Games ARE art, says Gans

By Ellie Gibson Published 27 February, 2006

Silent Hill director speaks out.

Movie director Christophe Gans, the man behind the forthcoming big screen adaptation of Silent Hill, has joined in the debate over whether games are art - and he's got a rather strong message for Roger Ebert.

Last November, the well-known film critic published a column arguing that videogames are "inherently inferior to film and literature" - something which Gans vehemently disagrees with.

"F*** him," Gans told US magazine Electronic Gaming Monthly, adding that Ebert will "realise that he is wrong on his deathbed."

"Most people who despise a new medium are simply afraid to die, so they express their arrogance and fear like this... Human beings are stupid, and we often become assholes when we get old," Gans continued.

"Each time some new medium appears, I feel that it's important to respect it, even if it appears primitive or naive at first, simply because some people are finding important things in it. If you have one guy in the world who thinks that Silent Hill or Zelda is a beautiful, poetic work, then that game means something. Art only exists in the eye of the beholder.

"Most of the people have a very caricatured vision of videogamers, and actually, gamers are very intelligent. Games are a form of art. I realized that when I played through Silent Hill," Gans said, adding that he's also a big fan of Miyamoto - "Playing through the Legend of Zelda, for example, was a beautiful, poetic moment."

Part of the problem, according to Gans, is that poor videogame movies give games a bad name. "I feel that it's extremely stupid for films like Doom to come out and reflect poorly on games," he said.

"Personally, I love Doom the game - it was not only about killing creatures, but it was also about the landscape and atmosphere, to be alone in this huge, scary place - to have all these deadly creatures all around. Then to see this guy saying these stupid one-liners in this boring corridors without windows... Where is Doom?

"I'm sorry, guys, but Doom is not all about running around corridors shooting at f***ing zombies. Doom could be, for some people, a poetic experience. Close to the level of Lovecraft. Where is that? We have to treat these games with respect, and that is important."

Naturally, Gans said, he's been treating Silent Hill with the utmost respect when it comes to the film adaptation - but it hasn't been an easy process. "It's the most complicated game to adapt... It was impossible for me to do Silent Hill and not be serious about it.

"I say this humbly, as I'm not the creator, but I think that the world of Silent Hill is unique, and that it has no equivalent in cinema. The horror is no longer confined to a space like a room or a house, but rather opened up into a whole town that exists in different dimensions. That, for me, is what games can bring to cinema: new perspective, new dimension, and a break from the idea that stories can be told in a line."

So if the movie is a hit, would Gans be happy to direct a sequel? "Of course, I would love to come back... I think that it would be very possible to do a sequel to this film.

"Silent Hill is a complete mythology, and I did what I could in 2 hours, but I would love to tell much more."

Silent Hill is out in the US on April 21st, with a European release likely to follow this summer. You can read the full EGM interview over at 1UP.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (44) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • kangarootoo #1 6 years ago

    I like him. He speaks mostly sense and does so with a bit of a kick :)

  • InfiniteFury #2 6 years ago

    Absolutely, I disagree with a lot of what he says but I can't help but like the way he says it :-)
    Edited by 1 at 27/02/06 @ 14:09

  • Twinfalls #3 6 years ago

    I do not like him. He sounds like an immature twat. I bet the film is, like all games-to-movies before it, complete shite.

    And he does not grasp Ebert's argument, which is NOT 'games can not be art'.

  • Kon #4 6 years ago

    How refreshing. Both game and movie directors should speak their mind like this more often.

    Lets just hope the movie doesn't tank at the end of it we hear him put the blame on the actors :p

  • el_pollo_diablo #5 6 years ago

    Of course, in the hands of Uwe Boll, videogames are about as far from art as it's possible to get.

    etc...

  • lollypop #6 6 years ago

    Judging from the interview, his filmography and the trailer of Silent Hill, this could only be the best game-to-movie adaptation.

  • Freek #7 6 years ago

    Yeah, he seems to bring the same kind of passion and commitment you usually only see in directors doing comic adaptations.

  • #8 6 years ago

    This guy is good. I was thinking this when I read Kojima's comment (that games are NOT in fact art). I think that that sucks balls. You just show me the artwork in Resident Evil 4 or Shadow of the Collossus or even Supermarioworld, it's all art, because I appreciate it.

    Seriously, I went to the Tate modern with my ex-girlfriend, and some of what I saw in there I could do myself!!! So fair play I say!!!

  • #9 6 years ago

    @el pollo diablo: (Re: what you said about Uwe Boll) Try the Art of War

  • el_pollo_diablo #10 6 years ago

    The gentle art of making enemies?

  • Mashum #11 6 years ago

    > ..he does not grasp Ebert's argument, which is NOT 'games can not be art'.

    Gans just has a bit of a tantrum - and as for "we often become assholes when we get old" that's ad hominem bullshit in the first degree. I hope this daft fucker doesn't screw up Silent Hill :(

  • firm3d #12 6 years ago

    Regarding "Gans just has a bit of a tantrum - and as for "we often become assholes when we get old" that's ad hominem bullshit in the first degree.", I disagree; old age embitters a great many of us - the burden of experience and all that. Though I couldn't agree more with "I hope this daft fucker doesn't screw up Silent Hill".

  • Mashum #13 6 years ago

    ...but it's an argument against Ebert's standing as a person rather than an arguement against what Ebert was saying - who knows, maybe Ebert is snowboarding his way joyously though his autumn years, it makes no difference to the strength of his arguement.

    Ebert is wrong and you just need to open a dictionary on the page that says 'art' to prove that but to start making jibes about an old man's deathbed is a bit of a teenager's rant.

    Fingers still crossed for the SH movie.

  • El_MUERkO #14 6 years ago

    Definition of 'Art':

    the products of human creativity

    -----------

    Ebert can suck my balls

  • Flooq #15 6 years ago

    Well that was a pretty poor argument and he was probably only making it to get people interested in his new movie but it still made more sense than that nonsense Kojima came up with recently.
    However, I don't know why he feels the need to argue that Doom was anything more than it was in order to make his point. It was pretty much just about running around corridors shooting at f***ing zombies. It was just just plain fun and there's plenty of room in interactive entertaiment as a medium for games like that to exist alongside ones whicht try to be more emotionally involving.

  • firm3d #16 6 years ago

    Quite so, I will say though that the comments didn't seem as immature in context (I read the interview on 1up.com last night, along with the ridiculous EGM top 200 games).

  • jiveguy #17 6 years ago

    No they're not.

  • sickpuppysoftware #18 6 years ago

    Does he kiss his mother with those lips?

  • kangarootoo #19 6 years ago

    "Does he kiss his mother with those lips?"

    No, he kisses yours. Ahahahaha.



    Sorry dude, it just popped into my head and I had to use it, no offense meant :)

  • Teeth #20 6 years ago

    Oh rootoo, you swine. sickpuppy, you should smack him about for that.
    Edited by 1 at 27/02/06 @ 17:43

  • dudefella #21 6 years ago

    Well I may not necessarily agree a 100% with this guy, but I know that he damn well appreciates games and he is making Silent Hill with passion and I have really high hopes for the movie.

    And Ebert's argument actually IS that games CANNOT by definition be art, because the interaction required doesn't allow for strict authorial intent. But I disagree, for one because VG stories are generally told in a linear fashion. Also, authorial intent is only a really small part of the most important aspect of art, interpretation. That and that basically, art can be anything... if it affects someone, somewhere, then it's art. It's completely in the eye of the beholder imo.

  • smoison #22 6 years ago

    Ya well, if we can start deciding what is art and what is not, then lets ban Uwe Boll films from ever being considered art.

  • DaveT #23 6 years ago

    "Games ARE art, says Gans "

    I don't give a damn, says DaveT. and probably many others.

  • Feanor #24 6 years ago

    Bunch of lame comments here, sadly. Read the interview at 1up and you'll be in a better position to make useful comments on this topic.

    Silent Hill, the game, was art.

    Silent Hill, the movie, will be art.

    Simple as that.

  • Teeth #25 6 years ago

    It's funny, the Dave T that I know would say that too.

  • Roddy100 #26 6 years ago

    The trailer for the Silent Hill film looks awesome. I have high hopes.

  • DrugBert #27 6 years ago

    The major issue is that if games are art, then they are allowed to parody prior art in the US, as opposed to be considered infringement of intellectual property. In that sense I don't see how games can not be art because they do contain legal intellectual property. Personally I find the notion that companies rather than individual creators own the rights of creation of a work humourus but that's probably just me being narrowminded.
    Edited by 1 at 28/02/06 @ 03:24

  • Drakron #28 6 years ago

    They can be a parody without being "art" you know, parody does not give you the right to create X-man 4 and say its a parody.

  • Talha #29 6 years ago

    Hoorah! Stuff it, Ebert. Yeah yeah, movies are art - try convincing someone after watching Date Movie. The point is, there are good movies and bad movies, and good games and bad games. How is one art and the other one is not? Games involve almost every mainstream art known to man - drawing, sketching, music, acting, story. What is NOT art about games?
    Edited by 1 at 28/02/06 @ 06:56

  • Daikon #30 6 years ago

    Doom could be, for some people, a poetic experience. Close to the level of Lovecraft.

    I don't know what this guy's been taking, but I want some too!

  • Triggerhappytel #31 6 years ago

    Is Gans hankering after directing a Zelda movie...?

    "The trailer for the Silent Hill film looks awesome. I have high hopes."

    I've learned never to trust trailers. You can make pretty much any film look good in 90 seconds. I've been too badly wounded in the past by films like Star Wars I - III and the Matrix sequels to trust Hollywood any more.

  • old_skool #32 6 years ago

    What is NOT art about games?

    Probably the fact that although alot of games do incorporate sketching , drawing , acting , story , and each of those mediums can be considered art in its own right , that still doesn't mean the overall package ( which is the game itself ) constitutes as art .

  • Talha #33 6 years ago

    @Old Skool: By your logic, movies, theatre, architechture, etc, also do not qualify as art as they are more tapestries of various art forms. To me (as a hopeless romantic) an elegant piece of code also qualifies as art, just like verse, just like a particularly inventive proof of an equation. In the end, it is all about conveying the mind of the artist(s). You would say how something like FIFA or Pro Evo can qualify as art - I would say just like 'Day After Tomorrow' can be art just due to the token of being a movie. In the end I don't think it matters that how many people combine to form a single piece of art, although I would be rather more attracted to something reflecting the vision of a single person. There are still movies and games that are but the concept of one person. But that's just me.

  • mash the x button #34 6 years ago

    The bloke sounds like a complete knob!

  • Xerx3s #35 6 years ago

    Atleast it will be better than DOA.... Right?

  • Genji #36 6 years ago

    I really wish they were adapting the second Silent Hill game for the movie. I never found the background story surrounding the town to be all that important. SH2 was more than just horror - it was about one man dealing with his guilt.

  • Bezzy #37 6 years ago

    Oooh. Finally someone who doesn't sound like an ass on the subject! And he's not in the games industry! Go figure!

  • symmetry #38 6 years ago

    Does anyone really give a shit whether games are considered art? I mean when you're blasting through Black destroying absolutely everything and having a damn good time, do you give a fuck whether some twats say it's art and some twats say it isn't?

    What possible difference could it make?

  • AHiFi #39 6 years ago

    "Most people who despise a new medium are simply afraid to die, so they express their arrogance and fear like this... Human beings are stupid, and we often become assholes when we get old," Gans continued.

    After shaving my beard (which I had for four years) just this now, the above cheered me up! The most ridiculously laugh out loud quote I have heard in a while.

  • old_skool #40 6 years ago

    @Talha

    Sorry for the late response , I'm rather busy . Maaf ;-)

    Anyway , it appears you misunderstood my post . Let me reitterate . Just because you incorporate , painting , storytelling , acting , (insert whatever artform here), doesn't mean the game can be considered art .The purpose of of those artforms in games are only to enhance the experience of the player .And thats the magic word here , enhance . The game ultimately provides the experience to the player .That is what makes games so different from other mediums such as films or books.Those mediums exist to tell a story ,to elicit emotion through the story, games on the other hand doesn't have to .Games require no justification to exist other than to provide an experience.Yeah it can tell a story but it doesn't have to.

    These voices proposing games as art do so trying to understand a new medium and tend to identify the new with the old.Or maybe its about trying to find some justification for this new medium , I don't know .In the end games are just games , a medium that is unlike any other before it , to evoke emotions in us in other ways that other mediums might provide albeit in a diffferent process ,or ,might not be able to provide at all .And that is what we really should care about.

  • Talha #41 6 years ago

    @Old Skool: You have been 'Maafed' ;-). By the way for the first time I have seen anyone apologizing for a late reply to a post in an EG thread. Take it easy man!

    I agree with you to the extent that games are an entirely new medium so it is futile to try to identify them with any existing art forms. I think the key words are that 'they can tell a story but they don't have to". So yes, I think I get what you mean - the games that focus completely on physical gameplay and nothing else - like Pong - are not art.

    But I strongly feel that anything that creates strong emotions should be considered art, even if it is a game. At least art is PART of every good, immersive game. Although you are right that we try to stress that games are art because we are searching for some kind of foothold in an increasingly judgmental world - we don't want to be considered nerds or geeks. Happily enough, that is changing at least.

    In the end I do agree that games are different enough to be considered an entirely new medium, and sometimes mere 'Art' cannot define a good game - it is an altogether different and often much richer experience.

  • old_skool #42 6 years ago

    So yes, I think I get what you mean - the games that focus completely on physical gameplay and nothing else - like Pong - are not art.

    I merely said just because they do incorporate other artforms doesn't mean they are art . I did not say games aren't art . The word 'art' itself is so subjective that even Pong can be considered 'art' by someone .What is art in the gaming world should be considered by gamers and gamers i.m.o shouldn't look at any other mediums for inspiration or relevance or justification or whatever . There's nothing wrong with pure gameplay because that's what games are about.

  • Talha #43 6 years ago

    @old skool: Turns out, NOW I understand what you were saying. Thanks

  • mash the x button #44 6 years ago

    karaoke is art.