Blockbuster or Indie?

briskhound2 said:Nah, I’m asking what makes it so deep or dramatic that people insist on labeling it "art cinema." The whole concept of a "blockbuster" didn't even exist back then, though Odyssey was definitely shot with commercial appeal in mind—kind of like how they approached The Shining...

I don't see Odyssey being made for the money at all. To me, the movie dives straight into the most universal theme there is—the actual meaning of being human. Like, who are we, where are we headed, and what's our purpose? If you don't think that's a universal theme, I honestly don't know what is...

dustycanyon5 said:I don't see Odyssey being made for the money at all. To me, the movie dives straight into the most universal theme there is—the actual meaning of being human. Like, who are we, where are we headed, and what's our purpose? If you don't think that's a universal theme, I honestly don't know what is...

Oh yeah? Really? You think those massive, mind-bending special effects—some of the most complex stuff ever put on celluloid—were just there so Kubrick could show them off to a handful of buddies at a backyard BBQ? The budget was $11 million, which would be like $80 million by today's standards... Are you seriously still trying to argue this wasn't built to make sure MGM got their money back?

The movie tackles the most universal theme imaginable: the actual meaning of human existence. Who are we, where are we headed, what’s our whole purpose? If you don't think that's a universal theme, I don't know what is.

That isn't really what 2001 is about. I mean, sure, you can interpret it however you want—that's the beauty of it—but the core boils down to questions like whether machines can be more human than humans, or if there's something much greater out there beyond us. BUT, regardless of how you spin it or what conclusion you reach, you can't honestly claim this is some niche indie flick meant for obscure film festivals or limited screenings. It's a commercial production through and through. Just like The Shining.

It’s not The Shinning, it's The Shining. It’s not Illitiga, it's Irradiation.

Joshua Smith5 said:It’s not The Shinning, it's The Shining. It’s not Illitiga, it's Irradiation.

Whatever, man, whatever... 😁 If we're being pedantic about the American translation, they actually titled the book *Clairvoyance*...

dustycanyon5 said:I don't see Odyssey being made for the money at all. To me, the movie dives straight into the most universal theme there is—the actual meaning of being human. Like, who are we, where are we headed, and what's our purpose? If you don't think that's a universal theme, I honestly don't know what is...

Sure, it was made.

Your top 10 list

1. Twin Peaks: The Return (Lynch and Frost claim it's basically an 18-hour movie)
2. Mulholland Drive
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
4. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me
5. A Moment to Remember
6. 21 Grams
7. A Tale of Two Sisters
8. Kill Bill
9. Nymphomaniac
10. Martyrs

Look, Rista, most of these are just mainstream hits. Very few of them qualify as "art house," and honestly, not a single one fits that high-brow "art film" category you seem to worship. It's a bit of a strange selection. Kill Bill, 21 Grams, those Twin Peaks films, A Moment to Remember... pretty much everything except your second and third picks.

I’m starting to think you’re just messing with us the whole time.

You could probably toss Kill Bill and a few of those other flicks mentioned above into a little sub-genre called commercial art—or maybe just pop art. Not that we really need to bother with these strict categories, though I guess if we have to play by the rules, we might as well. 😁

Honestly? It’s both. Both sides of the coin, really.

dustycanyon5 said:Look, I never said Hitchcock was a bad director, it’s just that there isn't really any "art" in his stuff. He mostly stuck to those psychological thrillers... they're gripping and intense, sure, but they lack that artistic soul. I know dustycanyon5 looks up to him as a mentor, but just because he feels that way doesn't mean I have to agree. And honestly, even with Lynch, I wouldn't call him the greatest director ever, even if he is my absolute favorite...

Don't go being so hard on Hitchcock. Just because he works within strict genre boundaries—if you want to call it that—doesn't mean there isn't art in his films; quite the opposite, actually. When I look back at Vertigo, Psycho, or North by Northwest—and several others besides—it's nothing short of pure cinematic art.

Kevin Turner4 said:Sure, it was made.

Your top 10 list

1. Twin Peaks: The Return (Lynch and Frost claim it's basically an 18-hour movie)
2. Mulholland Drive
3. 2001: A Space Odyssey
4. Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me
5. A Moment to Remember
6. 21 Grams
7. A Tale of Two Sisters
8. Kill Bill
9. Nymphomaniac
10. Martyrs

Look, Rista, most of these are just mainstream hits. Very few of them qualify as "art house," and honestly, not a single one fits that high-brow "art film" category you seem to worship. It's a bit of a strange selection. Kill Bill, 21 Grams, those Twin Peaks films, A Moment to Remember... pretty much everything except your second and third picks.

I’m starting to think you’re just messing with us the whole time.

My own top 10 is actually gonna change pretty soon—it's already starting to shift, really—since I've been diving headfirst into some serious art cinema lately. Honestly, I'm finding most of those to be way better than what I used to call my favorites...

And hey, if you think Twin Peaks: The Return is just commercial fluff, then I don't even know what to tell you. You probably haven't even seen it...

Karen Smith9 said:Don't go being so hard on Hitchcock. Just because he works within strict genre boundaries—if you want to call it that—doesn't mean there isn't art in his films; quite the opposite, actually. When I look back at Vertigo, Psycho, or North by Northwest—and several others besides—it's nothing short of pure cinematic art.

I wouldn't call him strictly a genre director, since he did tackle a few dramas, though they weren't exactly anything to write home about. I watched this one and if I recall correctly, most of the film felt like some kind of heavy melodrama, and honestly, there wasn't much tension to be found at all... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042004/

Honestly, Marnie is way better than Hitch
...

dustycanyon5 said:For over half a century now, it feels like the movie world has been split right down the middle between people who live for big commercial hits and those who crave indie, auteur-driven art films. I've been wondering lately... which camp do you guys fall into?

Personally, I’ve always leaned toward the latter without even thinking twice about it. I mean, don't get me wrong, a few years back I was totally fine watching those massive Hollywood blockbusters—stuff like Terminator, Die Hard, or Lord of the Rings... but everything changed once I really started diving into actual cinematic art. Once you discover directors like Lynch, Bergman, or Tarkovsky, there's just no going back. Nowadays, I mostly stick to those deep, artistic films and tend to steer clear of the big commercial stuff...

It really just comes down to whether the movie or series is actually good or not, regardless of whether it's labeled "art" or "commercial." Both categories have an endless capacity for churning out absolute garbage. You know my thoughts on the third season of your *Twin Peaks*, for instance, but that doesn't mean I don't appreciate a well-crafted, artsy film that actually has a meaningful point to make.
Personally, my favorite film has to be "Dean Spanley." It isn't a massive commercial juggernaut, nor is it overly pretentious or "artsy" for the sake of it. It manages to deliver a brilliant analysis of the human psyche without being heavy-handed, using a seemingly lighthearted premise to do so, which is exactly why I find it phenomenal. I’ve truly never come across another film that left such a lasting impression on me or pulled me into its world quite like that one. It resonated with me more than any other movie I've seen. I'm drawn to that sense of warmth and genuine humanity in film—something that is so incredibly hard to find amidst all the clichés and tropes. This particular story captures human vulnerability and the kind of pain that people spend their whole lives masking behind sarcasm and bitter behavior. In the end, salvation comes for the character in a completely unpredictable way. To me, that is what real art is: a film that touches your soul and stays in your mind indefinitely. It's a story that tackles deep themes like the human psyche and reincarnation in such an unburdened, humorous way. It reminds me of how Lynch handled *The Straight Story*—a beautiful film in my eyes, even if it sits a bit lower on my personal list than the one mentioned above.
"Art" can be anything or nothing at all. If a film tries way too hard to be "art," it's usually trash to me—take that movie *The Lobster*, for example... the social critique was clear enough, but the execution was just indigestible. If that's your cup of tea, more power to you.

I guess almost every Hitchcock movie touches on this deep philosophy about life versus death. It seems like wherever there’s a crime, there's always that underlying question of mortality right there with it.

dustycanyon5 said:My own top 10 is actually gonna change pretty soon—it's already starting to shift, really—since I've been diving headfirst into some serious art cinema lately. Honestly, I'm finding most of those to be way better than what I used to call my favorites...

And hey, if you think Twin Peaks: The Return is just commercial fluff, then I don't even know what to tell you. You probably haven't even seen it...

Let’s be real: Twin Peaks was always commercial. Look, I remember the original series vividly enough to remind you that the pilot alone pulled in nearly 35 million viewers. Just because something is weird, surreal, or bizarre doesn't mean it isn't a massive commercial product. The new iteration might not be hitting those same numbers, but "Twin Peaks" is a brand. It’s a name. And names like that? They belong to the world of commercial television.

Karen Smith9 said:Don't go being so hard on Hitchcock. Just because he works within strict genre boundaries—if you want to call it that—doesn't mean there isn't art in his films; quite the opposite, actually. When I look back at Vertigo, Psycho, or North by Northwest—and several others besides—it's nothing short of pure cinematic art.

Thriller, noir, drama. Those are the three pillars Hitchcock leaned on most heavily—and he had a knack for blending them seamlessly. Honestly, if you look closely enough, I think every great director is essentially a genre specialist at heart. Take Kubrick, for instance. He’s in a league of his own.

dustycanyon5 said:Honestly, Marnie is way better than Hitch
...

That is a bizarre choice. Care to explain? Honestly, I suspect you haven't even seen most of the films you're talking about—including Hitchcock's absolute best.

He’s just got this raw, emotional honesty about him. Honestly, it hit me right in the feels... That's why he's easily my favorite.

I’m not saying *Marnie* isn't a decent flick by any means. Even if it doesn't crack my personal top 15 Hitchcock films, it still has those brilliant, razor-sharp moments—like the burglary sequence where she's trying to hide and her shoe slips off. That old woman doesn't hear a thing, even though Hitchcock spent the whole scene playing us like a fiddle, cranking up the suspense until you'd swear someone was about to die.

But, strictly when you stack it up against his absolute heavy hitters, *Marnie* just doesn't hit that same tier. Honestly, I'm surprised you didn't bring up *Vertigo*; to me, that’s probably the closest Hitchcock ever got to pure fine art.

One quick question, though—what's your take on Kurosawa? I noticed he hasn't come up in our conversation yet.

I see you guys have already given the kid a massive beating, so I won't be too harsh. 😁

Just to add my two cents: behind every film style that leans heavily into those obvious "art house" vibes, there’s usually a very cold, hard economic calculation at play. Because, let's face it, otherwise you wouldn't have any work. It wasn't that German filmmakers in the 20s were obsessed with Expressionism, or the French with Poetic Realism, or the Russians with montage because they were pondering the deep mysteries of the universe. No. It was a calculated tactic to stay competitive on their own turf against the much wealthier and more massive American film industry.

Think about it—when the baby boomer generation hit their stride in the late 60s, riding that wave of social shifts toward hippie culture, LSD, and rock and roll, while getting hooked on directors like Fellini, Godard, and Antonioni, how did Hollywood react? To avoid losing out on that massive new market, American cinema loosened the reins on independent production, which finally allowed directors like your man Kubrick to break through.

Kevin Turner4 said:I’m not saying *Marnie* isn't a decent flick by any means. Even if it doesn't crack my personal top 15 Hitchcock films, it still has those brilliant, razor-sharp moments—like the burglary sequence where she's trying to hide and her shoe slips off. That old woman doesn't hear a thing, even though Hitchcock spent the whole scene playing us like a fiddle, cranking up the suspense until you'd swear someone was about to die.

But, strictly when you stack it up against his absolute heavy hitters, *Marnie* just doesn't hit that same tier. Honestly, I'm surprised you didn't bring up *Vertigo*; to me, that’s probably the closest Hitchcock ever got to pure fine art.

One quick question, though—what's your take on Kurosawa? I noticed he hasn't come up in our conversation yet.

Man, Vertigo is incredible. It's easily my second favorite Hitchcock movie. But honestly? Marnie just stuck with me more on a personal level. I actually found Psycho and Rear Window a bit tedious, if I'm being real... I don't totally get why everyone raves about them so much, though maybe if I give them another watch I'll see the light...

As for Kurosawa, I haven't actually sat down with his work yet. I'm planning to dive into him once I finally wrap up my Bergman marathon...

The distinction is entirely artificial, wouldn't you agree? There simply exist good films, and then there exist bad films...

dustycanyon5 said:Man, Vertigo is incredible. It's easily my second favorite Hitchcock movie. But honestly? Marnie just stuck with me more on a personal level. I actually found Psycho and Rear Window a bit tedious, if I'm being real... I don't totally get why everyone raves about them so much, though maybe if I give them another watch I'll see the light...

As for Kurosawa, I haven't actually sat down with his work yet. I'm planning to dive into him once I finally wrap up my Bergman marathon...

It's strange to hear you find Psycho and Rear Window boring rather than Vertigo. Usually, I hear the word boring applied to Vertigo. If I had to explain why Hitchcock is the king of suspense, I’d point to Rear Window; the movie shouldn't be that tense, yet somehow it is. Especially that final third. In Vertigo, the plot crawls along and the real action doesn't kick in until the second half, but that's what makes it his most beautiful work. Why the obsession with Psycho and Rear Window? I suppose even if a masterpiece doesn't personally click with you, you should still be able to recognize its quality.

If you appreciate cinema, especially those classic directors, I doubt you’d call Psycho or Rear Window "bad" movies—it's just that they didn't resonate with you. But the direction, the screenplay... it's peak filmmaking. Rebecca, North by Northwest, and Vertigo. That's my Hitchcock top three.

dustycanyon5 said:Man, Vertigo is incredible. It's easily my second favorite Hitchcock movie. But honestly? Marnie just stuck with me more on a personal level. I actually found Psycho and Rear Window a bit tedious, if I'm being real... I don't totally get why everyone raves about them so much, though maybe if I give them another watch I'll see the light...

As for Kurosawa, I haven't actually sat down with his work yet. I'm planning to dive into him once I finally wrap up my Bergman marathon...

Kurosawa is my number one director, which is why I asked. You know, Bergman used to tear down almost every other director, but he actually respected Kurosawa. Who would have thought Carve and Duvivier were his main influences? He wasn't a fan of Buñuel, so I'm genuinely curious what he thought of Lynch. And he despised Antonioni.

Anyway, let me know when you get to Kurosawa. We can chat via DM if you want me to put together a starter list for you. I have this weird obsession 😁 with hearing what you younger folks think as you start exploring these greats. I want to see how today's generation processes them and whether they'll hold them in high regard—which you likely will, given your appreciation for the classics. Just try to avoid the sweeping generalizations. 👍