Unfortunately, it has come to my attention that my blogs are not very profound, or deep, or offer anything that remotely consists of a little thing called 'substance'.

I hope to remedy this in the near future.

I entered a lively debate tonight with my brother and his fiancee - I argued the 'art film' was a genre, and they did not particularly partake to this piece of musing.

I define the art film, along with others such as the infamous and legendary film theorist, David Bordwell, as a film where the protagonist has no clear goals and there are few, if none at all, causal relationships. Just because a film does not adhere to Hollywood convention does not make it automatically an 'art film'. "Donny Darko" is not an art film. "Before Sunrise" is not an art film....well, maybe borderline, but not really. "Brick" is not an art film. Independent films are NOT art films. An art film is not defined by a visual style or a method of production and distribution.

An art film, loosely and very briefly, is a film in which there are no clear goals, (although there are exceptions) and there are little if no causal relationships. A lot of the French New Wave films were art films - "Vivre Sa Vie" and "Une Femme Est Une Femme", for instance. Truffaut's later films were art films.

Just because a film does not look like or is not structured quite like a Hollywood narrative, it does not make it an 'art film'. Additionally, just because you say you enjoy 'art films' like "Donny Darko" and "The Notebook", etc, does not make you a film theorist or a great enlightened critic.

Though the 'art film' is indeed a genre...

A film is a film, I suppose Godard would say.