caiman

The other day I used the term "film" in reference to Terminator 3, and a friend of mine promptly corrected me, saying, "T3 isn't a film, it's a movie." I hesitated, and then asked, "What's the difference?" "Well," he said, "stuff like T3 and and The Matrix are movies - just for entertainment. Stuff like Eraserhead and Memento are films, because they are considered art." Knowing that the conversation had no positive outcome, I chose not to reply.

The thing is, I knew exactly what he meant, and I know that many people have the same outlook. And it really raises some questions. Is there really a difference between art and entertainment? Should some movies be judged by their artistic merit, while others should be judged solely by their entertainment value? Where is the line drawn?

Are movies like Eraserhead meant to be entertaining? Can a movie like T3 be considered art?

I'll throw in my opinion later.

Giles

The generalization could be summed up as:

art=high brow

entertainment = fluff

yet even though I make this distinction, I tend to equate that all 'movies' to me are art. Photography is art, so why can't film - 'moving pictures' not be classified as such?

TREX1993

I think there can be artistry in even fluff movies. Look at the artistry behind visual effects. Take (for instance) bullet-time in the Matrix: Yeah, it's meant to be cool in a big, loud booming movie, but at the same time it drives the story (conveying the sense of Neo's speed) as well as presents visions on celluloid never before seen, drawn from someone's creativity and imagination. Take (for instance), the sound design behind Daredevil. A fluffy movie INDEED, but there is a craftsman behind the aural layout of that movie that goes beyond "entertainment" and is as much art as science, if not more so. I am biased, to a big degree though, from working in CG. But even on, for instance, a children's animated feature, there is true artistry in bringing a character to life and fleshing out a digital performance.

Some movies that are "unquestionably" art can very much suceed in entertaining us. You threw out Memento. I ENJOY that movie very much. I ENJOY The Seven Samurai. Just because they are, by "universal" definition "art" doesn't mean they can't be enjoyed as well.

The best pictures, IMO, suceed on both levels, are both artistic AND entertaining. Moulin Rouge, for me , jumps first and foremost to mind.

caiman

Both of you have very good points. Here are my thoughts.

I think it's all one in the same. I hate the term "art film," because I think the distinction is unfair. Are slow paced, more character driven movies not intended to be entertaining? In my opinion, all movies are made to be entertaining. It’s just that entertainment is in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I'm more entertained by great cinematography and directing style than I am with fast paced action sequences. But there are a million other things in which a person could find entertainment: Intricate plots, gore, thought provoking themes, nudity and/or sex, deep symbolism, explosions - they could all be considered entertainment, depending on the person.

I think the only reason that there is such a distinction among the general public is because, unlike myself, a lot of people only consider stuff like action and gore to be entertaining. So to many people, if a movie doesn’t have those things, it’s “artsy” and boring.

Adversely, I think movies like T3 or Bad Boys 2 could definitely have artistic merit. I’d rate the cinematography in both T3 and, say, Schindler’s List on the exact same scale. They’re both of the same medium, so I see no reason to have higher standards for one than the other.

TREX1993

I respectfully disagree. I think some movies are made with the SOLE intention of making an audience think, provoking a reaction, making a political statement, etc., without ANY concern whatsoever in regards to entertaining said audience.

Ever see Irreversible (it's a hot topic on the boards right now as it just came out last week on DVD)? I can't see, at any point, the director and actors saying to themselves "We are making this film to be entertaining." IMO, something like this is completely and totally separate from any concept of entertainment. True, like you, I appreciate the technical artistry behind film-making and appreciate the very difficult performances in this movie, the visual effects that went into "the scene", the reasons behind Noe's erratic camera movements (and its stillness), the music and throbbing background noise he used in the gay club. But again, IMO, appreciation is a different animal than enjoyment.

Maybe I am making an art vs. entertainment argument after all!

caiman

But the point I was trying to make is that the definition of entertainment goes far beyond what the general public thinks it is(i.e. guns, explosions, and sex). The things you mentioned, like making an audience think and provoking a reaction, are forms of entertainment in their own right. So even if the director doesn't intend to entertain (or intends not to), he or she still is. It's just the nature of movie making.

And I respectfully disagree with that. I think appreciation and entertainment, as far as movies are concerned, are the same thing. I get enjoyment out of appreciating movies.

TREX1993

Hypothetically then, where do you draw the line (if any) between entertainment and propaganda? Look at the old Soviet proganda films of the 50s. Or the Nazi movies of the late 30s. No, I'm not trying to drag the whole commies & Nazis are bad argument up, but as the sole reason was to provoke political reactions, fear, and hatred, are these to be considered "entertainment"? Are they "art"? I sure don't think I have the answers...

For that matter, doesn't that make politicians the biggest entertainers of them all (insert appropriate California joke here)?

Nick Danger

The art/entertainment opposition is generally a false dichotomy. I've seen my share of "art films", but I've only enjoyed the ones that entertained me at some level.

The origin of the idea is from about 1900, when the lower classes became wealthy enough to intrude on the leisure activities of the hereditary upper classes. In order to keep class distinctions clear, the idea of "our sort" of books, paintings, and music was created. This "real art" were contrasted with the sort of entertainment that common people enjoyed. Out of that movement came opaque poems, plotless novels, nonrepresentational art, and atonal music. And, of course, unexciting movies.

Nonrepresentational art and atonal music have produced some very cool stuff. But I'm not going to give anything a pass because it's in the right genre. I'm going to judge things by how they effect me. The Seventh Seal holds my interest over and over again. Amacord bored me. The Matrix is a blast.

Your friend is buying into hundred-year-old class propaganda.

Nick Danger

I don't draw a line. Bugs Bunny is attacked by bees. In a closeup, they turn into Japanese Zero airplanes. Was that cartoon entertainment or propaganda? Good propaganda is often entertaining. After Braveheart came out, Scotland voted for an independant parliment.

I would also call 1940s Bugs Bunny art. It's brilliant, funny, creative, original stuff. Since it's in a genre with low prestige (cartoon shorts), a lot of people would disagree.

caiman

Admittedly, you have a very good point there. Perhaps my comment "all movies are made to be entertaining," would be better phrased as "All movies have the potential to be entertaining," since you do make a good point about the intent of the filmmaker. So going by that, I think even those propaganda films could at some level be considered entertainment. It's true that they weren't intended as entertainment, but just like Irreversible, that fact does not stop enjoyment from being found in it. If a moving image was shot with a camera and imprinted on celluloid, then there is already enough there to be appreciated, and therefore, enjoyed.

jdpatri

"Film" and "movie" are very relative terms and should probably be interchangeable. However, all of these classifications have a place... if not taken literally... and taken in context.

Assigning titles to films based upon pace and location of exhibition (megaplex vs. art house) is the easiest way to segregate what could be deemed "high brow" or "low brow".

Typically, these terms seem to be reinforced by the general public - who find "art" films boring or by the snottiest of cinephiles who find presentations at Regal 24 to be too bourgeois. Of course, one can readily find "art" at the megaplex and low brow fare at the art house... but because we have a tendency to generalize/quantify/stereotype (pick a word any word) these terms are not entirely without merit... as long as you understand the source.

If we define a film as a motion picture with intellectual/artistic value - it should automatically be assumed that one could be entertained by the intellectual stimulus that this "film" offers. Of course, there's a large portion of the population that could never, ever, ever find value with Un Chien Andalou. The average attendee (not all mind you - just most) at "The Hot Chick" wouldn't last even a few minutes with this "film." Even as a former film student who's studied it in detail, I can honestly say that I do not enjoy watching "Un Chien Andalou" - BUT (huge BUT) I am viscerally stimulated by it. I would just never pop it in on a Saturday night with a bowl of popcorn and a beer. This, to me, is much less a movie... perhaps the ultimate "film" as intellectual exercise in this context.

We just have to trust the unbiased middle - those who can value (and be entertained by) a movie/film based on its intentions without relegating a film to the art house (film) or cineplex (movie) ghettos - to understand when film snobs are being elitist and Joe Six Pack is being, well... Joe Six Pack. It's just a convenient way to summarize a movie/film's intended audience without boring the extremists with details they don't care about in the first place.

Did I say anything? Who knows... but it sure killed a few minutes at work with my ramblings.

Darren Garrison

For my personal tastes, museums are for art. PBS is for education. I want movies for entertainment.

Nick Danger

Don't you watch PBS? I do. I find it very entertaining to learn something that interests me. I enjoy having my intellect stimulated. PBS shows cover a wide variety of topics, from needlework to explosions, in an effort to find something that interests most people.

audrey

I use the terms film, movie, and cinema interchangeably; I don’t see the point in attempting to draw a meaningful distinction between them. WRT to art vs. entertainment, I suppose much hinges on how one defines the terms. Certainly, some art entertains, captivates, or amuses, but that’s not always the case. Art encompasses the whole of human experience and spans the spectrum of human emotion and intellect. Art can be offensive, unsettling, challenging, as well as fun. It can make us feel pain or sadness; it can inspire or bring joy. Obviously, there can be great artistry in a performance, in cinematography or sound design or other technical facets of a production. But here, I’m thinking in terms of thematic differences

Since someone brought up Irreversible, I’ll use that as an example. While I thought it was a powerful movie that touched me deeply, I can’t imagine describing the experience as enjoyable or entertaining--- engaging perhaps, but definitely not fun or amusing. Art can succeed even where it does not entertain. In contrast, a movie like Bad Boys II does not speak to the human condition, nor does it attempt to; rather, its intended purpose is simply to pass the time. If it does not achieve this goal, it fails.

For me, the distinction between Art and pure entertainment is simple: Art comments on, or in someway offers insight into the human experience, while entertainment exists solely as a diversion. Both are equally valid. Both fill different needs. I don’t mean to imply that the line between art and entertainment is always obvious or distinct—it’s not. Some movies successfully blend and blur these concepts and do not fall neatly into a single category.

Cusm

I think all movies can be entertaining, but I do not think all movies could be considered art. There is no way that Gigli or Stop or My Mom Will Shoot will ever be considered art.

ckolchak

MrN

All 'movies' are composed of varying amounts of art (technical or aesthetic) and entertainment (explosions or intellectual.) How the final mix adds up pretty much determines if it plays the multiplex or the art-house circuits.

majorjoe23

I've heard art defined as anything we do that isn't absoultly essential to living, so moves are art and entertainment.

Little Johnny: "Even mudwrestling?"

Majorjoe23: "Especially mudwrestling."

BassDude

I tend to draw the distinction between film and movie at the perceived intent of the product. Someone mentioned photography... Photography is used to create art. It is also used to take pictures of products for magazine ads and billboards. (Painting as well) Although some ads can be considered art (Matisse comes to mind) they are created primarily to make money..to sell a product. Music also...many bands are signed to sell product for the label/distributor, (Top 40, Clone Boy bands, etc) who in turn also release classical, Jazz, and other less-selling styles for the ones who appreciate that form.

Like listening to Metal one minute, or popping in a Jazz CD the next, it depends on my mood. During the summer, I go see a bunch of MOVIES. But come the end of the year, I'll check out the FILMS that are up for the Academy Award.

Of course, it's always a pleasure when the lines are blurred!

jekbrown

art: what the director/editors/cinematographer/screenplay writer does (with varying degrees of skill, naturally) to convey their ideas to the audience.... the result being a film.

entertainment: what I want to get out of a film.

I totally reject the notion that T3 isnt art (aka just a movie) but (insert some crap movie here, prolly made by europeans) is HIGH art (aka, a film). Neither the subject matter nor the intended audience are relevant factors used to determing what is/isnt art. They arent in other arts... like painting or drawing and they shouldnt be relevant factors when judging films/movies/whatever either. Im not a film-maker, but I am an artist (architectural designer) and its infinitely clear to me that the people who make "movies" deserve the title "artist" just as much as I do.

j

Cusm

I always thought it was funny how El Mariacci was considered a great masterpiece, equated with Reservoir Dogs or Usual Susects, yet Ridrguez himself states how it was always an exploitation movie.

Jason

True, but some people find entertainment value in being challenged intellectually, while others like to zone out and watch all the bright shiny things go boom.

Jepthah

Ideally, both.

No one will ever be able to convince me that Raiders Of The Lost Ark isn't Art and that Memento isn't Entertainment.

The insistence on dividing the two and somehow setting them up as 'in opposition' already diminishes both.

wendersfan

I remained convinced they are both.