Intellectual movies are fine, but there's only a certain amount that you can digest in 2 hours. I mostly watch movies to relax.
So you are asserting that intellectuals do not crave entertainment in the form of movies? That does not seem like a very intelligent well thought out statement.
Yes, I do meditation, yoga and swimming. Mental training is interesting. But I confess I don't read classics anymore.
No, this is an ignorant statement. Both fiction, and film, are entertainment. Both can also be considered art. But art is in the eye of the beholder. Your own ideas of what is "real art," are not relevant for anyone but you. If you are looking for an "authoritative" judgement, you could only rely upon a consensus opinion, and it is the consensus of both people overall, as well as "experts," in the arts, that both film and literature are arts, and either can be considered "high art." Personally, I would not consider much of either one, "high art," but a little high art can be found among both. Again, this is only my personal opinion which, for art, is ultimately all we have. But a film like M. Night Shayamalan's The Village, is beautifully made, and reflective of Truth, in its symbolism, which is something I appreciate. It is high art, IMO. So is the somewhat off beat "horror" film, Let Me In, though not in as grand a way, as The Village. The films Identity, and Fight Club, would also qualify, in my book, as would The Graduate, and The Beguiled, a 1971 film directed by Don Siegel, and starring Clint Eastwood. Those two worked together, also on the Dirty Harry films, none of which, would I consider high art, but others might certainly disagree. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...QuAJ6BAgMEAE&usg=AOvVaw29qKRxL99U0Qlmh8tEIz4k The Beguiled has both the power to be deeply affecting, as well as the ability to be interpreted in very different ways, by different viewers (or, in my case, by the same viewer, at different times in his life, a decade apart). One might think that someone who has chosen the name "Interaktive," might appreciate that protean potential.
Agreed - film can be for intellectuals, and it most certainly can be high art. Amongst filmmakers and cinematographers, Orson Welles' Citizen Kane is usually ranked near the top of the list, primarily on account of Gregg Toland's magnificent cinematography. If I recall correctly, one of the thing's that made Citizen Kane and Toland's work so groundbreaking was that this was the first film where you could see the ceilings in the rooms, which forced Toland and Welles to find innovative ways of lighting each scene, and the solutions were spectacular. The newsreel room may be the best example of their ingenuity: As a measure of its greatness, this is the film that is shown and broken down to aspiring film, video and media arts students in the best art schools in this nation, i.e., the select group that have BFA programs. As far as color films go, Akira Kurosawa set the standard. His film Ran (an adaptation of William Shakespeare's King Lear) is probably his masterpiece in color, although there are scenes in his last film Dreams that are as good as any shot in Ran. There have been some great color filmmakers over the years, but none of them surpassed Kurosawa's eye for color: I haven't seen the film in a very long time, partly because it's rather disturbing, but David Lynch's use of color in Lost Highway was truly exceptional at times. Another one of my favorite color films - and one of the best ever made, imo - is Jean-Pierre Jeunet's film Amélie, and cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel's use of color in that film is about as good as it gets: and my favorite shot is the one with Amélie skipping rocks across the waters of the Saint-Martin Canal - simply beautiful: Personally, I find the storyline in Citizen Kane boring - Casablanca is much better - and of course, Ran is an adaptation of King Lear, Dreams is a hodge-podge of vignettes that aren't terribly concerned with storylines and dialogue at all, and Amélie can be considered a typically silly French film, but the cinematography in every one of those films qualifies as high or fine art. None of these films fall into the "pop culture" category nor were they intended for a "pop" audience. They're all works of fine art that appeal to those who appreciate fine art and the artists who work in the film medium themselves (or any media using a camera, for that matter).
