it should be judged on what you, the viewer gets out of it. i consider it art, yet my father considers it a way to pass a few hours on a night. the reason for its success is its accessiblility, all manner of people get all sorts of different things out of it, be it comfort, entertainment, academic satisfaction, spiritual guidance or sexual grattification.
alas, just because i said it twice doesnt make it better.
I think it actually depends on the film and your perception of that film ultimately shapes whether you feel it to be a work of art. True auteurs always produced works of art though, in my opinion.
I believe that truly good films are both, or at least I would consider the ones I call my favorites to be.
A lot of more recent mainstream Hollywood films are definitely solely popcorn or entertainment flicks, but I think it’s good sometimes to just have something to entertain you, which is why I sometimes have a weakness for chick flicks.
david – what about someone like coppola? films like the godfather and apocolypse now are the work of an auteur, yet he also made jack.
Both… Hitchock, Visconti, Minnelli, Fellini… art & entertainment!
Adam: Yeah, that’s where I would say it depends on the film and your perception of it. Coppola on Jack I don’t think should be considered an auteur piece, because he didn’t do any of the writing and the studio came to him with that idea to attach the project to him. You make a good point though, and I would say Coppola remained an auteur for most of his career/work.
I believe that some films are made to be art, and other films are made simply to entertain you. Look at Breathless and Twilight. Obviously, Breathless is a work of art, but on the other hand, Twilight is just a film made to entertain people.
^ Too bad it only entertains tweens.
It truly depends on the film you’re watching. I don’t go into Eraserhead and expect to be truly entertained, I know it’s a piece of art and I look at it that way. While, I can go see The Dark Knight and just expect to be entertained, I don’t expect a mind changing experience that will make the world a better place and all before it are pointless. There are the exceptions like say Vertigo which are entertaining and thought provoking.
David: I disagreed with your first post a lot. Then i started to think about it, and came to the conclusion that i cannot rebut, since the term"art" is so i’ll defined. Even if a truely great auteur made a crappy movie, it would still be considered art, if for nothing else, then for being bad. The same way that some cult film get star-status. It’s a tough cookie to wrap your mind around…
I still think that you should let the piece define itself, and not let it be defined by whoever the auteur is though.
On topic though, my personal opinion is, like any other form of self-expression, film is an art form. It is a medium that lets the blood, sweat and thoughts travel from the auteur and crew to, and let it be percieved by, the viewer. Some viewers do not get or enjoy ceartain levels of abstractedness(uhm? :p), so it is brought down to a lower level (hello, michael bay), which requires nothing but your immediate, short attention span. This may sound elitist, and it probably is. Please argue with me, if there’s one thing i enjoy, it’s to widen my horizon.
Also, this is only regarding film as entertainment/art. Film can be used for educational purposes etc, but that is not the discussion here.
Zilla,
I know. I suppose that only people you could expect to enjoy it are teenage girls.
If it wants to, it could be a banana…
I believe a film should be judged based on the filmmaker’s intent and how successful they were at achieving it; that’s true whether the intent was for entertainment, art or a layering of both.
All film is art, but art is relative; and so is entertainment.
I would argue in the same breath that both Ben Stiller (Tropic Thunder, for example) and David Lynch are both equally valid as artists and entertainers.
People has brought up Twilight (which I have no intention of seeing), Michael Bay, etc. All of which I would just as strongly argue are equally both art and entertainment. I would argue that films by so-called ‘art-film directors’ are BETTER, but that is relative as well. All of it is art and entertainment.
And to broadly cover comfort/discomfort issue in ‘art’ films… All reactionary/anti/counter-whatever movements in art just reinforce and/or expand upon the principle that preceded these movements. This is especially clear in the aural and visual arts.
ZILLA pointed out that most of us, “…don’t go into Eraserhead and expect to be truly entertained, (we) know it’s a piece of art and (we) look at it that way.” But while I agree with the basic sentiment, I would argue that those of us who like Eraserhead ARE entertained by it. It’s clearly not a traditional film, so I think it’s easy to say that it’s just entertaining in an untraditional way.
Wait, aren’t we supposed to be entertained by art? All film is both art and entertainment. Whether it has artistic appeal or entertainment appeal is up to the viewer to decide. Who is to say that one can’t be moved by the artistry of a Uwe Boll film? It’s all about taste.
Both. Sometimes I just watch movies for my education and not always because I like them.
Art is a form of entertainment… you don’t necessarily laugh your arse off, but to me, getting my analytical abalities challenged is entertainment. I enjoy to thinking about a complex film and i enjoy trying to figure what the hell the storyline and plot in Mulholland Dr. really is…
I know this discussion is kind of old but I thought I had to reply to Mr. Jagil. “Art is a form of entertainment.” I think this is a reductive and narrow minded definition of art. Entertainment is essentially diversionary. It distracts us from the realness of life, from daily problems, from daily boredom, from banality, etc. To say art is diversionary, excises all of the important functions of this human practice. Art enlightens. Art teaches. Art saddens. Art enlivens. Art shows us ourselves and helps us live more deeply authentic lives. And it does so much more. Art can entertain but to say it is just a type of entertainment mistakes which of the two is primary. Furthermore, whether or not the moving picture is art or entertainment is just a silly question. There are some films which merely distract and there are some films that make artistic statements. Most films do some of both.
Both. Even the worst entertainment can be considered art.
Everyone knows that art can be anything if seriously considered.
^Yes I agree. Art surpasses entertainment (and definitely is not limited to).
Film is an art form, period. Don’t get caught up in the “intentional fallacy”.
Yes.
Same as music. Comercial music is entertainment but there is also Artistic music en every genre.
“All film is art, but art is relative; and so is entertainment.” I agree, to say that a great film is art but a bad film is not is illogical. Its still a piece of art, its just a poor one. For example, if I painted a picture it would be a piece of art, just a crappy piece; its still art. The same can and should be said of film. A bad film is still art, its just a bad piece of art. Beyond that film can also be entertaining, and just because a movie is entertaining doesn’t mean it can’t be artistic…as some one pointed out earlier, Alfred Hitchcock. So, is film art or is it entertainment? Yes!
I agree with what Zak said about how a film should be judge by it’s creator’s success at achieving what they set out to do. I think of Sirk’s classic melodramas, they don’t have the cryptanalysis of foreign art house but they are equally deliberate in their art
One reason some people resist calling films art is that they think of art as the product of a single creator, a “genius” who pours out his or her soul into the work. And film is so deeply collaborative that no matter how powerful the “auteur”/director is, the total effect depends on so many things beyond his/her control—the actors, the script, the editing, the amount of money available to do exactly what is desired, the compromises that inevitably have to be made, etc.
To me this is the crux of the “auteur” concept. Can a director, even the very greatest, truly control everything that ends up on the screen, the way a poet or novelist can control everything on the page?
Don’t get me wrong: I do think of film as art. But it’s a radically different kind of art, I think, because of this necessary collaboration and compromise.
Well, it’s a false choice, of course, but I think you have to consider the relative merits of each film with some consideration of whether it’s sheer entertainment or actually a work of art. Obviously the two categories are not mutually exclusive, and it becomes a bit muddy when we try to quantify art. However, I find it useful to make such distinctions in certain circumstances, like when I’m renting a video that several people are going to watch. If it’s a film that is less narrative-driven, I might just assign is the quick-and-dirty label, “art film.” That seems to pretty well get the point across, particularly to members of my family might otherwise feel alienated.
I think No Country for Old Men is remarkable precisely because it subverts the line between an “entertainment” film (i.e. formulaic, hollywood, protagonist driven fare with a clear conclusion) and an “art” film. I saw it in a suburban theater and literally 90% of the audience groaned aloud when the movie ended the way it did. Philistines!
Films are both art and entertainment while the best have an equal balance of both. As demonstrated in Singin’ in the Rain, the film considers both art&entertainment as equally important, but having their own distinct functions.
Woody Allen once said that art is entertainment for intellectuals…
That statement didn’t really do it for me when I first heard it, but I find myself agreeing more and more as I get wiser. Us cinephiliac smart-asses are just harder to please!
Art; but art is entertainment, and as Woody Allen said and another poster in this thread, “art is entertainment for intellectuals”.
Brian Mathews
Or is it some combination of both? By what criteria should a film be judged?