Cinema as art or commerce?

Do you regard cinema as an art form or commerce? Do you think cinematic products should coalesce into works of art or be the medium for commercial masala only?

I have noticed that on this forum, we rarely talk about film as a way to understand the human experience, we stop talking about what sorts of stories need to be told. Instead, we slip into fearful conversations about commercial potential, about how artists can “build” and “sustain” their careers.I have been guilty of this too.

In India, the debate between art and commerce is further complicated by the star system. Certain artists command a huge fan following who would watch their movies regardless of content. For e.g. Salman Khan, Akshay Kumar etc.

We talk about films which have made it to the 100 crore club, but we rarely talk about films which have left a deep impact on us at a visceral level.

So do you think art and commerce are polar opposites which cannot be reconciled? Or do you think art and commerce can exist in a symbiotic relationship?

For me, artistic merit is the first thing that attracts me to a film. The film should have something to say or the content should be meaningful. Commerce and the flow of revenue is important no doubt, because films are ultimately a means of making money in a capitalist society. We cannot wish away this fact. I at times find myself unwittingly admiring movies which have the capacity to make people stand up and whistle and shout. Those are smart commercial elements at play.

We consider film a pop or low culture medium, not a fine art. This mentality has to evolve if we really believe cinema should forge into unknown territories and make a dent on our consciousness, not become a frivolous timepass, but an enduring masterpiece.

All said, box-office returns and multi-million deals will never go away. How we balance these with artistic freedom and artistic endeavours remains to be seen.

Your thoughts???

Koi film kisi Ki zindagi nu badal sakti hai ? Some people don’t believe that so going in they won’t have have that mindset. So any film that tries that will be skipped by them

Commerce to the poor Producers and art (of scamming them😆) for everyone else involved.😆

Cinema is art.

But...

The people involve have to eat, so it is also commerce. Anyone who pretends otherwise is either too filthy rich to understand, too naive, too young, or too whatever else.

To address the question...

Yes, art can be commercially successful. Problem with most *artistic* filmmakers I see is that they blame the audience for not understanding their creations. Problem is in your creation, sir, not the movie-watching public. You don't need to insert item numbers and cheapen your endeavor, but you also need to make real art on screen appealing to the common man. How, you may ask. Well, that's what you get paid the big bucks to figure out. Want some tips? Check out regional cinema... a Kumbalangi Nights or Super Deluxe or Sairat.

I dont know , how much do people know about art... and cinema as an art in particular ?

A lot of us are not even art students at elementary level.

Not everyone can make a proper masala film ... a lot of artists complain about budget...give them budget (ehem 'Bombay Velvet') .

So i guess making a movie that appeals to large audience also is 'ART' since not many are doing it successfly. So ability matters more than anything else.

Originally posted by: mintyblue

Do you regard cinema as an art form or commerce? Do you think cinematic products should coalesce into works of art or be the medium for commercial masala only?

I have noticed that on this forum, we rarely talk about film as a way to understand the human experience, we stop talking about what sorts of stories need to be told. Instead, we slip into fearful conversations about commercial potential, about how artists can “build” and “sustain” their careers.I have been guilty of this too.

In India, the debate between art and commerce is further complicated by the star system. Certain artists command a huge fan following who would watch their movies regardless of content. For e.g. Salman Khan, Akshay Kumar etc.

We talk about films which have made it to the 100 crore club, but we rarely talk about films which have left a deep impact on us at a visceral level.

So do you think art and commerce are polar opposites which cannot be reconciled? Or do you think art and commerce can exist in a symbiotic relationship?

For me, artistic merit is the first thing that attracts me to a film. The film should have something to say or the content should be meaningful. Commerce and the flow of revenue is important no doubt, because films are ultimately a means of making money in a capitalist society. We cannot wish away this fact. I at times find myself unwittingly admiring movies which have the capacity to make people stand up and whistle and shout. Those are smart commercial elements at play.

We consider film a pop or low culture medium, not a fine art. This mentality has to evolve if we really believe cinema should forge into unknown territories and make a dent on our consciousness, not become a frivolous timepass, but an enduring masterpiece.

All said, box-office returns and multi-million deals will never go away. How we balance these with artistic freedom and artistic endeavours remains to be seen.

Your thoughts???

Can you tell me some movies that you consider are great in 'artistic ' terms ? what artistic features have you found that is so profound that could be bouncers to normal audience ?

Its a fallacy some think Imitiaz Ali is beyond the comprehensive capabilities of normal audience...'Tamasha' for example. I mean i dont see any indian film makers making Bergman and David Lynch level films.

People who like salman movies have life already figured out...they know nothing much can be done and hence rightfully focus on cinema as entertainment. That is right there ...an intelligent audience who gives cinema just about enough respect/credit it deserves.

Originally posted by: Maroonporsche

Koi film kisi Ki zindagi nu badal sakti hai ? Some people don’t believe that so going in they won’t have have that mindset. So any film that tries that will be skipped by them

I cannot fathom how people consider themselevs are " intelligent audience" when they think cinema is some kind of rehabilitation mehanism (it wont solve sexism , misogyny or even so called problematic issues ) just by changing how you end a movie or adding lengthy bhaari dialogues.

Cinema is also called the 7th art (7ème art).

In India, this artistic value is heightened by the addition of dance, music and sometimes poetry.

I didn't like Mirziya because I felt the execution wasn't great and the story couldn't been better but check out the way the ROM filmed the sceneries, look at the music videos and listent to songs which were written by Gulzar. It's mesmerizing (my personal favorite being Hitchki).

Devdas, K2H2, Omkara and K3G among others are also beautiful, meaningful movies. The directors had a certain intent when they did it which translate on screen. One can see what they were trying to do.

A movie can have a social message or just be made to entertain but it'll always appeal to someone.

Then there are movies which are solely done to make money and are basic formula without proper plot, music or direction. Those I'd personally arguably call art.

Originally posted by: pali001

I cannot fathom how people consider themselevs are " intelligent audience" when they think cinema is some kind of rehabilitation mehanism (it wont solve sexism , misogyny or even so called problematic issues ) just by changing how you end a movie or adding lengthy bhaari dialogues.

it's not a rehab mech, but it's been well-studied that visual media does affect how population think and act. Companies like Google and Facebook have actually conducted experiments on it. So yeah... artists do have that responsibility.