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!
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>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
Why?
because it's like clarified butter
Elaborate.
Recommend me a film that qualifies OP
It's basically Dogme 95.
>no dialogue
but that’s retarded
So amateur porn?
Ghee
James Benning's BNSF
How is this like "clarified butter"? Suppose a director followed every condition, but used 70 mm film. Would what he have created somehow not be art?
far from it
This is retarded and you should kill yourself
plebabby goes goo goo ga ga waaaah
I'm not the user who mentioned butter. That was my first post in the thread. You asked why, and it's just something Trier and Vinterberg came up with.
>far from it
>have no non-diegetic music
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.)
>use only available light
Special lighting is not acceptable.
>be shot on location
Shooting must be done on location.
Similar enough. Except the apolitical and dialogue part.
>and it's just something Trier and Vinterberg came up with.
Okay, but it's like saying a stage production can only be art if it follows Wagner's theories on music drama, which would be much less restrictive.
they weren't trying to distinguish cinematic art and they never even followed their own criteria
>they weren't trying to distinguish cinematic art
And that's not what these pretentious cheesheads were doing either. They just proposed a style of moviemaking with strict conditions as a movement, or genre, or whatever, not establishing them as conditiones sine qua non for films to be art.
yes that's what i just said
Oh, I thought you were talking about Wagner's followers. I just attacking's OP's absurd notion that these are not only the necessary aspects for this style, but for cinematic art.
that is the most pretentious thing I've ever read in my life
>these are not only the necessary aspects for this style, but for cinematic art.
wut
Reminder that to be literature a book has to:
have no readable font
have no vocabulary
have no grammar
have no punctuation
be printed only on biodegradable toilet paper
have no arses full of farts
be written in braille
>Reminder that to be art a film has to:
books can't be art
i just dont understand your sentence
which are not the only necessary aspects for what style
Dogme 95.
OP's aspects are not necessary for dogme 95 or what
Actually, he wasn't listing those conditions. The point is, he doesn't make any argument as to why these are necessary conditions for a film to be art.
quite self evident imo
Recommend a real film please
>
>Dogme 95 was a filmmaking movement started in 1995 by the Danish directors Lars von Trier
lol