I reaise this question on here because we've seemed to be getting into arguments and disagreements on what purpose film serves. Personally, I find entertainment in a fine film, so I don't need to make a distionction like other have to. However, I'd like folks to post here their opinions on this...

My take on it is in the Scorsese thread.

Sometimes movies provide a wonderful escape. Look at all the musicals of the 1930 that provided people a way to forget the Depression. There are some movies that achieve great art, and others that provide entertainment, some do both, and some achieve none of the above!

I think that a movie like Ocean's 11 provide great entertainment, but I would not classify it as a great film. There are movies that I love that I would not classify as artistic genius, but that doesn't mean that I don't love them.

Does that answer your question?

Film is quite an extraordinary thing. Along with being entertainment, it lets you forget about life for a while (like the Piano Man). I watch movies all the time and they make me feel good and distant. They keep me going and place new ideas in my mind. Film is definitely a good thing.

Good question. I guess generally I like films that keep my interest. Like SB said, some don't have to be blockbuster smashes, and they can still be entertaining.

As with tv, I find I am drawn more to drama/mystery/horror as opposed to comedy. Generally speaking, I've really never been a huge fan of war or western movies, but like with all film genres there are exceptions.


TIS

Well, no doubt, film is an art form when done correctly. It tranceds the celluloid it was printed on and can truly affect your soul. Hoever, some folks wind up feeling that a movie really doesn't mean a goddamn thig, which really lead to this question.

Well, I adore cinema and even though I don't mind spending a couple of hours just for mere escapism, my ideal movie is basically art. Now, what does "art" mean? Yeah, the typical "one million dollar-question", right! To cut a long story short, I dare say art is the human activity which makes mankind more similar to God. In fact, in the artistic process, the artist is similar to God. Through his talent, he creates. And offers his creation to the world as a fruit of his soul, by which not only he expresses himself as an individual but also testifies the human condition. In fact, when we experience art we are touched to the core as if we are part of it. What does a Botticelli's Venere, a Mozart's sonata, a Shakespeare's sonet tell us? They not only display the huge amout of their authors' talent, they somehow offer themselves to us, to our comprehension, to our sympathy. It almost looks as if we are a required part of the artistic process. In our souls, as long as they are captured and moved by the piece of art displayed to us, the artistic process is completed to our enjoyment. By means of art we embetter ourselves. The same process applies to cinema. We can have a lot of Harry Potters (no offence to the numerous HP fans we have here ), but only one Godfather (or two :p ).

Hope this make any sense?

All forms of story-telling are to provide escapism, to which every film does to varying degress of success. I suppose certain types of films could be classified to art, but this is stricly open to inerpretation by people, as art can mean different things. (For instance, Troma Entertainment refer to themselves as producing "independent art", and their best output are films like The Toxic Avenger and Surf Nazis Must Die). The films of Ed Wood are also seen as post-modern art by many of his fans, so that just begs the question, how do you classify art in terms of film?

how many years are we given to discuss this? :p

Whether the result is good or bad, film making is always an art, just like any other art form.

Whether or not the result is "entertaining" is a matter of personal preference, just as other art forms are.

There are painters and paintings that I enjoy, for example, and some that I hate, but it's all still art.

And as far as your original question is concerned, "art" and "escapism" are certainly not mutually exclusive. In fact, I don't think that the two terms are lumped together in a question fairly.

You could ask if films are art or not, or a form of escapism or not, but I don't see the comparison of how they have to be one or the other.

how many years are we given to discuss this? :p [/b][/quote]Lav, so right...this could go on forever.

The neat thing about "art" is that it is so fluid. Almost undefinable.

The film medium has become a very technical expression, but it still consists of a visual and auditory stimulus. There are so many parts to a film; storyline, acting, color, scenery, sound, etc. Appreciation for film is almost limitless.

Why can't art be entertaining?
Why isn't entertaining somebody an art?
Who said Film must tell a story? If you want a story, why not read a book?
If a film entertains you to the max, why can't you call it a great film, if its purpose was indeed to entertain?
If we watch a film to escape our lives, why do we complain when a film is far-fetched?
Why seek realism in a film when Film itself is a very artificial medium?
Why do critics tend to hold the 'serious' over the 'comic'?
If a film makes us laugh, can it still address serious issues and provoke debates?

As DJ Shadow's Influx says, "Just a few thoughts been running through my head."

Mick

Sure it can Mick, but it must be Chaplin's or Allen's.

And who said it can't? For someone to refer to a film is an art, must mean they deeply appreciate it, and hence, it very much entertained them.

Of course it is -- be it comedian, ballet, volleyball, i.e. being successful at is another thing, depending of whether you're good or not.

Uh... here we differ. All films must tell some sort of narrative (i.e. story), then it ain't a film, be it tedious and sometimes incomprehensible (Donnie Darko) or pretty straight forward (Lethal Weapon)!

Absoloutly, it my mind, the original Terminator, the original Texas Chainsaw Massacre,Superman: The Movie and Aliens are great films - sure, others will say otherwise.

More later Mick, what you say is very interesting!

Well this is where personal taste comes in. A hardcore action fan may not see a problem with the ridiculous xXx movies, but would probably be totally turned off by The Matrix trilogy, with it's various sci-fi ideas. And yet regarding the later, there are those who feel it's a stunning example of film-making, and contains deep philosphical ideas. Others might say it's all pretentious rubbish. ... again, personal taste.

This is a moot point, because what you've just asked is the central idea of escapism, to suspend disbelief in a "very artificial medium".

Because the majority of them, or rather, the most well-known and recognised come across as stuffy, self-important individuals who merely wax lryically about the same films every year, and praise the same films as classics. (Example: Dracula, the Bela Lugosi version, is a cheaply made and sometimes tacky film - I refer to in terms of how it's made, not how good the film is itself - and yet it's recongised as a classic. Now, Friday the 13th has production values that can be dismissed as cheaply made and tacky, and yet it's universally derided by most 'serious' film fans).

Do you mean if the film is a comedy? But again, here's personal taste coming in, what makes someone laugh, does it have to be a comedy film? For instance, I think Vincent bitting off Joey Zasa's ear in Part III is hilarious - others, perhaps more sensitive types, would be horrified by such an action, (in real life no doubt! But I mean in the film itself). And yet, even though it made me laugh, yes Part III does address serious issues.

Lost In Translation is funny, but also, I feel, works as a subtle commentary on inter-personal relationships in marriage and loneliness.

I find film to be entertainment first and foremost but that doesn't mean I can't enjoy some of the things that a movie has to offer. Movies such as Raging Bull, JFK, Man On Fire I can watch those and really enjoy the editing/directing of the movies because I don't see that in most of the movies I see. For me, if something stands out then I'll say "hey that's nice" or something like that. But I don't go into a movie looking to rip it apart piece by piece.

Exactly, how can one enjoy a film, be it a dumb action movie or a sophisticated war-time drama, then? I think too many people like to think of themselves as a film critic sometimes. I mean, it's different if you are a film critic - that's your job, but it's not that of the average movie-goer.

In rating films, I do that although I think "ripping" apart is a negative way of putting it.

I'm not gonna say "Hey man, Top Gun was great! ****!" I give good ratings to films that deserve it, entertainment is a different story, and rating a film by entertainment would be a flawed way of rating a film. Hell, that would mean giving more **** then Roger Ebert.

Everything began as entertainment. Painting, music, cinema. It all began as that, but it became art within time. And if you rate films just for entertainment, then what happens when you watch a film that's more extreme in art? Or what about old comedies that have jokes that may be too old for you? "IT WUZ BORIN!"

I rate Duck Soup ****, because it's one of the greatest comedies ever. It doesn't make me laugh out loud as much as more modern comedies do, but I'm not close-minded enough to say "IT SUKED." I appreciate it for it's time. My Best Ever list is based on cinema as an art form, entertainment is for the most part, a weak rating experience that I save for my FAVORITES.

If I'm watching a "dumb action flick" chances are it's a shitty movie, if that's the description.

Man on Fire entertained me a LOT, however I'm not gonna say it's great, because it's a horribly made film filled with Hollywood cliches.

Very interesting, and true too! I mean, I thought Donnie Darko was well-directed and acted, but beyond that I thought the storyline was a mess and it's ideas a load of pretentious rubbish. But even though it didn't particularly entertain me, would I tell people it's worth a look? Yes.

And when you say films that 'deserve it', again that's a personal preference, be it Top Gun or Singin' In The Rain. Ah, the brillance of watching films and discussing them with people - of which these boards are a sterling example! Please don't think I'm trying to put the average film-goer down who use a rating system when they're recommending a film - what does not work for me, may work for others - I just possess a dislike for many of the 'famous' film critics, and people who just imitate what they say when talking about films.

Yeah. Irish said "Ripping apart films" and from that I think my review of Raging Bull is a good example. I comment on the sound, acting, lighting, camera movements, all of that because that is what makes it great. What I did in that review is an expanded version of what most people do. "It's a great direction!" Why is it great? I tell people when I "rip" movies apart.

As for critics, I don't like a lot. JoBlo.com is one of the worst critics I ever saw. Ebert has his moments of good reviews, but his ridiculous ones as well, like his review of Dead Man with poor criticism, and his overuse of **** ratings in films like Spider Man 2 or other films.

The technical term for critically "ripping apart" is deconstruction. The same applies to poetry. And even paintings. Just as the director has constructed this piece, so we as an audience must deconstruct it, in order to find things that the director intended--and didn't intend.

We all deconstruct to a certain extent. Some films beg deep critical analysis. Look at any traditional Scandinavian film for an ambiguous film provoking diverse interpretations. The truth is, Hollywood has always been a financial business over an artistic one. It has target audiences, which is why we end up with so many generic "romantic comedies" and other genre films, adhering to what has already gone and has been achieved, and not what can be achieved. So, with that in mind, I can see why Hollywood productions (and that includes "Hollywoodized" non-Hollywood films) don't beg much deconstruction. Because, a lot of the time, what you see is what you get, and there is nothing else to be found upon a rewatch.

As a personal preference, the most rewarding films for me are the ones which you can go back to and watch again and see the same film which offers different things from the last viewing. Just like the most profound, most memorable poetry, is that which you can go back to and deconstruct again and again and find new things each time you watch them. With a film like Man On Fire (2004), I can't see that happening. You watch it, you enjoy it, you watch it again, enjoy it again, but the viewing doesn't evolve, doesn't provoke any further thought or emotion. Same thing with Scarface (1983).

To me, art is entertainment. If it doesn't entertain me, I don't like it. Irréversible (2002), one of the best films this decade, is possibly the most violent film I've seen, but it entertained me. I didn't smile at it or feel happiness from it; in fact, it repulses me and fascinates me at the same time. But in fascinating me, in inducing some kind of emotional attachment in me to it, it is entertaining my brain cells. On the other hand, Scarface (1983) is a film I've watched three times now, and with each viewing it seemed more gratuitous, arbitrary, repetitive and inconsistently paced; it didn't entertain me. But it's still art.

In that sense, I fully agree with Plaw; that art and escapism are "not mutually exclusive".

If we didn't deconstruct films, then we wouldn't have separate lists of films we like and didn't like. We wouldn't be able to react to a film in any subjective, emotional sense, neither positively nor negatively. And another thing: I don't watch a film to escape my life, but a good film certainly transports me into another world.

In short, the best art is that which entertains; be it entertain my eyes, ears, mind, or satisfies my want to escape by capturing my whole attention and make me unintentionally forget the world outside of a film. And, to elaborate further, the best art does all of those.

The varied responses to this great topic have been intriguing to read, and each have been digested fully in my pondering brain, which is striving to make some coherent sense of the excellent opening question.

Thanks for reading; and discussing,
Mick

EXCELLENT defintion.

(Somewhere, at a random American cinema in late May 1977) "And the stormtrooper banged his head on the Death Star door because?"

"As a personal preference, the most rewarding films for me are the ones" are the ones which, through the strength and beauty of their narrative construction, manage to pull you into their world successfully (through 'escapsim' ) and make you genuinely feel for the characters, (be it love them, hate them, terrified of them, or pity them), and the situations they finds themselves in.

I suppose here is where we discuss an individaul film and differ, but I do feel Scarface succeeds to a degree as a intriguing (and certainly entertaining) observation of the trials of an immigrant and is epic in scope, bolstered by an assured direction and a rousing preformance by Pacino.

EXACTLY! That's personal preference! I do think Plan 9 From Outer Space is a very low budget film of certain merit, and my friends dismiss it as utter crap.

It is an interesting idea...!

Not all of us know the "movie lingo" of what this shot is called or that shot is called. I can sit back and say "oh I liked the way Marty zoomed in or panned around" or something, but some (at least here on this boards other than myself I'm sure) can apprecaite aspects of the movies but may not be able to describe why we like it. Again, not all of us here on this board are trying to win "Review of the week"

Nor is anyone else.

Right but there are some here who are like why didn't you like this or why didn't you like that? What is this 60 minutes? If you're that interested in a movie, watch it for yourself and form your opinion. My reviews aren't even in the same league as Capo's, Don Vercetti's, or ronnierocket's. I don't want nor do I expect them to. If people don't like the way members discuss their movies, then they should cease reading their responses

Well when films generally considered great pieces of art or old classics as classified as boring or stupid, people usually want to know why, if there's any worthy reason aside personal taste. It's one thing to say "I didn't care for this, although it was a very well made film." and "It was stupid." Lawrence of Arabia is a film that did get boring at several points as far as my entertainment goes. It was a long film with a plot that I didn't care for as far as history goes, but I rate it ****, because it is one of the greatest epics ever made. Think about it, if I rated films based on entertainment of all things, then Goldeneye would be better then Lawrence of Arabia. I'll relate to this point with another art form, music. What if someone came on here and said that The Beatles sucked and their music was a bore? A band generally considered one of the greats being called stupid or boring by someone who has different musical tastes. An example is that I don't care for Green Day's music, but I have a lot of respect for them, because they are a great band. Sure if you said tomorrow that Citizen Kane was a stupid, pointless film then you'd get jumped on, and you tell us it's your opinion. If someone did the same to something you liked, you'd jump on them.

I wasn't aware writing reviews was a competition. At the Movie Boards it's common for members to write reviews (although it’s in a drought at the moment). We post them here too because we'd like to hear other opinions.

No-one who's seen a movie has to be in the 'in-the-know' for all the technical terms and what not to describe why they like a film. If that was ever the case, you wouldn't see a lot of movies being released. Some people could say they like a film, and then mention one particular actor was good and leave it at that, and that's okay. And then others like to mention all the technical and artistic aspects they like or dislike using commen film-making terms, and judge it on it's own merits rather then their personal opinion, and then slap a three or four star rating on it and that's okay too. Much like how we've been discussing what other people think what art is in terms of film, it comes down to personal preference.

And as such, no-one can say either review method is better then the other, 'cause they're different, and they are both used by different people because it's what they are most comfortable with, find easiest or even enjoy. Personally, for me, as someone who seriously wants to get involved in film-making - having read so much and seen so much - I think it's impossible, and slightly ridiculous, to take a product of the very complex method of film-making and then put merely 3 stars or 4 stars on it, and find a way to fit it into 'My Favourite Movies' list. When it comes to me recommending films, it's firstly my personal tastes and what I enjoy most that comes to mind when I talk to people, be it Nightmare on Elm Street 3: The Dream Warriors or On the Waterfront, (which I've just watched). ... but that's my personal preference, and because I love the film medium so much and the debate it inspires, I'd never begrude anyone as to how they talk about it.

And please keep doing so!

And please keep doing so! [/b][/quote]Ahead of you. I have half a review for Elephant done, which will be my first in a while.

Ah, but the majority isn't always right. And I understand taht writing reviews isn't a competition. Just read what others post and if you don't like the way they review, don't read in the future. Capo doesn't seem to make a fuss about the way people post usually