1917 Film

[Sir_Theo]

Purely based on the cinematography, 1917 is art. Roger Deakins is one of the best in the business.

Someone should also tell Banksy or Basquiat that graffiti isn't art.

[italwars]

If that director is among the best (I believe you and I ll look for other works from him) Why in that very film, 1917, he refrained from showing us his talent? Even the way he used his camera, among all the other modern possibilities he had, is quite disturbing..The message behind is , my opinion, a speculative one ..that is downgrading the stakeholders of beauty or, in other words, downgrading the concept of art..and its not alone in doing that ..if I can make a comparison is like that , into a couple of years, there will be no differences in this forum between picts representing beautifully painted minis and other including bare metal minis..Both would be entitled to receive same appreciation

I do not downplay that the “artists” that you mention could even find some customers and probably they also find somebody who paid good money for what they did ..certainly not me! ...but if Baskiat is art..What is Caravaggio? Another world ?

[Sir_Theo]

 Caravaggio is  a different kind of art. You may prefer some artists to others, but that doesn't mean they are not art. As it happens my artistic tastes are probably more like yours, I prefer the work of an old master to a modern conceptual artist, for example. It's obviously a much debated point!

Roger Deakins is the cinematographer, not the director. He's worked a lot with the Coen brothers and Sam Mendes. I also agree with you about the plot of 1917, which I found a little trite, but it looked wonderful,  in my opinion. The craft behind it is very very good.

https://m.imdb.com/name/nm0005683/filmotype/cinematographer?ref_=m_nmfm_1

[Cubs]

Art is an original creative work of the imagination designed to provoke an emotive response. It's a very very broad definition and is not an exclusive club, which is why there are so many sub-categories. Notice that cinema is included in the 'Performing Arts' (the clue's in the title). Beyond that you can have art you like and art you don't like.

I haven't seen the film yet, but everything I'd read and heard about it, including all responses on here, makes me want to see it.

[TWD]

Someone should also tell Banksy or Basquiat that graffiti isn't art.

Telling Basquiat anything will be tricky. He's been dead more than 30 years.

As I noted earlier whether art is good or bad (or appeal to you or doesn't) is subjective.
That cinema is art and therefore the film in question is art is a statement of fact, not opinion.

FWIW I think 1917 is a very good film. Not a great film but good. The cinematography of Roger Deakins (no relation) is an outstanding use of the medium.
It's themes and mannerisms are inevitably reflective of early 21st century sensibilities and experiences - all art is a product of its time and holds a mirror up to contemporary values.
Captain Blood's comparison with Apocalypse Now is a good one. Both films use a war as a backdrop to a "quest" but neither is 'about' the conflict in question. In the same way Macbeth is not about Dark Age Scottish sucession, it's about 17th century ideals of rulership.

[italwars]

Art is an original creative work of the imagination designed to provoke an emotive response. It's a very very broad definition and is not an exclusive club, which is why there are so many sub-categories. Notice that cinema is included in the 'Performing Arts' (the clue's in the title). Beyond that you can have art you like and art you don't like.

I haven't seen the film yet, but everything I'd read and heard about it, including all responses on here, makes me want to see it.

not only an emotion but something very sophisticated , very difficult to achieve and to understand and only emotive for well mannered, well educated people..otherwise even football, even  TV's"Celebrity Big Brother", even Rapp "music" , even drinking 10 l. of beer could be art simply because many if not the majority of people get far greater emotions with that sort of entertainments  than you and me in front of real art...(by the way me too i love football but i'll never experiment  the Stendhal Syndrome when SS Lazio win)..and same people would probably consider you and me looking at , for example, a René Magritte picture two sorts of nerds.....so definitvly a very exclusive club..for the élites or at least for special people and not for the masses...even wargame it's a very exclusive club  for few above average people...the proof is that is very difficult to find opponents...
so about this film which, at the end, i did'nt liked and i'm only sorry for the € 8,50 which i could had saved for a box of Hat 1:72 British in Tropical Dress ..if he ll be very succesful it'll be  another legal proof that's rubish 

[Driscoles]

By now we all know that you do not fancy 1917 italwars. It is really enough. You repeat yourself.

[italwars]

every single line that could be read   here about this film is a repetition ...sorry if my remarks are so original

[armchairgeneral]

I felt a bit like a third soldier in the film. It is quite an immersive style of filming which I really liked but I appreciate it maybe isn’t everyones cup of tea.

I couldn’t help thinking of the Jude Law elements of the ACW film Cold Mountain.