Many moons ago, as the manager of a photographic gallery, I naively thought if I opened both of the gallery doors and put up the “Open” sign it would be obvious to the general public that they would be welcome. Still, they hovered at the entrance and asked permission to come in! They were intimidated by what they perceived as a white cube filled with “highbrow art concepts”.

Art films are perceived in a similar way. They are seen as either boring or “highbrow”, impossible to decipher, as foreign films containing subtitles and excruciating emotional suffering. Not something to see after a long day at the office, or on a first date. That possibly explains the popularity of drivel like New Moon .

The concept “art film” is begging for a reboot, for some new branding.

Look at Lady Gaga. Within a year she has created a brand that has surpassed the Madonna empire. She is enjoying commercial and financial success. “Pokerface” is the most downloaded track in the history of downloads. The Fame is the first debut album in the history of music to generate four number ones. She has been nominated for six Grammys. And yet her make-up is based on David Bowie’s make-up, she uses Dali paintings in her stage design, she has performed with the Bolshoi Ballet at the Museum of Contemporary Art in Los Angeles, her latest single, “Bad Romance”, contains three Hitchcock film titles in one verse, and every now and again she performs the kind of visceral cabaret that is reminiscent of a young Liza Minelli. She has taken those “highbrow art concepts” and made them accessible and cool.

Critics/reviewers/columnists can play a role in the reboot of the “art film”, to make it accessible and even cool. My personal “guerrilla tactic” to expose a broader audience to art films consists of four aspects:

1.

I have changed the “label”. My little bubble of friends in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg all love Nouveau, but the general public yawn if you suggest they go see an “art film”. But call it a “great” or “exquisite” or “life-changing” film and they hold off a little longer on the yawns.

2.

I have widened the net. A great or exquisite film could be any genre and does not necessarily have to play at Nouveau. As an example, I will discuss a giant red, horned, cigar-smoking superhero that has on more than one occasion saved the world, and the odd cat. Yes I am referring to Hellboy , more specifically Hellboy II – The Golden Army .

The director, Guillermo Del Toro, is an artist. His medium is moving footage. In “art film” circles he is perhaps better known for Pan’s Labyrinth where the main character is the young girl Ofelia. HB ( Hellboy ) might be more commercial because it is based on a graphic novel, but the two films can compete side by side, especially when it comes to the fantastic, themes, balance and characters. (On the movie review site Rotten Tomatoes, Pan’s Labyrinth earns 95 percent, HB 87 percent.)

Fantasy

In both films Del Toro creates a haunting fantasy world where the creatures are compelling and revolting at the same time. The frightening eyes-in-the-palms-of-his-hands character in Pan (which still scares me even thinking about it now, many years later) bears an uncanny resemblance to the spooky eyeless Angel of Death in HB . (I see an “eye” theme …) The “root baby” that Ofelia leaves under her mother’s bed is as adorable and eerie as the flesh-eating tooth fairies that HB destroys.

Themes

Both films dealt with private issues as well as issues within the broader society. Ofelia has to accept her new somewhat evil father-in-law, but is quite oblivious to WWII raging in the Spanish countryside where they live. HB, going through an early midlife crisis, asks what defines our humanity, and is humanity worth saving if we continue to destroy the planet?

Balance

HB is a careful balancing act between the gravity of its message and the razor sharp comedy that draws a wider audience. Pan is part horrific violence, part exquisite beauty and a masterpiece as a whole.

Characters

I often struggle with the emotionless, clinical approach of certain “art films”. What grates me even more, though, is the Spielberg/Hollywood/schmaltzy emotions in most commercial films. Del Toro is a master at creating a wide array of emotionally complex characters without being sentimental: heroes who are flawed in many ways or likeable villains with redeeming, sometimes even noble qualities.

3.

I use the internet as my preferred tool of mass distribution. I post reviews of great films on my own site, plan to publish them under a new LitNet-column Reeltime, send them out on the Artslink newsletter and post them on blogsites such as LitNet Blogs, The One Small Seed Network, Goggaweb, Twitter, etc.

4.

I went on a diet of highly rated films before changing the label, widening the net and entering the world of reviewing. I chose http://www.rottentomatoes.com as a benchmark because their rating is not based on the opinion of one reviewer, but rather on a joint rating based on reviews by a number of credited reviewers. The average between the different reviews is published under two ratings: an average rating based on all the reviews, and a “Cream of the Crop” rating, based on more distinguished, accredited reviewers.

I printed out their top-rated films for 2007-2009 and handed it over at my nearest Video Spot. As I did not read up on the films beforehand, the stories unfolded as the director intended them to. There were no expectations created by trailers, press and the familiarity of actors. I ended up seeing (a) films that I never knew existed and (b) films that I refused to see because I hate the genre (horror) or the actor (Colin Farrell) or the director (Spielberg).

I watched comedies, dramas, documentaries, action films, musicals and, yes, a few superhero films. The common thread became clear to me as I watched more and more films; it was brilliant filmmaking.