Blockbuster or Indie?

Look, I never said Psycho or Rear Window were bad movies, I just meant they personally felt kind of boring to me. It’s totally subjective, obviously, not some objective truth. Maybe I just wasn't in the right headspace for Psycho at the time, but with Rear Window... I mean, the whole movie is basically just watching a guy spy on his neighbor from a balcony. Even for someone like me who actually loves slow-burn films where the dialogue does all the heavy lifting, that one still felt like a bit of a slog...

As for Kurosawa, I know directors like Bergman and Tarkovsky took a lot of inspiration from him, and since I’m a huge fan of both of those guys, I figure his stuff should click for me just fine.

I honestly just love Rear Window—it’s probably one of my all-time favorite movies.

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...

Look, I’m no expert on technical genre definitions, but I think you might be mixing up your metaphors here. "Art" is really about a specific kind of creative expression, whereas "blockbuster" is just shorthand for how much money was dumped into a production and how much it pulled back at the box office. Theoretically, an art film could absolutely be a blockbuster. Even in practice, Lynch’s Twin Peaks series probably fits the blockbuster mold because it was a high-budget production that became a massive commercial hit.

Correct me if I'm off base.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Look, I’m no expert on technical genre definitions, but I think you might be mixing up your metaphors here. "Art" is really about a specific kind of creative expression, whereas "blockbuster" is just shorthand for how much money was dumped into a production and how much it pulled back at the box office. Theoretically, an art film could absolutely be a blockbuster. Even in practice, Lynch’s Twin Peaks series probably fits the blockbuster mold because it was a high-budget production that became a massive commercial hit.

Correct me if I'm off base.

He isn't actually a fan of that successful run of TP; he's more focused on that pretentious mess they called the third season.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Look, I’m no expert on technical genre definitions, but I think you might be mixing up your metaphors here. "Art" is really about a specific kind of creative expression, whereas "blockbuster" is just shorthand for how much money was dumped into a production and how much it pulled back at the box office. Theoretically, an art film could absolutely be a blockbuster. Even in practice, Lynch’s Twin Peaks series probably fits the blockbuster mold because it was a high-budget production that became a massive commercial hit.

Correct me if I'm off base.

The original 90s series was definitely a commercial hit, I'll give you that. But the Twin Peaks movie and this latest season? That's pure Art through and through.

So, does that mean basically every American film qualifies as art? 😁

I’ve been spiraling down this rabbit hole lately thinking about the whole "high art vs. commercialism" debate... It totally takes me back to my high school days when listening to anything on the Top 40 charts was basically social suicide! You had to be into indie stuff or some obscure garage band just to stay cool. I feel like that exact same tension is playing out in movies right now.

The thing with music, though, was that there was this massive push to find the next cult classic—you know, that underground sound or the rising artist that nobody else knew about yet.

But hey, obviously that’s such a narrow way to look at things, and honestly, we should probably steer clear of that mindset altogether. We’ve already talked about how you really can't separate the two... Every piece of "art" carries some level of commercial weight, and vice versa, whether they managed to hit the mainstream or stay tucked away in a niche category or not.

Amanda Robinson4 said:I’ve been spiraling down this rabbit hole lately thinking about the whole "high art vs. commercialism" debate... It totally takes me back to my high school days when listening to anything on the Top 40 charts was basically social suicide! You had to be into indie stuff or some obscure garage band just to stay cool. I feel like that exact same tension is playing out in movies right now.

The thing with music, though, was that there was this massive push to find the next cult classic—you know, that underground sound or the rising artist that nobody else knew about yet.

But hey, obviously that’s such a narrow way to look at things, and honestly, we should probably steer clear of that mindset altogether. We’ve already talked about how you really can't separate the two... Every piece of "art" carries some level of commercial weight, and vice versa, whether they managed to hit the mainstream or stay tucked away in a niche category or not.

Looks like you were a total product of that era, Amanda Robinson4.

Nancy Booth2 said:So, does that mean basically every American film qualifies as art? 😁

Honestly, most movies coming out of the US indie scene definitely fall into that category...

dustycanyon5 said:The original 90s series was definitely a commercial hit, I'll give you that. But the Twin Peaks movie and this latest season? That's pure Art through and through.

Alright, let's settle this: what exactly do you mean by "Art"? Give me a definition. What makes a film "Art" in your book?

dustycanyon5 said:Honestly, most movies coming out of the US indie scene definitely fall into that category...

Oh, right—because absolutely nobody has ever heard of them, right?

If Tarantino counts as high art, then I guess Kusturica does too.

Jacob Cooper5 said:Looks like you were a total product of that era, Amanda Robinson4.

Let's just say I've seen a thing or two myself... 😛

OT: I think it really comes down to comparing typical Hollywood blockbusters versus international cinema. Movies from outside the States don't usually chase those big Hollywood trends, and they often can't even if they wanted to! They’re frequently co-productions involving national broadcasters or government departments rather than just one massive studio footing the entire bill for everything.

And you have to consider how "indie" is positioned against Hollywood these days. Basically, an indie film is an independent production—super obvious, right? They tend to have way more creative freedom, but man, the budgets are tight...

The most glaring difference is that Hollywood movies are almost always obsessed with being politically correct. They feel forced to push racial diversity and they basically demand a happy ending every single time.

I usually just associate art with some low-budget garbage shot on an old iPhone 5s by some hipster girl or maybe just some random street dwellers out in downtown Chicago

but look, I’m not some skinny emo kid weighing maybe 150 pounds soaking wet in some suburban mall who thinks they’re too deep to actually enjoy art

for me, the first real masterpiece was Matrix

dustycanyon5 said:The original 90s series was definitely a commercial hit, I'll give you that. But the Twin Peaks movie and this latest season? That's pure Art through and through.

The whole Twin Peaks thing is built on a commercial foundation, and the new season is no exception. Even if the ratings aren't through the roof, briskhound2 made a fair point with that Odyssey analogy. There’s massive money and heavy marketing behind it all. It's the same story with this new chapter. Honestly, aside from episode eight in season three, I actually found the first season to be more "artistic" than the third. Nothing is ever going to top the quality of that first season.

And yes, I did enjoy season three.

At its core, Twin Peaks is a commercial venture; it only leans into "art" when we start making these comparisons.

Art is total junk.

Happy New Year! 🎉

Jacob Cooper5 said:Alright, let's settle this: what exactly do you mean by "Art"? Give me a definition. What makes a film "Art" in your book?

Basically, they're movies where the goal is to actually deliver an artistic message... rather than just chasing a massive paycheck at the box office.

Kevin Turner4 said:The whole Twin Peaks thing is built on a commercial foundation, and the new season is no exception. Even if the ratings aren't through the roof, briskhound2 made a fair point with that Odyssey analogy. There’s massive money and heavy marketing behind it all. It's the same story with this new chapter. Honestly, aside from episode eight in season three, I actually found the first season to be more "artistic" than the third. Nothing is ever going to top the quality of that first season.

And yes, I did enjoy season three.

At its core, Twin Peaks is a commercial venture; it only leans into "art" when we start making these comparisons.

Just because something is popular and successful doesn't automatically make it commercial. Take a movie like *Solaris*, for instance—it stayed in theaters for basically ten years straight. Is anyone really going to call that a commercial flick?

dustycanyon5 said:Basically, they're movies where the goal is to actually deliver an artistic message... rather than just chasing a massive paycheck at the box office.

Wait, hold on—are you seriously suggesting that blockbusters can't carry a meaningful message or tackle the heavy stuff?

briskhound2 said:Wait, hold on—are you seriously suggesting that blockbusters can't carry a meaningful message or tackle the heavy stuff?

I mean, what kind of deep message are you even pulling out of Jurassic Park or Star Wars? Even if there is some sort of subtext there, that’s usually just whatever the audience decides to see, not necessarily what the director was aiming for. Let's be real... those movies were made to entertain the masses and rake in the cash at the box office, not to win awards for high art...