saw the error as I clicked 'publish'.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26841407.post-35167535223621761532008-04-24T17:54:00.000+10:002008-04-24T17:54:00.000+10:00Not sure I could call this a darker film than the ...Not sure I could call this a darker film than the one you describe (not only as I haven't see that!) but also because I think our views of particular films change over time..however..the 1976 Japanese erotic film "Realm of the Senses" really pushed the envelope in many ways and not just because it broke Japanese censorship laws but because it SO focused on obsession to the point of death (both real and living). I found a copy of it in the 90's in a video store and recommended it to a couple of people to watch and they never looked at me the same afterwards!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com