Originally posted by tabuno
anduril's first post had a hidden agenda and a pre-supposed assumption that "good art" and "societal change" are conflicted because "good art" is not dumbed down enough so that a lot of people see it so as to cause massive societal change. Such a definition of "good art" also assumes that movies have a specific medium or format of "good art" as opposed to music or paintings or sculptures. anduril may be confusing "art" for "political change" as "good art."

I can imagine that there a numerous paintings and selections of music that are considered "good" that are not meant to be part of some "societal revolution." Some works of "good art" and I assume "art movies" included my be defined only in terms of their impact on the person who experiences it. Does it resonant, create some deeply appreciated experience. Does it make a person feel intensely? Does "good art" necessarily have to have some clearly defined meaning, some logical outline for right and wrong? I think not.

"Picnic at Hanging Rock" was an excellent "art film" that required no need for massive large scale audiences. "2001: A Space Odyssey" brought forth a whole new way of looking at outer space...attitudinal shifts. "Jaws" made a whole generation aware of the dangers of the ocean. "ET" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" presented a benign image of space aliens. There are movies such as "Three Days of Condor" about government conspiracy. "All the President's Men" about Watergate.

There are great movies about love.

What anduril is really look is a subclass or subcategory of good art movies - "good propaganda art films" that seek to influence, to put across certain ideas and beliefs in order to change society.

Documentaries have had some influence towards this goal while other good art films have no goal or objective whatsoever about what anduril seeks. "It's a Wonderful Life" could be considered a classic art film in his ability to both capture the massives, promote the common man against the rich, evil business barons, and its ability to retain its vitality over the years as one of the most satisfying, never dying films made.

Possibly one could create a new definition of a great art movie to consist of being both true to the film-maker's idea of technical, theoretical brilliance AND capturing the imagination of millions of viewers...so that an art movie that fails to capture an audience is not great art but only a sound of a tree falling in a forest with nobody to hear it (it doesn't exist).
Interesting reading of my post... I'm not sure, however, that I can agree with your claim that there are movies that do not seek change or influence. Simply because a subsequent aspect of my discussion, especially with Johann, delved into politics does not mean I limit it to that sphere either nor do I think my initial post belied that limitation. You brought up a fine list of movies that attempt to influence people in alternative, also very important ways. The list only engages and supports my original point, i.e. film needs to be seen; if it isn't seen, what good is it? Can art exist without an audience?