Cinema can be described and diversified in many ways. Movies are characterised by their
genres, country of origin, techniques of photography or editing, length and many other
features. One of them – and this is one of the most common and general field of
diversification – is the division into artistic (or independent, arthouse) and commercial
cinematography. This division is in the reflection on the film a traditional diversification and
also most common in general perception of the cinema. Historically consequent to the
geographical situation of cinematographies and its development, sets commercial films in
Hollywood and artistic as European cinema. How can be this fragmentation explained and
characterised? It seems that the line between commercial and artistic film productions is
straight and society deciphers it easily. But how? What makes one movie commercial and
the other artistic? Are there some specific features which enable to label one title as the
independent cinema and a the next one as a commercial film?
“What makes people look at so called “art” movies and “commercial” movies in a different
manner? In fact, what really separates an art film from a commercial film? Some say that
the cookie cutter templates of screenplays make a commercial film, and dull slow scenes
make an art film. A movie with an “intro” song makes a commercial one, while a “songless”
movie makes an art film. A movie with logical loopholes makes a commercial flick,
while a perfectly logical and scientifically correct film makes an artsy film. I feel that nothing
can be further from the truth than the above.”
[https://thecriticscut.wordpress.com/2013/07/09/art-vs-commercial-what-separates-t 3 hem/, accessed 6.02.17]
The above is a set of possible answers and – as the author points out – none of them is
adequate. This quote is taken from a critique blog and was found among many other
articles, thesis, opinions and impetuous discussions on internet forums. The line between
artistic and commercial is in fact very blurry. Even though having seen a movie, we do not
have problems to allocate it as commercial or artistic. In fact we know what kind of movie
we will experience even before we consider buying tickets in movie theatre. Before
experiencing the product we have already been given the promise of the experience,
through genre, trailer or advertisements of the outstanding performance of an actor or
director, generally through the external communication of a movie. However what is
promised differs for whom it is promised. Marketing of the movie product is always
differentiated according to the type of viewer for whom the title is designed or created.
So do those differences between commercial and artistic originate (aside from the creators
ambitions) from the budget and the box office revenues, or just from type of promotion and
communication of a movie title? To properly define the line and to explain the
diversification, it is worth to take a closer look on cinematography development and the
moment when the diversification appeared.
Comments