New Model of Contemporary Kazakh Cinema – Artstream: Trends and Paradigms

3.1 Aspects of Artstream Determinologisation

In the context of globalisation and cultural exchange, artstream cinema in Kazakhstan is becoming an important phenomenon reflecting both the uniqueness of national culture and the influence of global cinematic trends. Understanding the dynamics and features of the development of artstream cinema in Kazakhstan can provide valuable insights for analysing the modern cinematic process and its impact on cultural diversity and industrial development in the region. To begin with, it is important to define the terminology of the study. “Artstream” in cinema is a synthesis of art cinema and the mainstream. The term “art cinema” was established in the 1950s, while “artstream” has not yet become an official part of scientific circulation, but was already used in the cinematic environment, including Kazakhstan. Artstream combines art cinema, focused on creating a cultural product, and mainstream cinema, known as commercial cinema, created for profit. Mainstream cinema in this context is defined based on the context of the phenomenon of “mainstream” as such, that is, a set of widely used, official cultural standards.

According to Galt and Schoonover (2010), art cinema is characterised as a combination of realism and modernism, representing an aesthetic practice based on the author’s presence and realism, which come into conflict and create ambiguity. Galt and Schoonover highlight the following features of art cinema: the connection with modernism, the study of subjectivity, the complexity of genre categorisation, national specificity, and the creation of a “special viewer”. They also point to the experimentation of art cinema, its focus on characters, openness, and thematic depth. According to Galt and Schoonover, these features highlight the complexity and uniqueness of art cinema as a hybrid practice.

The study by Neal (2002) focuses on the key role of art cinema in the cultural policy of European countries, where it serves as a tool for preserving national film culture and a means of countering the dominance of American cinema. Neal determines the development of art cinema as a response to the demands of the intellectual public, a mechanism of cultural self-identification. The main features of art cinema highlighted by Neal include an emphasis on visual style and individual point of view, a reduction in the role of action in favour of character development, and a different hierarchy between action and characters, and a desire for narrative associated with modernist authors. These elements distinguish art cinema from the mainstream, where most often visualisation and narration are standardised for the public.

The monograph by Andrews (2013) examines in detail the unique characteristics of art cinema that distinguish it from mainstream cinema. The main features on which he focuses can be classified into several key aspects, including the author’s position and the importance of the director as an author in the art cinema (often acting not only as a performer, but also as the main creative engine, whose personal vision and ideas have a decisive influence on the film); a specific narrative and style; appeal to a more limited, often more educated and intellectually minded audience. Andrews also points out that art cinema often touches on complex, controversial, or taboo topics, offering the viewer a space for reflection and introspection. The researcher fully admits the emergence of this new genre as a symbiosis between art cinema and the mainstream.

The article by Sarris (1963) is a key text in the development of the theory of auteurism. The researcher expands on the ideas of the French “politics of authors”, adapting them to American film criticism and argues that the real author of the film is its director, who gives the film their own individual style and vision, which makes it art. He introduces the concept of “inner meaning”, which arises from the personal style of the director, manifested through the technical aspects of cinema, such as editing, camerawork, and visuals. This idea had a significant impact on cinematography and film criticism, emphasising the role of the director as a key creator of the film.

The closest approach to the definition of artstream cinema (as a combination of art cinema and mainstream films) was voiced by Kovacs (2007). The researcher suggests that the art cinema became possible due to the approach to cinema, bringing it closer to other modernist arts. This was the beginning of the practice of creating commercial art cinema. Kovacs offers to analyse art films based on their visible characteristics and techniques, rather than the intended goals or messages of the authors, which allows for an objective and comparable analysis in the category of commercial art cinema. This approach considers the complexity of the cinematic language and contributes to the assessment of the unique formal qualities of each film. Kovacs notes that the art cinema phenomenon began to take shape between 1950 and 1980, especially in European cinema, with the “French New Wave” playing a key role in the development of art cinema and subsequent commercial art cinema. Commercial art cinema, as described by Kovacs, is close to the artstream and has the following features:

1. An unconventional narrative that can maintain a linear structure with the addition of a unique author’s style and symbolism (for example, the films of Christopher Nolan).

2. The use of innovative visual techniques, experiments with the camera, and special attention to the composition of the frame, colour and lighting, creation of a unique visual atmosphere (“Babylon” by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, “The Grand Budapest Hotel” by Wes Anderson).

3. Editing features, rhythm, tempo, and the use of sound and music to create a special aesthetic (“La La Land” by Damien Chazelle, “The Gentlemen” by Guy Ritchie).

4. Abstraction, subjectivity, and reflexivity manifested in abstract images, the exploration of the inner world of characters and the reflective nature of the film (“Babylon” by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu).

5. An association with the author’s cinema, where a significant contribution to the film is made by a director or screenwriter reflecting a personal view of the world.

This paper does not present a full range of characteristic features of artstream cinema, but the definition and classification of commercial art cinema come closest to this. Karadogan (2010) argues that art cinema, both classical and commercial, occupies a central place in film culture and serves as a tool for cultural positioning in Western culture. The art cinema provides a platform for experimenting with form and content, representing a self-reflective approach to cinematography (Oleksy-Gebczyk & Bilianskyi, 2024). It emphasises the author’s vision, being associated with unique filmmakers and their ways of storytelling. Artstream also promotes reflection on important cultural and social issues, offering viewers not only entertainment, but also food for thought (Madmarova et al., 2023a). It plays a key role in the international cinematic dialogue, presenting diverse cultural perspectives and promoting cross-cultural exchange (Umirov, 2024). Thus, based on several studies devoted to mainstream and art cinema, it is possible to identify their characteristic features, which to one degree or another manifest themselves in artstream cinema. According to Hayward (2006), Coskun (2009), Lev (1993), the following characteristic features of mainstream films can be distinguished:

1. Big budget (films often have a significant budget for production and marketing).

2. Famous actors (famous and popular actors star in such films).

3. Commercial orientation (films are created to attract a wide audience and receive high box office receipts).

4. A standard set of genres and themes (most often such films refer to such popular genres as action films, comedies, romantic comedies, or thrillers, plots are often based on simple, universal themes that are easily perceived by a wide audience).

5. Plot formula (films often follow a proven plot formula with a clear structure and an expected solution).

6. Spectacular special effects, the use of advanced technologies, a large number of dynamic scenes and spectacular shots, expensive costumes and accessories (large budgets allow the use of advanced technologies, spectacular special effects, expensive visual elements, spectacular scenes, and entourage).

7. Wide release (films are usually widely released in cinemas around the world).

8. A massive advertising campaign (films are accompanied by an intensive advertising campaign in the media and social networks).

9. Reviews from critics (films often receive wide resonance in the media and discussions among film critics, even if they are not always positive).

In turn, according to Gaut (2010) and Wilinsky (2001), it is possible to formulate the following characteristic features of an art cinema and auteurism:

1. Low budget (art cinema often has a limited budget and is produced by independent film studios).

2. The author’s approach (art cinema directors often have a unique style and express a personal vision in their films, remaining recognisable due to these characteristics).

3. Experimentation (films often experiment with form, structure, and content, departing from traditional cinematic norms).

4. Focus on characters (art cinema plots often focus on character development and inner experiences).

5. Deep themes (films often touch on complex, philosophical, or social topics that may not be “popular” among a wide audience).

6. Unconventional story (art cinema may have an unconventional plot structure, a non-linear story, or an open ending).

7. Original visual style (films often use original visual techniques and stylistics).

8. Limited release (art cinema is usually released in a limited box office, often in specialised cinemas or festivals).

9. Emphasis on atmosphere (art cinema puts emphasis on creating a unique atmosphere, important for understanding the film).

10. Critical acclaim (although films may not be commercially successful, they often receive critical acclaim and awards at film festivals).

The technical criteria of the art cinema include unique visual and sound techniques that distinguish it from the mainstream (Shtets & Melnyk, 2024). These can be unusual shooting angles, long-term plans, complex work with light, symbolic camera angles, experiments with sound and music, and non-linear narration and metaphorical plots. However, artstream films can combine elements of both art cinema and mainstream, varying in style depending on the director’s idea and the subject of the work. This highlights that there are no universal criteria for the artstream genre (Young & Duncan, 2009); each film is unique in its combination of cinematic approaches. Thus, artstream films are films characterised by combining in one work the main elements of mainstream and art cinema trends, most often: commercial benefits, entertainment, author’s style, intellectuality. Films created because of such an association are difficult to attribute either to the model of mainstream (commercial) cinema, or to the category of artistic (author’s) cinema, in terms of content, artistic level, and general aesthetics (Hamlyn, 2003). In this regard, there is a need to distinguish artstream as a subgenre of art cinema in modern cinema.

Artstream films themselves have become widespread in world cinema, especially over the past 25 years. Among the famous representatives of the art direction: Quentin Tarantino (“Reservoir Dogs,” “Pulp Fiction”), Steven Spielberg (“Schindler’s List,” “A.I. Artificial Intelligence”), Christopher Nolan (“Remember,” “Inception”), Tom Tykwer (“Run, Lola, Run,” “Paradise,” and “Perfumer”), David Fincher (“Sam,” and “Fight Club”), Michael Mann (“Ali,” “Accomplice”), Martin Scorsese (“Taxi Driver,” “Raging Bull”, “The Last Temptation of Christ”), Spike Lee (“Malcolm X,” “Do the Right Thing”).

The main feature of artstream cinema is its ability to attract the attention of both critics and a wide audience. Films of this genre often experiment with form and content, exploring complex themes and psychological aspects of human life (Rieser & Zapp, 2002). They remain accessible and understandable to viewers who do not have a special education in the field of art.

3.2 Characteristic Features of Artstream Cinema in Historical and Cultural Contexts

Conventionally, the cinematic space is divided into American, European, Asian, and African (Finn, 2022), focusing on the characteristic features of cultural spaces in these regions, dictating the choice of topics and the concept of their disclosure, the thinking of filmmakers and audience requests, stable cinematic traditions and other important aspects that affect the specifics of cinema in general and the artstream in particular. For example, examples of key arthritic films and American directors include David Lynch and his films “Mulholland Drive” (2001) and “Blue Velvet” (1986), in which the director displays his famously unique style, combining elements of surrealism, psychological thriller, and neo-noir, and often exploring the darker side of American life and psyche; Paul Thomas Anderson with his films “Magnolia” (1999) and “There Will Be Blood” (2007), characterised by the director’s signature sweeping and multifaceted narratives, deep characters, and mastery of visual direction; Sofia Coppola with “Lost in Translation” (2003), in which the director demonstrated her distinctive lyrical approach to directing and her ability to explore the subtle emotional states of her characters; Wes Anderson with his “The Grand Budapest Hotel” (2014) and recognisable stylistically unique and visually rich cinematography, use of irony and eccentric characters, and many other directors and individual films.

Cultural and social factors such as diversity, social movements, and political events significantly influence the subject matter and presentation of the American artstream, bringing depth and diversity to it. Digital technologies and social media open new opportunities for experimentation in cinema, while the economic aspects and technological superiority of the United States determine which projects will be implemented. Globalisation promotes the exchange of ideas between countries, making artstream cinema a carrier of universal themes and ideas (Sergeyeva & Bronin, 2024; Stadnik, 2024).

The European artstream is enriched by the works of many talented directors who combine artistic skill with deep themes. Examples include Lars von Trier (Denmark) with his films “Antichrist” and “Melancholia,” known for their provocative style; Pedro Almodovar (Spain), who is known for vivid, emotional works; Michael Haneke (Austria), who explores the themes of alienation and moral ambivalence; and Paolo Sorrentino (Italy), whose films are distinguished by their visually stunning beauty and poetic reflections on life (Fedorov et al., 2023). The development of artstream cinema in Europe depends on many cultural and social factors. The influence of history, including wars and colonialism, is directly reflected in cinema, which often explores historical events and their impact on modern society. Themes of social movements such as feminism and human rights are also actively addressed in artstream films, emphasising the active social position of directors (King, 2022). The cultural diversity of Europe emphasises the uniqueness of each culture instead of their integration.

Numerous European film festivals, such as Cannes, Berlin, and Venice, play a significant role in promoting artstream cinema. Government support in Europe is often more generous and less focused on commercial gain, which gives filmmakers the freedom to experiment with form and content (Andrew, 2020). The artstream trend also took place in the Kazakh art cinema. This trend has been particularly evident in recent years.

Artstream cinema in Central Asia, especially in Kazakhstan, reflects a unique cultural and historical context, focusing on themes of identity and traditions. Films often explore the interaction of traditional values and modernity, the impact of globalisation on local societies, historical and social changes, and personal stories and interpersonal relationships (Ware, 2025). The directors integrate the natural landscapes of the region and experiment with visual style, creating an atmosphere and conveying emotions (McGinity-Peebles, 2022).

The development of artstream cinema in the region depends on many factors, including the historical context, Soviet influence, and rethinking of history after independence (Chelpanova, 2022). The directors explore new topics related to national identity and Soviet heritage. The folklore, music, and literature of the region, reflected in the cinema, and limited resources and financing, stimulating savings and experiments, are important. The processes of globalisation and social change stimulate consideration of topics such as migration, gender equality, and social justice. Participation in international film festivals and recognition on the world stage also contribute to the development and promotion of artstream cinema in the region.

3.3 Specific Features of the Kazakh Artstream Cinema

The above-described features are typical for the entire region, and for Kazakhstan in particular. The study by Mursalimova et al. (2015) points to the profound changes in Kazakh cinema after the Soviet period and shows how cinema can serve as a means for research and criticism of social changes. The most significant aspects were changes in the ideological principles and styles of Kazakh cinema, which began during the period of “perestroika” and “glasnost” and were characterised by a departure from the totalitarian ideological framework, which was reflected in a more free expression and innovative approach to film creation; the emergence of the “Kazakh New Wave,” whose films were distinguished by a new style and artistic principles critically interpreting the Soviet society; a different approach to reflecting the transition period, excluding the inherent censorship of complex and morally difficult topics (such as child drug addiction). Several specific characteristic features were mentioned in the study by Yang (2022). Thus, the researcher points out that Kazakh cinema has gone through several stages of development – from enlightenment and inception to prosperity, reflection, and independence, each of which is marked by its challenges and achievements. According to Yang, Kazakh cinematographers have maintained their desire for enlightenment even in the face of changing times, adapting to the needs of the era and resisting external geopolitical and ideological pressures in Kazakhstan using metaphors and artistic techniques to integrate cinematic creativity with national and regional culture. However, the researcher notes the significant differences between Kazakh cinema and Soviet cinema.

Kazakh cinema traditionally acts as a means of exploring national identity and cultural exchange (Madmarova et al., 2023b). According to Abikeyeva and Sabitov (2020), the birth of national cinema in Kazakhstan began in the 1960s, the period when national cinematography started to emerge. Despite the strong ideological control of the Soviet government, the filmmakers of that time were able to present alternative ideological values and worldviews on the international stage. During this period, films reflecting the traditional way of life of Kazakhs, historical, and epic images of national heroes were released on the screens. The growth of the film industry was particularly noticeable during the “thaw” period, when films capable of critically examining Soviet ideology through allegorical methods began to appear, and such founders of the national Kazakh film industry showed their talents: Shaken Aimanov, Mazhit Begalin, Abdulla Karsakbayev, and Sultan Hodzhikov. This period paved the way for the further development of Kazakh cinema, and its influence is also visible in contemporary art cinema (Rollberg, 2021).

Alim Sabitov described the period 1980–1990 in Kazakh cinema as a “New Wave” characterised by active experiments in the creation of original and mainstream cinema, including films such as “Needle” by Rashid Nugmanov and “Balcony” by Kalykbek Salykov. The period 1991–1997, the first years of Kazakhstan’s independence, was marked by intense reflection and overcoming of the postcolonial syndrome and post-Soviet complexes. The period from 1998 to 2007 was marked by the search for cultural self-determination and a change of emphasis from negative to positive (the film “Aksuat” by Serik Aprymov). The period from 1998 to 2007 became very productive and gave rise to the emergence of a mainstream and commercial art cinema (for example, the super project “Nomad”), stimulated the emergence of many new independent production studios, attracting large investments and leading Western producers (films “Racketeer,” “Tulip,” “Mongol”).

From 2007 to the present, in the middle of 2020, a new stage began, which some researchers call the “Second Wave” (Kamza, 2021). This was especially true in 2022, which saw several very strong directorial debuts. Among them, for example, Aydin Sakhaman, who created the musical biopic “Dos Mukasan,” which was successful at the box office (2 months of screening in cinemas, box office receipts of KZT 503 million or USD 1.1 million), Aldiyar Bayrakimov with the social drama “Paralympian” (which collected USD 92 at the box office and received several prizes at international film festivals), Aisultan Seitov with the ethnohorror “Kash,” Aizhan Kasymbek with the family tragicomedy “Ot” (which collected awards at various festivals), Darkhan Tulegenov with the drama “Brothers” (which collected a substantial sum at the box office and won prizes at film festivals), Eldar Shibanov with the picture “Mountain Bow” (which debuted at the Venice Film Festival), Alisher Jadigenov with the dark family drama “Otau” (which also received several festival prizes), as well as Timur Dulatov, Darkhan Sarkenov, Madi Balazhanov.

New trends have been particularly pronounced since 2019, when the world began to change, first due to the coronavirus pandemic (which imposed certain restrictions on the film industry and film distribution), and then due to radical geopolitical changes, both domestically and in the international political arena (Alzhanov & Mashurova, 2024). This period was marked by an intensification of the search for their own identity and an increase in the willingness of local viewers to perceive and support a domestic product (not only comedies), the democratisation of cinema, the availability of new technologies and the opportunity to make a good film with a modest budget, state assistance (five of the above-mentioned debutants’ films were shot with funding from the State Centre for National Cinema Support) (Matkerim et al., 2023). In the last time period, especially in 2020, two factors had the most significant impact on the development of Kazakhstan’s artstream industry: successes at international festivals, which also led to increased interest in Kazakh films from selectors, international producers and buyers; and the cumulative effect of the development of the Kazakh film industry as a whole, which gave the world many full-length and short films, music videos, student films, and TV series.

From 2007 to 2020, Kazakh cinema was marked by the adaptation of Western influences and the pursuit of globalisation, which manifests itself in the “pro-Western” sentiments of filmmakers. A variety of topics, especially criticism of social and national issues, support the development of critical realism (Amangeldiyeva et al., 2020). Economic and political positioning is enhanced by private investment and government support (allocation of budget funds for film production, creation of film studios and film centres, development of tax incentives and other incentives for investors, support for national festivals and awards) (Ketners, 2024). Cinematography focuses on family values of national identity and stability, the beauty and importance of nature, the preservation and promotion of the language and culture of the people of Kazakhstan, the popularisation of traditions, customs and history, there is a critical rethinking of social and political problems (corruption, poverty, migration, and human rights). Participation in international festivals strengthens the global position of Kazakh cinema. The domestic film market is limited, as are budgets, but government support stimulates the development of film production and the preservation of national culture (Kaluzhynska & Miroshnichenko, 2024).

Many modern Kazakh films are created by small production studios and companies, both state-funded and fully autonomous. It is the young studios that create artstream films that combine both commercial (mainstream) success and authorial originality with patriotic messages (Salem Social Media company, which gave a ticket to the profession to many of the debutants listed above). These aspects show the dynamic development of modern Kazakh cinema, its readiness to integrate with the world cinematographic community, and its desire to reflect both deep individual and national values through the art of cinema.

3.4 Subject Analysis of the Artstream of Kazakh Cinema

Based on the above material, it is possible to draw a logical conclusion that artstream cinema in Kazakhstan has a somewhat heterogeneous structure, most often depending on the specific period of the creation of the film and the dominant trends at that time. To confirm this hypothesis, it makes sense to make a substantive analysis of several selected Kazakh artstream films. The films of the New Wave period (1980–1990) are the films “Needle” (1988) and “Balcony” (1988). In 1988, two films were released at the Kazakhfilm studio in the creative association Alem – “Needle” and “Balcony.” “Needle,” directed by Rashid Nugmanov, belongs to the thriller, drama, and arthouse genres. The film starred non-professional actors, including famous personalities Viktor Tsoi and Petro Mamonov. “Balcony,” directed by Kalikbek Salikov, is a drama. Like “Needle,” the film uses non-professional actors. Both films were created at the same studio within the framework of the same creative association.

Although both films officially have different classifications, both fully fall under the definition of artstream cinema. Table 1 presents the characteristic features of the mainstream and art cinema, which are found in the film “Needle,” forming its artstream orientation.

Notably, the main characteristics of “Needle” are still closer to the art cinema, and its attribution to mainstream cinema may be due more to its popularity and influence on culture than typical mainstream features. “Needle” became the first full-length project directed by Rashid Nugmanov and was a student underground project created by carriers of an informal subculture, played by representatives of the same subculture and for the first time vividly manifested the trend of Westernisation of Kazakh cinema (Western motifs, hairstyles, and outfits). As Nugmanov stated, although the film was successful in terms of popularity, the director himself lost a lot of money on it and the project did not pay off at all (I lost a lot of money, 2022). Table 2 presents the characteristic features of the mainstream and art cinema, which are found in the film “Balcony” by Kalykbek Salykov, forming its artstream orientation.

Both films demonstrate the specific features of the New Wave period, including such characteristic features as documentary filming, the involvement of non-professional actors, the transformation of the hero (who remains Human despite the circumstances of the outside world), and the destruction of the Soviet mentality. The artstream films of the following time phases, 1991–1998 and 1998–2007, were embodied differently. In 2004, Rustem Abdrashev shot the drama “Rebirth Island” at the Kazakhfilm studio. The film featured professional actors. Five years later, in 2009, the Satayfilm studio released the film “The Lost” directed by Akan Satayev. This film combined the genres of detective, thriller, drama, and mysticism. The film starred professional and famous actors, including Russian actor Andrei Merzlikin.

Although both films belong to the same time, they differ significantly. “Rebirth Island” is almost entirely an auteur film, created for film festivals and a narrow audience, with minimal elements of the mainstream. In contrast, “Lost” combines the features of commercial cinema with elements of an art cinema, focusing on a wider audience. Tables 3 and 4 provide a more detailed representation of these parameters and characteristics.

As can be seen from Table 5, “Rebirth Island” in terms of its indicators really belongs to an art cinema to a much greater extent in its classical sense.

The film “Lost” tends more towards the mainstream, although the experimentation of genres and the author’s presentation still prove that this film should be considered artstream, and not purely commercial. Based on the induced examples and other samples of cinema of the same time, it becomes obvious that films of this time period demonstrate an increasing interest in elements of commercial and mainstream cinema, which was not so obvious during the New Wave period but becomes more expressive in later time intervals. Considering the identified characteristic features, it seems advisable to divide the period 2007–2020 into two subperiods, including films released from 2007 to 2018 and films released from 2019 and later. In 2012, Ermek Tursunov released the film “The Old Man” at the Kazakhfilm studio, which combined the genres of drama, historical film, thriller, and adventure film. The film starred non-professional actors. In 2016, the same Kazakhfilm studio released the dramatic comedy “Walnut Tree” directed by Yerlan Nurmakhanbetov, also with the participation of non-professional actors. The films demonstrate a combination of elements of mainstream and art cinema, judging by the number of awards – with some predominance of creative aspects. During this period, Kazakh directors often began to choose non-professional actors for the main roles. Most of these films received government support and proved to be financially successful or at least not detrimental. They are also recognised as classics of Kazakh cinema, successfully representing the country in the international arena and in digital media, including streaming services, which indicates recognition and progress (Ormanli, 2019; Salvador et al., 2019). Tables 5 and 6 present the characteristic features of the mainstream and art cinema in these films.

The film “The Old Man” represents a different form of using the mainstream of cinema, in which a beautiful picture, professional presentation, and a classic form of the plot are used to convey the author’s vision of the director to a wider audience. Such an approach to the creation of films will be increasingly and more clearly seen in later time periods of the development of Kazakh cinema.

The film “Walnut tree” stands out among the others listed, at least in that it departs from the Americanised style to the European one, demonstrating a story without sharp peaks and conflicts, close to the documentaries of reality (Gee, 2021), devoid of main characters (Elsaesser, 2021). However, the film combines elements of not only art cinema, but also mainstream cinema, offering the viewer both light and entertaining content, and deep reflections on cultural traditions and social relations. The films of the first period of the modern history of Kazakh cinematography laid the foundation on which the directors of the 2020 generation were able to realise their potential. The second period is represented by films from 2020, which also included the film “Black, Black Man” by Adilkhan Yerzhanov, shot in 2019, but much more in line with the style and spirit of a later period. “The Elevator” was released in 2018 under the direction of Nurtas Adambay through Nurtas Production. The film falls into the psychological drama-thriller genre and features professional actors in its cast. “Kash,” released in 2022, was directed by Aisultan Seitov and produced by Qara Studios. This ethno-horror film also employed professional actors for its production. Both films represent different genres within Kazakhstani cinema, with “The Elevator” exploring psychological elements while “Kash” delves into horror with ethnic elements. These productions demonstrate the diversity of Kazakhstan’s contemporary film industry and its exploration of various genres.

Tables 7 and 8 reveal the characteristic features of mainstream and art-cinema that form the artstream nature of these films.

The movie “The Elevator” by Nurtas Adambay combines elements of both mainstream cinema and art cinema, addressing a wide audience while maintaining the depth of meaning and the author’s approach. In form and film language, it resembles Night Shyamalan’s film “The Devil”, but at the same time, it carries a completely different, not entertaining, but philosophical and social context, appealing to modern Kazakh reality and indicating problems that require the attention of a simple viewer (a resident of Kazakhstan).

The film “Kash” by Aisultan Seitov can be put on a par with such epic historical dramas as “The Old Man” by Ermek Tursunov, the film “Amanat” by Satybaldy Narymbetov, and more commercial projects like “Tamaris” by Akan Satayev or even the film “Survivor” by Alejandro G. Inarritu. This is a classic representative of mainstream cinema, using all the possibilities of mainstream cinema to create an author’s picture with a deep social, philosophical, and national context. Thus, the Kazakh artstream, although it has a few similar parameters and features with the American and European artstream in cinema, still offers a number of purely unique characteristics and parameters that sharply distinguish it from other cinematic works (Kulezic-Wilson, 2019). Among such features, it is worth highlighting the specific Kazakh mentality, which manifests itself in many aspects – from the choice of themes and the tempo of narration to the features of the author’s interpretation of eternal themes and familiar archetypes (Lir & Ayalon, 2022).

Artstream cinema in Kazakhstan often reflects the specifics of the Central Asian region, including its historical transitions and cultural traditions (Adiyet & Ayagan, 2020), while American and European cinema reflect their own unique cultural and historical contexts and are much more focused on new forms of context presentation (streaming, experimental films, virtual reality (Michaux, 2020)). In general, the similarities and differences between artstream cinema in Kazakhstan, USA, and Europe highlight the richness and diversity of modern cinema, and the ability of cinema to serve as a universal language for exploring deep themes and ideas. In addition, based on the analysis, it is possible to obtain visual confirmation that in recent years Kazakh artstream cinema has established itself as a bright and unique phenomenon on the international cinematic scene. Kazakh films regularly participate in prestigious international film festivals and receive awards and recognition from critics and audiences (Demeschenko, 2023). For example, they are widely represented at international film festivals such as the Cannes Film Festival, the Berlin International Film Festival (Berlinale), the Venice Film Festival, the Moscow International Film Festival, and many others. This participation contributes not only to the promotion of Kazakh cinema on the world market, but also to the exchange of cultural and cinematic experiences and increasing interest in Kazakh culture and history.

The future of artstream cinema in Kazakhstan promises to strengthen the national film industry through the exploration of new genres and themes such as social dramas, historical epics, and films on national themes. The growing interest in the artstream stimulates the development of infrastructure and educational programmes of cinematography (Mukhtarova et al., 2024). Kazakhstan, with its unique cultural heritage, can integrate traditions with modern film techniques, providing new perspectives on culture. International successes strengthen the country’s reputation and attract foreign investment, and accessibility through online platforms strengthens the influence of Kazakh cinema on the global stage. Thus, it can be argued that artstream cinema in Kazakhstan has significant potential to strengthen the national film industry.

The analysis reveals that artstream cinema in Kazakhstan combines elements of both mainstream and art house films, characterised by its unique cultural identity and historical transitions. Kazakh artstream evolved through several distinct periods, from the New Wave of the 1980s-1990s to the contemporary era post-2019, with each period demonstrating different balances between commercial appeal and artistic expression. The research examined various films including “Needle” (1988) and “The Old Man” (2012), showing how Kazakh directors increasingly integrated Western influences while maintaining cultural authenticity and addressing social issues. These films consistently demonstrate key artstream characteristics: a combination of commercial elements (professional production, wide release) with artistic features (unique directorial vision, complex themes, and experimental techniques), while reflecting distinctly Kazakh perspectives on universal themes. The development of Kazakh artstream cinema has been supported by government funding, international festival recognition, and a growing domestic audience, positioning it as a significant force in the global cinema while maintaining its cultural distinctiveness.