They can be, sure. Something can be both artistic and entertaining/wish-fulfilling, e.g. The Godfather.
I like great cinema as much as the next guy: technical bravura, three dimensional characters, novelties of a film, etc… But that doesn’t stop me from enjoying the movie Happy Gilmore.
Yes.
NEXT!!!!!
It’s a hybrid medium that is heavily subjective. So there is something for everyone just like music or literature hell even television.
To be honest, I think this is ridiculously pretentious. Of course films are entertainment, that is one of their primary functions – just like a novel. Art, which includes film and literature, is there to provoke thought, and for people who are intelligent thought provoking art is entertaining.
not ridiculously pretentious, but maybe just a touch pretentious, or misguided.
for one, i dont think entertainment is an ordinary activity devoid of any substance. beware of sweeping, blanket statements such as this before thinking them through.
for two, art and entertainment aren’t mutually exclusive.
If films weren’t entertaining I wouldn’t want to watch them.
No way man, I also do extra credit homework in the holidays.
I don’t really see how this is ridiculous. Obviously, films run on a spectrum from those that are extremely challenging to those that are extremely accessible. On the one end you have pet projects that are created with few compromises and a specific vision and at the other end you have films that are basically created to maximize profit with very little artistic consideration at all. Film is a more accessible medium than painting, sculpture, classical music, etc. Its popularity is due to the fact that many films are made simply to entertain and not provoke any real kind of thought. I think I speak for a lot of people when I say that I got into films to watch things explode, die, get naked, or act in ways that would never be possible in reality. Then, of course, I started to watch films that weren’t just blockbusters and see that film could be much more, and say much more, than the average popcorn flick. I don’t think its a stretch to say that film is probably the least respected of the established artistic mediums, and therefore merits some thought if only as a protective measure against those who would try to belittle its accomplishments and potential.
just because film may be the least respected of them, that doesnt mean people dont consider it an art. i think that day is behind us now.
but i’ll agree that films are created for a variety of reasons. one of which is to entertain with as little thought as possible. but another is to entertain with as much thought as possible. yet another is to make an artistic statement. so you’re right. the spectrum is even bigger than that.
In my opinion, art is entertainment because it provokes thought; it doesn’t matter what the medium is, or the quality or even the intent of the art. Sure, there are many, many films that are created simply for entertainment, and there are many that created as an expression of art, but both of those forms are legitimate and entertaining, only in different ways. Not everyone will find art entertaining because not everyone is provoked when they see it, read it, hear, etc., but that doesn’t mean it is not still a form of entertainment for many. The definition of entertainment is so broad that it absolutely encompasses art, and in this instance cinema.
Really.
The term ‘films’ is too vague to answer yes or no, it’s pretty obvious that there are films like Pineapple Express which are made for entertainment purposes and then there are films which are supposed to leave you thinking about it after it’s finished, and that in itself can be more entertaining than just instant gratification sax and violins. But as Mr Wise said – they don’t have to be mutually exclusive, I like an entertaining film which leaves me thinking or affects me in some way. Some days I just want to sit down and watch Pineapple Express.
I don’t consider films entertainment and I’m offended at the thought. Films are my sustenance, my orgasm, my cum, piss, and shit. I would sooner wrestler a blue whale at the bottom of the ocean than I would EVER consider thinking of films a form a entertainment. I will murder every last one of you before I allow myself to be entertained.
Films are made for entertainment. If it’s not entertainment then it’s just video.
Yepperz
Among other things, films are, in my humble opinion, often quite entertaining.
Ha! I find Shotzi’s answers to be a form of entertainment… wait, he was kidding, right?
Wow! Check out the big brain on Brett!
Deep.
Of course not! Are you nuts?
Art is entertainment. Fashion is entertainment as much as sculpture. Entertainment when it works takes our soul and squeezes it with joy or sorrow or enlightenment. A motion picture is by its very heritage entertainment. You can watch the KKK scene in “Birth of a Nation” and be horrified and thrilled at once. That’s art and entertainment. Then there’s Michael on the steps of the church being informed that his enemies are dead and knowing what he has to do next. You can’t help but feel an exhiliaration and a depression. Great art does that. It relieves and enhances you as a person.
“bring it down to the level of any ordinary activity that is devoid of any substance.”
ouch. nihilism bites.
No I don’t think art by its nature has to make us feel sorrow, joy, etc in order to be art. The kind of films I like to watch generally make me feel something and thats why I enjoy them, but I recognize that there are films out there that don’t have that as their goal. They exist to make people think or to challenge their perceptions without using the same kind of techniques that more popular films use to simply entertain. I really don’t see how this is a pretentious question especially with the existence of experimental and avant-garde films that aren’t what people would normally call entertaining. If you think that even having a slight interest in things means that you are “entertained” then I understand why this is a non-issue for you. The problem is when the average person thinks of entertainment, and the way the word is normally used, usually refers to something that is accessible and immediately engaging in some basic way. If you have to work to enjoy it, then it isn’t entertainment. There are certainly some films on this site, and many more in existence, that require a lot of work to enjoy.
Ok ok I guess that was quite a stupid question.
If i’m not entertained when i watch something, i stop watching it.
Come on! Only an intellectual would ask this question. Let a simple layman with a great appreciation for film answer this: Let’s compare movies to books. You have Jackie Collins and you have Doestoevesky. You have the Bible and you have Mickey Spillane. Some are for pure, escapist pleasure and some are to stimulate your senses and get you thinking about important social issues. Same goes for film. You have your Terminator 2, Transformers and every movie with that Jason Straitharn guy for escapist, popcorn pleasure, and you have Bergman, Spike Lee, Robert Altman and many others who exemplify the medium of film as not only an art, but as a forum to promote social consciousness. It works both ways, each complementing the other.
Well, let’s see. Have any of you folks read Vogue lately? If you contemplate the fashions in it you are seeing Terminator 2, in the fashion world of course. High tech, low taste.Nobody would or probably could wear most everything in the magazine, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t entertained by it, enjoy it, and maybe even get something more out of it.
Poor Mickey thrown in bed with Jackie Collins. Mickey could, on occasion, write; Jackie could never do that. How about the Bible and James Patterson?
you guys are still separating art and entertainment as if they are mutually exclusive. and everyone has their definition of what art is and what entertainment is.
I believe films are great art, or can be. And when I write about them, that’s how I approach them. Do I sometimes also like to unwind with a trashy-flashy no-brainer? Of course. That’s the beauty and magic of movies — they allow you to apply almost any kind of framework you like to them. Plus, not all great films appeal to all people: it’s like reading great lit, you might genuinely like some of it, and some of it you might read only to get a background in the author or the genre.
I’m always entertained by good art.
Art, which includes film and literature, is there to provoke thought, and for people who are intelligent thought provoking art is entertaining.
I agree with this.
you guys are still separating art and entertainment as if they are mutually exclusive. and everyone has their definition of what art is and what entertainment is.
Ha ha ha — exactly! Sheesh.
Brett Hendricks
This is something I’ve been wrestling with lately. On one hand, in purest sense, watching films is an activity that takes up time and as such, could be called entertainment. Yet, I feel that to call it such seems to detract from the artistic nature and bring it down to the level of any ordinary activity that is devoid of any substance. Although I have a deep love for films, I don’t feel that I view them simply ‘to pass the time’ but rather to embed my mind within their framework and evaluate them based on their artistic and linguistic merit. Yes, I greatly enjoy this, but not as just something to do when I’m bored.
I’m curious what you guys think. Thanks.