Jazz: If something isn’t an objective truth, then it falls under the umbrella of subjectivity. There’s not really a compromise between the two concepts. Again, subjectivity allows for a wide range of complex scenarios. It can certainly be the case that there are things for which such wide agreement exists that they appear to be objective truths. But I think the problem is when people mistake those instances for objective truth, when in fact it just happens to be a lot of people generally agreeing with one another.
Last Year at Marienbad is entertaining. Ivan’s Childhood is entertaining. Pather Panchali is entertaining. The New World, Marie Antoinette and 2001 are all entertaining.
Back to the Future, Brick, Singin’ in the Rain, West Side Story and Annie Hall are also all entertaining.
A great film will entertain me. It can be simple, light entertainment like Indiana Jones or challenging, emotionally rich entertainment like Eureka but a good film will always be one the entertains me – one that engages me whether it be my mind, soul, that inner child looking for adventure or the person who struggles with relationships and is looking for something relatable.
“While some people may find films like those made by Tarkovksy entertaining”
Which people?
After a few aborted attempts I found Stalker to be extremely entertaining. I then watched The Sacrifice and was thoroughly entertained by that too. I’m looking forward to more Tarkovsky. I wouldn’t say I was entertained by these Tarkovsky films in the same way as I’m entertained by something like Die Hard or Casino Royale but I got a lot of enjoyment from watching both those Tarkovsky films. I think Stalker entertained my brain and my sense of intellectual wonderment, whereas Die Hard entertained my eyes and my sense of excitement and fun. I suppose it depends what kind of mood you’re in when you sit down to a film.
The answer is no.
Spence: * crickets *
And, as usual, by stating this…
“In answer to the topic question: yes.”
you’ve already implied that such a thing as “greatness” exists. You feel that “greatness” can be “merely” entertaining and i do not. How your definition of “greatness” or “entertainment” relates to your boring sermons on subjectivity is anyone’s guess. Either you don’t really believe that great films can be merely entertaining because you don’t feel that “greatness” can be objective, or you do feel that there are films, which are “great,” that are merely entertaining.
Also, a true indication of my receiving nothing but “crickets” from my post would have been no response, by responding you only further indicate your confusion over your position.
Spence: The question was “Can great films be merely great entertainment?” The operative word here being “can.” Yes, they can. Because each individual decides what he/she thinks “great” means. If you think that the extent to which a movie entertains you (a subjective definition of “entertainment” will come into play here as well) is important in determining its “greatness,” then a movie like Back To The Future might fall under that umbrella. For others who feel otherwise, perhaps not.
The idea isn’t that “great” doesn’t exist, but simply that it’s not an objective truth. Kind of charming how you thought you gotcha’d me there, though.
I don’t think the operative word is “can.” The operative word is “be.” “Be” indicates that the OP was asking for anyone with an objective opinion of what constitutes “greatness” to state whether they thought such a thing could exist for mere entertainment purposes.
Can one thing be merely another thing. That was the question. Objectivity is implied.
These subjectivity sermons are beside the point of most threads. When you see something like "*If* or O’ Lucky Man, why would you chime in and say “well it all depends on your subjective opinion of the merits of each film and blah, blah, blah…” when all the person wants to know is which film do you think is better?
@ Bolo — I wasn’t trying to shut you down. It was a good discussion, without a doubt. I just thought that it was veering a bit off track from the intended question. That’s all.
We have different words with which to describe intellectual stimulation. No need to cram every possible response a film can elicit into entertainment to justify film-as-entertainment.
It’s ok that Tarkovsky doesn’t entertain. It really is.
“It’s ok that Tarkovsky doesn’t entertain”
oh, so very true.
If by “entertainment” you mean a work with absolutely no subtext or under lining theme (either consiously or not by the filmmaker) then I don’t think such a work exists…
In terms of films with no other ambitions than stimulating the viewers aesthetically, I would say it can be done, and has before quite successfully. However, it is a difficult task.
‘Bram Stoker’s Dracula’ is, for the most part, nothing more than a feature-length special-effect. In many ways, one can compare the finished product to the films of Michael Bay. However, in the hands of Coppola, ‘Dracula’ is thoroughly entertaining, and quite a spectacular film. It morphs along throughout, changing it’s identity as often as the title character changes his appearance. It exists solely within its own logic (really, how DOES driving a sword into a stone cross make one become a vampire). Coppola’s delirious execution and complete mastery of his cinematic tools make a film with no real subtext or social commentary to offer flirt with greatness.
‘Casino Royale’ has been mentioned above. This is another fine example. The Bond films, even though steeped in international intrigue, have always shied away from any real commentary on current international politics. The film exists in its characters and story. No real message or themes (oddly enough, when themes of revenge were added to its sequel, ‘Quantum of Solace’, even with the help of a superior director, it fell flat).
While I am possibly being VERY liberal in my usage of the term “great” when it comes to my two examples, but they do fit some type of criteria for that title.
Oh yeah, ‘Singin’ in the Rain’ is high art.
Coppola’s “Bram Stroker’s Dracula” is a noble failure but hardly just an amusment park ride. There are quite obivious references to the Lumiere bros and the birth of cinema and the Great Train Robbery as well as deconsructions of pretty much every aspect of the vampire myth from Vlad the Implaer to Stroker/Shelley to Hammer films and Anne Rice.
Under the right conditions it is actually quite brilliant in its over the top spectacle and as I said before a noble failure.
Casion Royale was if you are a fan of the Ian Flemming novels a consious hark back to the old sadism/sexism of the source of the Bond myth (as much as they could do in these PC times) so it does actually have some subtext.
What am I saying is there is no such thing as pure escapist art. Everything has some subtext or underlying theme wheter intended or not by the creator of the work (which is irrelevant and besides the point anyway).
And yes I agree, Singin’ in the Rain is an example of a perfect work of high art if there was one.
So is Top Hat for my money.
Those films can stand side by side with Andrei Rublev and Rules of the Game et al.
Thanks for reading.
Mike: Who are you impersonating now? Bill Clinton? “Can” is much more important to the statement, because it directly effects the conditions of the statement. Asking whether something “can be” is wholly different from asking whether something “is” or “should be.” And for somebody who supposedly hates to pick things apart on the semantic level, I’m surprised that you’re so quick to engage me on that topic, and moreover, that you could be so dense as to argue that the word “can” is not integral to the question we’re all addressing here. You say that the question implies objectivity, but the “can” is pretty central to its acknowledgement of a subjective viewpoint.
It’s also odd that you would try to take me down for over-thinking things, when my initial reply was about as short and to the point as it could possibly have been (i.e. “Yes.”)
“Can” is much more important to the statement, because it directly effects the conditions of the statement. Asking whether something “can be” is wholly different from asking whether something “is” or “should be.””
The point is that the original question implies that there is such a thing as “great” and then asks whether “great entertainment” is or could be the same thing.
“It’s also odd that you would try to take me down for over-thinking things,”
I have no interest in “taking you down.” Your short reply was clearly an attempt at an objective judgement that mere entertainment and great art were not mutually exclusive. Your later attempt to say that your “yes” meant…
“Yes, they can. Because each individual decides what he/she thinks “great” means. If you think that the extent to which a movie entertains you (a subjective definition of “entertainment” will come into play here as well) is important in determining its “greatness,”
…is ludicrous. You like swimming in the semantic pool, I’m just watching you drown in it.
Anyway, great films can be and are entertaining, but they are never just entertaining.
Mike is arguing the “importance” of the words “can,” “be,” and “is,” and is watching us drown in the semantic pool. Interesting. I guess when you say: “Either you don’t really believe that great films can be merely entertaining because you don’t feel that “greatness” can be objective, or you do feel that there are films, which are “great,” that are merely entertaining,” you are just categorizing films and film perspective into one or the other. Not only is this dangerous, but it’s stupid. Instead of attacking our boring subjectivity sermons, why don’t you go categorize all the movies in the world as “great and entertaining” or just “entertaining.” In fact, why stop with film? You may as well use your black and white certainty to categorize the rest of the art world.
“You may as well use your black and white certainty to categorize the rest of the art world.”
Oh, I’m working on it. For me, film and “the rest of the art world” needn’t be separated. I don’t love movies. I don’t gush over the smell of the popcorn or the crunch of the m&ms. If i ain’t art it ain’t worth talking about and it isn’t great.
Mike: The point is that the original question implies that there is such a thing as “great” and then asks whether “great entertainment” is or could be the same thing.
It doesn’t imply the “great” that you think it does.
I have no interest in “taking you down.” Your short reply was clearly an attempt at an objective judgement that mere entertainment and great art were not mutually exclusive. Your later attempt to say that your “yes” meant…
I was answering the question directly. Yes, it “can” because everybody has their own individualized definition of what “great” means.
You like swimming in the semantic pool, I’m just watching you drown in it.
You’re a joke.
Right, so now that that’s solved…
“When I think about the question more, I think the answer has to be yes. Singin’ in the Rain comes to mind. To me, that’s a great film. It’s not serious or arty (well, except for that weird montage dance sequence, which really was indulgent and unnecessary), but it’s a lot of fun.”
Jazz, the thing you have to be careful of is that I’m sure there are many films you sneer at that have fans who would call them great because they are fun. I’m sure you know people who think Fast and Furious and it’s predecessors are great because they are a lot of fun. If you only think Singin’ in the Rain is great because it’s fun you may be being too easy on it.
I enjoy, or have enjoyed, many guilty pleasures. It is okay to love mere entertainment as long as you distinguish it from great art.
Spence: It is okay to love mere entertainment as long as you distinguish it from great art.
Why must one distinguish?
Since you have the ability, Mike Spence, to distinguish mere entertainment from great art you should write up a criteria for everyone to follow.
Then we can have a list of things necessary for great art, and all great artists will have to follow them.
“Why must one distinguish?”
Because making distinctions is important for our growth and intelligence. Accepting and loving everything we see makes us dull. Your senses should be treated like a samurai sword and only be fully unsheathed when you are prepared for taking on flesh and blood. To waste them cutting through the lifeless stones and brush that hollywoodesque films deliver is to dull them and risk damaging them forever.
Spence: Not making the hard distinction between “mere entertainment” and “great art” doesn’t mean “accepting and loving everything.” That’s where I think you’re mischaracterizing the counter-argument.
And I submit here and now that you wouldn’t even know what you liked if you didn’t actively dislike other things. Which isn’t to say that one must view everything he/she dislikes or is apt to dislike before he/she can know what is “good,” but rather that we do, in fact, learn plenty from being exposed to things that aren’t part of our normal palette.
Bolo: no need to bother here. Mike’s comparison of the senses with a samurai sword was brilliant! They must be sharpened to take on flesh and blood (whatever that actually means), so we must distinguish great art from simple entertainment. It’s clear to me now.
My only problem is I can’t quite figure if I would consider that comparison just entertaining or as great art? Perhaps, Mike could distinguish for me with his sharp intellect.
Also, I haven’t seen that list yet. We need to get it, we must distinguish to sharpen our swords!
Mchil: The thing I don’t understand is why we’re always sharpening our swords, and not using them to kill shit. And if all these bad movies are so bad, why aren’t they easy to slay? The entire analogy he’s developed is just painful when played out logically.
Bolo: Ha, it’s true. In fact, everything he’s said has been painful for me when played out logically. But, I’m glad to know that we can agree. And anyway, we should be killing shit.
Mchil: His ideas are obviously deeply rooted in bushido traditions. Better just to listen and absorb his knowledge unquestioningly.
Jazzaloha
MCHIL,
Don’t apologize for “getting into the discussion” The whole point of the thread is to get people involved—even when it’s “interrupting” two people who are addressing each other specifically. Besides, your comments were pertinent.
Now on to your points. I don’t know if my view coincides with the notion of a “collective understanding of greatness.” (It could; I’m just not sure.) I just think that we can discuss the concept and specify what we exactly mean by greatness—or to be more specific a great film; that the definition of a great film is not entirely subjective; that there is a limited amount of criteria that we could come up with. It seems like this relates to a collective understanding, but I not quite sure we’re thinking of this in the same way.
Btw, you make a good point about my use of “greatness.” You’re correct, it is too broad. By “greatness” I actually mean a great film, which I think is a bit more specific from just greatness and more accurately reflects what I mean. (But I like this type of questioning because it leads to greater clarity.) The tricky thing is the term great (even when used in a great film) has at least two very different meanings. Sometimes great can mean a person really enjoyed the film; that they really connected with the film in some personal way, etc. The criteria for greatness in this sense is entirely dependent on the individual. For example, a person may love films with great car chase scenes—and any film with great car chase scenes would be great to this individual. And he/she would not be wrong. Indeed—in this sense of the word great—there is no right or wrong answer. Greatness, in this sense, is defined purely by the individual.
The other sense of the word is not like this; it is more objective. There are wrong answers—for example, saying that great car chase scenes is a critical criterion. The criteria is more limited, although not always precise. Great in this sense could mean the film has a reached a level of technical excellence; it may be unique, extraordinary and/or influential in relation to other films; it may also wildly succeed at achieving the filmmaker’s intention and vision.
These are two very different senses of the terms, one more personal and the other more objective. What makes things more confusing is that there are no hard boundaries between the two meanings. For example, you might have been moved by the film partly because of great technique. In that case, you might think the film was great in both senses of the word.
In this discussion, I’m using the term in the more objective sense. Man, I hope that description actually made sense and helped rather than make things worse. :)