Art stands for Actually, Revenue’s Terrible.
Hmmmm. See one of the things about the differences between art and commerce is popularity and time. The more popular something is the longer it takes to feel like ‘art.’ And while I’m not saying Ant-Man and The Wasp is Oscar worthy, AIW is a startlingly strong edition to the overall cannon, especially with how it tweaks the normal MCU formula. There’s a lot of flawed movies that hit the ground running as far as being perceived ‘artistic.’ Movies that millions of people go to see in the cinema take a while to feel like they are artistic but it certainly happens. Plenty of very popular movies from the past are both flawed and now deemed art.
At this point I’m also going to bring up the fact that Shakespeare was the blockbuster maker of his day and MANY of his plays are flawed, not all are brilliantly entertaining but they are now thought of as THEE highest art in storytelling.
Personally I feel it is profound in many respects. The cause of the villain is allegorical and he sacrifices the only thing other than his cause that he cares about in order to fulfil that. There is a lot of sacrifice in this film and the heroes make realistic decisions. I’m not sure that much more can be done, profound-wise, in a movie that ties more than 20 movies together and is pretty much the first part of a two part film.
Of course there’s flaws, but some of the most profound and artistic movies ever made are flawed. I’m not saying this is up their with them but those things certainly not absent completely.
Blade Runner 2049 was a massively budgeted art house movie, and it tanked. There are probably multiple reasons for this, but it strikes me that one of the reasons was that it was too cerebral for mainstream audiences.
I think an argument could be made that the MCU as a whole could be considered pop-art.
If you take ‘art’ as being something that some one has created that initiates an emotional response then AIW beats Blade Runner hands down.
If I remember rightly, Stan Lee/Marvel tried to brand their entire range ‘pop art comics’ in the sixties, so it fits.
Not for me, but it’s obviously highly subjective.
Well, that depends on how you do on the Voigt-Kampff test.
That’s true. I was thinking more in audience response - I’ve rarely been to films where people have felt the need to shout at the screen - but personal resonance is something it may not have just as much of.
I passed it on my 5th try.
I saw both Blade Runner 2049 and Avengers: Infinity War in theaters.
There was pretty much no reaction to BR 2049 (aside from yawns) and when people were walking out afterwards, people weren’t talking much.
With A:IW, people were completely engaged, often gasping in shock, laughing, cheering, etc. I was genuinely surprised at the emotional investment it got from the audience. Afterwards, people were buzzing and talking.
For me, BR 2049 was a beautiful movie visually and acoustically but far too long. It really needed about 45 minutes cut from it. I got bored and stopped caring about the characters and story.
More people are invested in the MCU in that way than the world of Blade Runner, for sure. No argument there.
I felt much the same, BR 2049 had me gripped then lost me. It’s still a good film and definitely visually incredible, but emotionally it was much more knocking at the window as opposed to putting it’s fist through it, for me at least.
You are right though that personal investment can be very different. Certain films have much more emotional resonance with me than others.
from the profound philosopher Harvey Danger
only stupid people are breeding
The cretins cloning and feeding
Blade Runner 2049 is probably my favourite film of the last five years. Infinity War gave me a crisis of faith in blockbuster cinema.
Obviously Marvel affected a greater number of people emotionally because a greater number of people saw it. But Blade Runner 2049 made Irvine Welsh cry, and I think that counts for something.
Well, it’s more that it affected a higher percentage of people who watched it. Subjectiveness is personal, it only deems something of higher value if someone respects your view, which is, again, subjective. Just because something made Irvine Welsh cry doesn’t make it any less subjective or more credibly affecting, genre films and comics and books and content have been subjected to this falacy all through our lifetimes. And now the worm has turned and we are looking at the emotional resonance of AIW as somehow less than Blade Runner despite knowing the emotional resonance we had with comic books and having the same negative opinions foisted on us, that comics weren’t ‘art’ or that are were somehow less of a credible source of emotional resonance.
In a way, we’ve become the villain here.
I’m not sure this stuff is really quantifiable in that way, or how we’d be able to confirm that assumption even if it was.
The reactions of people in the cinema seem pretty clear. Even a week later when I got to see AIW people were shouting at the screen and audibly gasping or making sad sounds.
Edit: Also I’ll say I can barely remember a line from BR or have heard any repeated much whereas “I don’t want to go Mr. Stark,” is already a very visceral and classic quote and one that affected a lot of people.
Also, I saw both movies with around the same amount of people and same sort of varied age groups as both were late showings.
Again though, so many more people saw Avengers that those things will have a lot more traction either way.
In the end I think it’s a bit of an apples and oranges comparison - Avengers is a big blockbuster franchise for everyone except young kids, whereas even Blade Runner’s biggest fans would admit it’s a niche-interest film that probably didn’t hold much meaning for anyone under 30. And they’re such different films in terms of how they handle their emotional aspects that I’m not sure we really learn anything by comparing them.