A masterpiece is a work of art that lives beyond its time and is able to inspire generation after generation. A cinematic masterpiece lasts beyond the end credits as a residual image in the minds and hearts of viewers, critics, society at large. A true work of art.

In most cases, that same masterpiece will be a success at the box office, on home video, DVD, HDVD, the web, and so on...

Most of these rare works are the result of a unique imagination and deep artistic dignity, rather than a marketing plan created for a commercial contraption that fools everyone into yelling "Genius!". Only when something is truly beautiful do we fall in love.

Filmmakers claim movies aren't what they used to be. The legacy of older movies certainly do influence our current perceptions. We may feel inclined to label Fellini's La Dolce Vita a masterpiece simply because we'd feel stupid saying otherwise, in complete contradiction to the consensus at large. Or, since both Federico and Marcello are dead, we might consider a comparison (in absolute terms) of the genius of a B&W late-50s film with today's Hollywood blockbusters entirely futile.

This is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a good number of people still spend a couple of bucks to rent La Dolce Vita, perhaps more than once.

Go to the movies often and attend film festivals just as often and you'll see that the films generally shown at each are very different. Film festivals more often than not are populated by "artsy" socially-conscious films, or films with a new and unique visual style or pacing. At the movies, there is a prevalence of "more commercial" films, that, according to distributors, have more audience appeal, as they often do. To a certain kind of audience, "artsy" films at festivals can seem a little boring. However, unlike La Dolce Vita, there is no black and white here.

In Europe, there is often a hidden psychological mechanism that resides in a film artist's mind. It is a special form of guilt that hides within the subconscious. It goes something like this: "I will rebel against blockbuster movies and make art instead, and I will not give into making something that everyone will like so that I can make a lot of money. If I make a film and everyone likes it and I make a lot of money, I probably haven't made art, and I'm not going to take that chance. I feel guilty if I make money with a film."

The problem is, not many people might want to see this piece of art (if it's boring like hell) and instead they will go watch a silly romantic comedy which will entertain them for an hour and forty minutes. This will continue to happen for years and years and "The Movies" will become solely this. No one will be literate enough to appreciate something with a little more depth, and many film festivals will continue to present more extreme films in order to rebel against a hypothetical "them", when in reality, it may very well have been the fault of the artistic filmmaker in the first place.

This is the underlying (and subconscious) theme of Filmart. Films should be art, and they should be marketable. If they are both, they will make more money than if they are only marketable. And they will also make a difference for those who watch the film, for the film industry and for humanity. Lastly, the artists wouldn't be starving anymore.

Of course this is just our theory; the first time I saw La Dolce Vita I didn't know what the heck was going on. It got whistled at its presentation in Cannes. But I think there are many people who would discover they are feeling today what Fellini was saying all those years ago, had they the opportunity to watch and understand the film. It certainly made more than a few bucks, too.