top of page
Writer's pictureElwira Iwanowska

Part 1. Commercial and artistic cinema – diversification

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


bottom of page