Why does Art Cinema hate the Actor?

[Grand Illusion]

With the relatively recent loss of Lumet, one of cinema’s greatest and underrated performance directors, I have been thinking lately about the director/actor relationship and how it informs various films. Looking over The Dark Knight Rises thread, one poster asked how much influence a director (in this case Nolan) has over a performance. I was surprised to see the question on this board, but the answer, of course, is "very much."

Now, I recently finished watching Manoel de Oliveira's Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl, and I noticed a huge disparity in how much I was expected to empathize with the characters versus how much was divulged about them. In fact, the script elides many details about the romantic courtship central to the story and most, if not all, character motivation.

I liked the film very much, and I make this thread not in an attempt to discredit this mode of filmmaking. Rather, I would like to explore how this became a trope of Art Cinema.

As mentioned, de Oliveira minimizes the role of the actor by removing motivation from the script, but he also presents much of his framing in wide angles. If he gets close to the actor, a medium shot is the limit. Minimizing the close-up lessens the degree of empathy with the character as well as the creative influence of the actor. Simply put, less information is delivered by the character’s face.

Hou Hsiao-Hsien is another master (and a personal favorite of mine) that employs wide angles with careful compositions. His films often use this to the effect of creating isolating spaces and a distanced, objective feel to his films, again at the expense of the actor. As filmmaking tools, he loses the eyes, the nose, the mouth, the chin.

Some auteurs even combine the wide angle aesthetic with intentionally stilted performances (as if Stanislavski or Strasberg never existed). I think of Tsai Ming-Liang’s I Don’t Want To Sleep Alone as an example of just how wide cinematography can get for what could play as a performance-driven scene.

Weerasethakul, an arthouse favorite, is known for characters that stare blankly and recite lines in kind. Personally, I see a noted trade-off in strict aesthetic obedience versus audience identification with the characters.

Would the love story of Tropical Malady not engage the viewer more if we knew the characters more closely? Or does the essential Kuleshov effect that Weerasethakul reflects from his actors’ faces make us engage more with the film, intellectually?

Taking the Art House “Kuleshov effect” to its disastrous extreme, we can see the response to Sean Penn in Tree of Life. When presented among naturalistic performances and the Hollywood star-driven model, we have different expectations. Instead, much of the audience (myself and Sean Penn included) had no idea what Sean Penn was doing in the film, besides moping around.

Or take Aki Kaurismaki, who was praised for his warmth towards his characters in Le Havre, yet giving them a bizarre stylization of performance, very little character development or motivation, and even treating the African immigrant (a central figure in the film) as little more than a prop. Or Lisandro Alonso, whose Los Muertos, meticulously follows a character of whom we know so little about. And the list goes on.

I even consider Bela Tarr, who states one of the purposes of his slow cinema is to let the actor truly exist in space and time. This is true, and he is much more generous with the close-up than others. Nonetheless, he is then flippant about looping and dubbing. Sometimes removing entirely the vocal performance recorded in the moment. Not to mention that he requires extremely rigid blocking for his long Steadicam takes, as opposed to a Woody Allen that would prefer to give actors freedom of movement in more generic medium-wide angles.

And these are just some examples, all from filmmakers whose work I care for. My question isn’t “Why aren’t all of these directors like Cassavetes?” My question is how the minimization of the actor became a trope in Art Cinema and if my fellow forum-goers agree. And, of course, I should qualify that not all Art Cinema is the same, as none of the directors’ films that I have mentioned are the same. But please bear with me for general discussion.

Let’s try to dig deeper than simply stating, “This is just another way of making films,” because I feel like there is a clear disparity in the audiences to which these films cater.

Is the arthouse’s interest in aesthetic such that it overrides character? Is this because some believe (or wish) that film is closer to painting and installations rather than theatre or the oral tradition of storytelling?

Is this merely creating an alternative to the naturalistic performances seen in Hollywood? Is this to emphasize an auteur-driven medium? After all, we say something is “a film by” the director. But for blockbusters, people say they’re going to see the new Tom Cruise film. Does minimizing the creative role of the person seen for 95% of the film inherently make the medium more palatable to an auteurist viewpoint?

I don’t think I’ve even begun to dip my toes into this topic, and I sure haven’t done it justice. Still, it’s something that I wanted to begin discussion on.

Certainly, stylized performances, minimalism, or wide angles are not new. But the actor does play less of a role in these films. The questions for Art Cinema, then, are how, why, and where do we go from here?

[domino harvey]

I think there does tend to be a tendency in much of art house fare to cater to visual aesthetics at the cost of overly ambiguous characterization that often borders on the cryptic. I'd be more forgiving of this practice if it didn't come off as juvenile ("My film is so deep that it, like, can mean whatever you want it to mean. That character could be you")

[Grand Illusion]

I think there does tend to be a tendency in much of art house fare to cater to visual aesthetics at the cost of overly ambiguous characterization that often borders on the cryptic. I'd be more forgiving of this practice if it didn't come off as juvenile ("My film is so deep that it, like, can mean whatever you want it to mean. That character could be you")

For the sake of continued discussion, could I twist your arm to call out films that you feel are most egregious at this? The ones that feel hollow or juvenile?

And do you feel any films or filmmakers work particularly well in ambiguous characterization?

[Mr Sausage]

Of course the polar opposite of what Domino describes is David Lynch. No matter how cryptic or ambiguous or inexplicable his films, the emotions of his characters are always carefully felt and depicted, and are brought off perfectly by his actors. For all of his outrageous stylization, Lynch has always been an actors director, managing to get excellent performances out of even unremarkable actors.

[domino harvey]

I think there does tend to be a tendency in much of art house fare to cater to visual aesthetics at the cost of overly ambiguous characterization that often borders on the cryptic. I'd be more forgiving of this practice if it didn't come off as juvenile ("My film is so deep that it, like, can mean whatever you want it to mean. That character could be you")

For the sake of continued discussion, could I twist your arm to call out films that you feel are most egregious at this? The ones that feel hollow or juvenile?

And do you feel any films or filmmakers work particularly well in ambiguous characterization?

Well, Innocence comes to mind, where the "characters" are nothing but cogs in a larger symbolic effort. But there's a film where the ambiguity serves the narrative, so it works.

As for films which come across as using ambiguous characters as a crutch, I'll use one of your earlier invoked examples, as picking on the litany of forgettable titles that came and went in the post-Sundance lottery is a bit petty. Your Malick example is an interesting one, as I thought he did quite a fine job of balancing the aesthetic overkill with its narrative and character function in the director's cut of the New World, as his exuberance and wonder matches his subjects and thus their blank slate isn't very. Of course, that film like the Tree of Life requires the viewer to take baggage to the film. The New World is easy enough to follow for those who know the history, but it would be close to incoherent at length to a viewer unfamiliar with the material. But it proves somewhat fatal for the unconverted viewer of tToL, which is bottled in ciphers performing in beautiful but empty scrolling Tumblr screens that make the viewer do the work. "Yes, I remember my memories"... and? That those who confess to love the film have trouble discerning between main characters says something, I think. But if you value the aesthetic over the narrative, as though a film can't have both, it's of little consequence.

[knives]

Of course the polar opposite of what Domino describes is David Lynch. No matter how cryptic or ambiguous or inexplicable his films, the emotions of his characters are always carefully felt and depicted, and are brought off perfectly by his actors. For all of his outrageous stylization, Lynch has always been an actors director, managing to get excellent performances out of even unremarkable actors.

I'm trying to think of an unremarkable actor Lynch has worked with and can't. Any examples?

[domino harvey]

Of course the polar opposite of what Domino describes is David Lynch. No matter how cryptic or ambiguous or inexplicable his films, the emotions of his characters are always carefully felt and depicted, and are brought off perfectly by his actors. For all of his outrageous stylization, Lynch has always been an actors director, managing to get excellent performances out of even unremarkable actors.

Lynch is not a director I am particularly fond of, but I will join in his defense and say that for all the outward "weirdness" of the proceedings, his films exhibit a confidence in the material that makes me believe there is form and function to what can appear as a parade of non-sequiters. Confidence (and competence, as the case may be) can be revealed through many things in a film, including, as stated above, performance.

[John Edmond]

I have to admit I completely disagree with the premise that long shots are indicative of a contempt for acting while close-ups are the reverse. I mean, isn't that the opposite of what is generally considered true?

[Grand Illusion]

I think Lynch is an interesting example because his films tend to favor subjectivity over objectivity. The subjectivity, while perhaps confusing to the narrative, will obviously favor the subject, the character.

I have to admit I completely disagree with the premise that long shots are indicative of a contempt for acting while close-ups are the reverse. I mean, isn't that the opposite of what is generally considered true?

Bergman and Cassevetes, probably the two greatest actors' directors for screen, abundantly used close-ups. With a close-up, the actor is allowed to be much more subtle, conveying information with the eyes, mouth, and a more natural expression of being in the moment.

Contrast with a wide angle that requires a more theatrical expression of body language to convey any information, mostly because you can't see the faces of the actors. This was my biggest problem with Ran. We never ever got close enough to the actors to see them as more than colored chess pieces.

Of course, for blocking you are correct. Staying tight with an actor requires much more rigid blocking (in order to keep everything either in frame or in focus), which is why I mentioned Woody Allen. Woody likes to give actors freedom of movement and often uses two shots or mediums. But this is a far cry from the wides favored by a lot of contemporary minimalist directors, where you can read very little detail off the face of the actor.

[Mr Sausage]

Of course the polar opposite of what Domino describes is David Lynch. No matter how cryptic or ambiguous or inexplicable his films, the emotions of his characters are always carefully felt and depicted, and are brought off perfectly by his actors. For all of his outrageous stylization, Lynch has always been an actors director, managing to get excellent performances out of even unremarkable actors.

I'm trying to think of an unremarkable actor Lynch has worked with and can't. Any examples?

Kyle MacLauchlan, actually. Outside of his work with Lynch he's mostly a forgettable actor, yet his performances in Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks are superb and unforgettable.

[John Edmond]

See then the thread should be titled "Why does Art Cinema hate the Actor's face?" That's just a stylistic preference - for me, Mizoguchi gets more emotion out of a pair of shuddering shoulder blades than Bergman generated in his entire career.

[knives]

Show Girls isn't much of an argument I guess. I actually really like his performance in The Doors too. I'm just glad you didn't say Pullman. I don't understand why he seems to get bagged on as much as he does.

Edit: Director x did more verb Y than director Z is the laziest and silliest route to go with criticism.

[tarpilot]

I have no idea how anyone can hate Pullman after seeing Malice. What a beautiful, insane performance. He's having a really nice resurgence, too -- he was the best thing about both The Killer Inside Me and Surveillance by miles.

[Mr Sausage]

Contrast with a wide angle that requires a more theatrical expression of body language to convey any information, mostly because you can't see the faces of the actors. This was my biggest problem with Ran. We never ever got close enough to the actors to see them as more than colored chess pieces.

I think one of the effects of Kurosawa's wide angles and removed camera was not any contempt or disinterest in the actor's performances, but an attempt to bring the movie to the level of Noh theatre which, like classical tragedy, featured actors in masks that represented much wider types. I personally don't see this as his being uninterested in the acting, just an attempt to create a different effect in the acting than usual in film, one that rather fits the cosmic proportions of the Lear story.

Anyway, close-ups only favour a very specific kind of acting. Let's not forget that the actorly medium, the theatre, has no close-ups at all.

[John Edmond]

Knives, that was my point.

[knives]

Oh, there really needs to be a sarcasm button for these situations.

[Grand Illusion]

See then the thread should be titled "Why does Art Cinema hate the Actor's face?" That's just a stylistic preference - for me, Mizoguchi gets more emotion out of a pair of shuddering shoulder blades than Bergman generated in his entire career.

I'm not trying to debate which is better. And I bring up Allen, precisely because he is considered an actors' director that deals in more medium/wides. There are several ways to work against the actors. Wide angles are merely one of them.

Mizoguchi dealt in extreme melodrama, with women wailing and collapsing to the floor when they shed a tear. I don't think he fits in the mold of minimizing the actor, which I described in my original post.

I think one of the effects of Kurosawa's wide angles and removed camera was not any contempt or disinterest in the actor's performances, but an attempt to bring the movie to the level of Noh theatre which, like classical tragedy, featured actors in masks that represented much wider types. I personally don't see this as his being uninterested in the acting, just an attempt to create a different effect in the acting than usual in film, one that rather fits the cosmic proportions of the Lear story.

Anyway, close-ups only favour a very specific kind of acting. Let's not forget that the actorly medium, the theatre, has no close-ups at all.

I don't think Kurosawa was himself disinterested in the performance, but that was the effect Ran had on me. I feel he was much more successful with Throne of Blood, evoking a highly stylized performance which he credited to Noh, but on a much more visceral level with Mifune.

Also, you are truthful about theater. But theatrical performance, which is very loud, is not really played like that in film, even in films which feature wide angles. This is why I feel Mizoguchi is not a good counter-example. He used wides, but then had his actors perform bigger. This is in contrast to a Weerasethakul, who keeps moments small and then makes them indecipherable when using wide angles.

[knives]

See then the thread should be titled "Why does Art Cinema hate the Actor's face?" That's just a stylistic preference - for me, Mizoguchi gets more emotion out of a pair of shuddering shoulder blades than Bergman generated in his entire career.

I'm not trying to debate which is better. And I bring up Allen, precisely because he is considered an actors' director that deals in more medium/wides. There are several ways to work against the actors. Wide angles are merely one of them.

You're still showing a prejudice though by saying that the wide angles are working against the actors. It doesn't have to work against the actors and can be useful to an actor. For instance the stage scenes in Opening Night are shot wide like from the audience in a theater and that's some great acting equal to any closeups that Cassavetes did. By bringing this to the technical exclusively and away from the argument that, for instance, Dom has been making with Malick (to the point I knew he was going to bring him up) just shows a prejudice against a form of film making. Not only are you forgetting editing which is more important for a performance than the distance of a camera, but also script which can have a profound effect on performance.

[John Edmond]

What Knives and Sausage said.

I'm not trying to debate which is better.

You don't think using the word "hate" helps frame the debate that way? In addition you're only talking about a certain type of Art Cinema despite the thread name (can I presume you're not referring to Trier or the Dardennes?). I also wonder how much of this is to do with cinema versus TV watching - if you can't pick up on the subtleties of acting and facial performances in Hou's films I'm aghast. Unless you're watching a Fox Lorber release in which case I understand.

And sorry Knives, I could've segued better - distracted cooking here.

[Kirkinson]

You're making some very reductive statements about the films and styles you're describing (right down to how you chose to title this thread) but I suppose a little provocation helps to get the ball rolling. Just to play along, I would begin by questioning whether the standard against which you are contrasting "Art Cinema" is really a legitimate one. Is it really a given that performances in Hollywood are "naturalistic," or are we just calling them naturalistic because more audiences see them and accept them? It calls to mind Schoenberg's dissatisfaction with the term "atonal" - he objected to the notion that tonality was an essential quality and that his music had to be defined by the absence of it.

I know I've often found the by-the-numbers approach to character development and acting in Hollywood filmmaking just as cold and distancing as any effect described here, and some of the filmmakers you are describing make films I find very emotionally daunting. Bela Tarr is an obvious example for me, but one fresher in my mind is The Match Factory Girl by Kaurismaki, which I saw for the first time very recently. I haven't seen Le Havre, but I think this film has the same bizarre stylization of performance, it certainly doesn't give us much of anything in the way of what might conventionally be considered character development, and it also greatly favors wide shots over closeups. But for all that I was immediately and increasingly emotionally involved in it. I cared for the main character very deeply almost from the outset, and was moved nearly to tears by the end. Now, I can't begin to explain how the film achieved this. The effect is very mysterious to me. But it certainly can't be described as distancing and it's hard to imagine I could have been any more engaged than I was.

Otar Iosseliani, a favorite of mine, is another filmmaker who never goes closer than a medium shot and usually (though not always) his films contain rather subdued performances. He also comes off as openly hostile to "the actor" both in his interviews and in his hiring of "non-professional" actors, though I think this trait is sometimes overemphasized even by Iosseliani himself. (E.g., Amiran Amiranishvili, who shows up in a handful of Iosseliani's films and disappears into them as seamlessly as any non-professional, is actually highly venerated in Georgian theater.) While I don't want to make Iosseliani speak for any filmmaker but himself, his stated reasons for his methods may be instructive. He says that the person on screen should always remain a character in the story, but that when an actor (especially a recognizable one) is filmed in close-up, they cease to be a character and instead become a real person, with all of their real-world associations brought into the film with them. While on the one hand his technique may come off as distancing, I think what he's saying is that what the audience feels closer to when they are given more information from the character's face and performance is not necessarily organic to the story; that even if the audience feels more engaged with the person on screen, that very engagement with the person might actually distance them, that is, distract them, from the story Iosseliani wants to tell.

This is not to say that there aren't times when the trope you're describing hasn't worked for me (off the top of my head: Silent Light and 3-Iron). I would say it all depends on whether it seems like a natural, organic part of the storytelling, and indeed a natural, organic part of the way that filmmaker tells stories. I suppose you could say that this "emphasize[s] an auteur-driven medium," but any time it actually works I would argue it is not an active attempt to do so. In Kaurismaki, for example, it feels to me like it's just a natural expression of his personality, a feeling reinforced by every interview I've ever seen with him (he looks, speaks, and acts exactly like a character in a Kaurismaki film). In such a case I can't see the need for any special categorization or explanation, since that's no different to me than observing that there's an acting style common to the films of Terry Gilliam, or Woody Allen, or Emir Kusturica.

[Grand Illusion]

See then the thread should be titled "Why does Art Cinema hate the Actor's face?" That's just a stylistic preference - for me, Mizoguchi gets more emotion out of a pair of shuddering shoulder blades than Bergman generated in his entire career.

I'm not trying to debate which is better. And I bring up Allen, precisely because he is considered an actors' director that deals in more medium/wides. There are several ways to work against the actors. Wide angles are merely one of them.

You're still showing a prejudice though by saying that the wide angles are working against the actors. It doesn't have to work against the actors and can be useful to an actor. For instance the stage scenes in Opening Night are shot wide like from the audience in a theater and that's some great acting equal to any closeups that Cassavetes did. By bringing this to the technical exclusively and away from the argument that, for instance, Dom has been making with Malick (to the point I knew he was going to bring him up) just shows a prejudice against a form of film making. Not only are you forgetting editing which is more important for a performance than the distance of a camera, but also script which can have a profound effect on performance.

Except I really didn't make this all about wide angles. John Edmond did. And I didn't "forget" about script, considering I mentioned it explicitly in my OP. Granted, it's long, and I don't know how much each person read before hitting the reply button.

I mentioned in Eccentricities and in Tropical Malady how little information we were given about the characters. I mentioned Le Havre's lack of motivation and treatment of one of its major characters as a prop. I mentioned Los Muertos's near complete lack of background regarding the main character. Each one of these is referring to script.

I mentioned Tarr's use of ADR.

I also mentioned Weersethakul's and Kaurismaki's performance stylings, not just their use of lens.

Editing also has a profound impact on performance. True. I indeed mentioned Tarr's length of shot as it pertains to performance, but that was all I touched on. I neglected to mention editing more in the original post, but I don't really feel that the editing rhythms in arthouse films really confirm nor deny what I'm positing, that a lot of Art Cinema actively de-emphasizes the role of the actor.

Again, wide angles are not the only way to lessen the role of the actor. And obviously wide angles mixed with certain performance styles and scripts can change how much the characters are emphasized or not. That's 101 stuff, and I didn't feel it needed reiterating. I also didn't want to start counting close-ups or make this about which is better.

I do want to ask how it became a pervasive trend to use many of the modes of filmmaking that I'm discussing for the arthouse crowd. How performance and aesthetics intertwine, particularly in regards to the recent trends towards minimalism. And if you disagree that any of the specific examples I listed are "minimizing the actor," I'd love to hear why you feel that way.

Ignoring wide angles vs close-ups, do you personally feel that there is a trend in Art Cinema that de-emphasizes the actor? If not a trend, then a subsection of films that place more value on aesthetics, even when it comes to plotting out the script (insofar as what will be shown)?

You don't think using the word "hate" helps frame the debate that way? In addition you're only talking about a certain type of Art Cinema despite the thread name (can I presume you're not referring to Trier or the Dardennes?). I also wonder how much of this is to do with cinema versus TV watching - if you can't pick up on the subtleties of acting and facial performances in Hou's films I'm aghast. Unless you're watching a Fox Lorber release in which case I understand.

Definitely not talking about von Trier or Dardennes. Read:

And, of course, I should qualify that not all Art Cinema is the same, as none of the directors’ films that I have mentioned are the same. But please bear with me for general discussion.

I love Hou's films, and often, I think the performances are very strong, particularly Cafe Lumiere. But I still feels he de-emphasizes the actors to serve the greater aesthetic of his film. Now, you're mentioning a director that is a personal favorite, so, to me, Hou strikes a the balance just right for what he's trying to achieve. Others, less so.

[knives]

You're making some very reductive statements about the films and styles you're describing (right down to how you chose to title this thread) but I suppose a little provocation helps to get the ball rolling. Just to play along, I would begin by questioning whether the standard against which you are contrasting "Art Cinema" is really a legitimate one. Is it really a given that performances in Hollywood are "naturalistic," or are we just calling them naturalistic because more audiences see them and accept them? It calls to mind Schoenberg's dissatisfaction with the term "atonal" - he objected to the notion that tonality was an essential quality and that his music had to be defined by the absence of it.

That's not even going into if naturalism in a performance has to be a positive. Vincent Price for instance was a great actor, one of the greatest in my opinion, yet he never dared to go into naturalism. He tended toward the baroque and self conscious and was all the more fabulous for it.

[Grand Illusion]

You're making some very reductive statements about the films and styles you're describing (right down to how you chose to title this thread) but I suppose a little provocation helps to get the ball rolling. Just to play along, I would begin by questioning whether the standard against which you are contrasting "Art Cinema" is really a legitimate one. Is it really a given that performances in Hollywood are "naturalistic," or are we just calling them naturalistic because more audiences see them and accept them? It calls to mind Schoenberg's dissatisfaction with the term "atonal" - he objected to the notion that tonality was an essential quality and that his music had to be defined by the absence of it.

also, Re: knives

I'm using "naturalistic" for lack of a better word, but I would say the current Hollywood fits the mold well enough. Hollywood, though, was certainly not always using the standards of Stanislavski. Also, I never said "naturalistic" was the ideal. The only time that word is used in the OP is in the following question:

"Is this merely creating an alternative to the naturalistic performances seen in Hollywood?"

Which is sort of what you're agreeing to when you say that the current mode in Hollywood of character development is "by-the-numbers."

Anyway, on style, a film I mentioned in this thread, Throne of Blood, has a definitively stylized performance, but I still feel that the film serves the actor. Mifune is emphasized more than the mise-en-scene.

Naturalism isn't the only way to serve an actor. I'm asking, though, if some of the de-emphasis on the actor in Art Cinema is a reaction to Hollywood, part of which relies on a relatable naturalistic performance.

I know I've often found the by-the-numbers approach to character development and acting in Hollywood filmmaking just as cold and distancing as any effect described here, and some of the filmmakers you are describing make films I find very emotionally daunting. Bela Tarr is an obvious example for me,

I think Bela Tarr is the greatest living filmmaker. I'm not saying that his films aren't "emotionally daunting." Nor am I saying that other Art Cinema cannot be "emotionally daunting." Performance isn't the only thing that makes up a film. But for the purposes of this thread, I'm going to focus on it, and Tarr's wanton use of looping is a good example of a master filmmaker throwing up his hands when it comes to a certain aspect of performance.

but one fresher in my mind is The Match Factory Girl by Kaurismaki, which I saw for the first time very recently. I haven't seen Le Havre, but I think this film has the same bizarre stylization of performance, it certainly doesn't give us much of anything in the way of what might conventionally be considered character development, and it also greatly favors wide shots over closeups. But for all that I was immediately and increasingly emotionally involved in it. I cared for the main character very deeply almost from the outset, and was moved nearly to tears by the end. Now, I can't begin to explain how the film achieved this. The effect is very mysterious to me. But it certainly can't be described as distancing and it's hard to imagine I could have been any more engaged than I was.

Haven't seen The Match Factor Girl, but I found Le Havre to be a fascinating example. The film gives little motivation, has little backstory, but plays out like a character drama. Now, I hardly think providing logical motivation is "by-the-numbers." Also, the little African immigrant, of which the whole film revolves, is supposed to be saved by the community. The kid is treated like a prop.

If Kaurismaki was trying to give me a Brechtian viewpoint outside of the narrative so that I could intellectually contemplate how no real community would ever come together to save this kid, then it worked. But that's still distancing me from the characters, and not giving the actor much to do except smile.

This is not to say that there aren't times when the trope you're describing hasn't worked for me (off the top of my head: Silent Light and 3-Iron). I would say it all depends on whether it seems like a natural, organic part of the storytelling, and indeed a natural, organic part of the way that filmmaker tells stories. I suppose you could say that this "emphasize[s] an auteur-driven medium," but any time it actually works I would argue it is not an active attempt to do so. In Kaurismaki, for example, it feels to me like it's just a natural expression of his personality, a feeling reinforced by every interview I've ever seen with him (he looks, speaks, and acts exactly like a character in a Kaurismaki film). In such a case I can't see the need for any special categorization or explanation, since that's no different to me than observing that there's an acting style common to the films of Terry Gilliam, or Woody Allen, or Emir Kusturica.

Also, in the OP, I asked to dig a little deeper than "this is just another way to make films." You're technically correct, it doesn't need special categorization, but for the sake of discussing something, why do you feel Art Cinema has taken up this trope? Do you find it increasing lately, particularly in the programs of festivals? If so, why? What is this a reaction to?

[John Edmond]

Mifune is emphasized more than the mise-en-scene.

Impossible, Mifune is part of the mise-en-scene. Which I think is where most people are having a problem with your approach.

[Grand Illusion]

Mifune is emphasized more than the mise-en-scene.

Impossible, Mifune is part of the mise-en-scene. Which I think is where most people are having a problem with your approach.

Excuse me for using the wrong word. I was under the impression that mise-en-scene did not include the actors.

Nonetheless, you clearly know what I meant. Which is to say that the overall aesthetic and art direction and pretty much everything except the actors is emphasized in the other films mentioned versus something like Throne of Blood.