Art and entertainment are curious things. Sometimes they can be the same thing. Art can be entertaining… and sometimes Art isn’t. Sometimes entertainment is art… but often it’s not. Both “art” and “entertainment” are subjective ideas. They’re not black or white or numbers that can be quantified. What one person sees as “art” can be viewed as trash by another. What one person finds entertaining, another can find boring… so they really are hard concepts to nail down.
Having said that, let me talk about art for a moment in my own subjective way. To me, “ART” isn’t just something pretty to look at, or watch or listen too. Art isn’t JUST a visual or audio manifestation of someone’s talent. To me, that’s just a craft…
To me, “ART” is what happens what an artist uses their gifts to EXPRESS something through their particular medium. ART is when an artist has something to say, a thought to express or a feeling to emote through their talent. ART then elicits a response from us, a reaction to the message, thought or feeling it conveys. Maybe joy or anger or fear… perhaps we approve or disapprove… but either way it is what art does.
Entertainment needs no message or feeling to accomplish it’s goals. A guy prancing like he’s on a horse with another guy running behind him slapping coconut shells together to sound like galloping hoofs isn’t art… but it is entertaining (depending on who you ask). Entertainment without art has value in and of itself.
However, I find it a little sad that for the most part, we, the movie going audience, seem to have lost much of our appreciation for art. Fewer and fewer films get made these days that actually have something to say. Films like Crash, Million Dollar Baby or even Little Miss Sunshine (these are just examples) struggle to gain an audience, while the majority of us flock (and I’m one of them) to see Jackass 2.
THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH FILMS THAT ARE JUST ENTERTAINING. Hell, I don’t even WANT any art in The Transformers next summer. Just give me giant robots throwing each other through buildings and I’m as happy as a kid on Christmas. But I think it’s sad when we lean too far one way or the other. When we become so easily satiated with art in film that we no longer seek it out and actually seek to avoid it, i think it becomes a lugubrious commentary on us as a people.
We don’t want to be challenged, we no longer want to be provoked in our thinking. People don’t seem to want to engage their minds anymore when watching film (at least not en mass’).
Sometimes a few of us will lament there aren’t more films that “say something” or have more artistic value to them being made. But really… who is to blame? It’s not the studios who make the films. It’s not their fault. But rather it’s us. We tell the studios what kinds of films we want to see by what we go to… and for the last few years the strong and clear message we’ve been sending them is “GIVE US ENTERTAINMENT WITHOUT MAKING US THINK”. And they’ve obliged.
Entertainment for entertainment’s sake is great. I love movies that just plain entertain me. They have their place and I’m grateful for them. But I think a lot of us (myself included) need to expand ourselves a bit and pay a little more attention to the films that have something to say, movies that will make us think… movies that we agree or don’t agree with… movies that say something and elicit a response from us… movies that are art.
i dont know, people are welcome to expect as much or as little as they want, but i think you would be right to say we’ve been trained to expect, demand fluff. though it’s only a possibility.
Logboy,
Once again, you’ve missed the point. I said in the post, that we tell filmmakers what we WANT by what we pay to see (I think you’ll agree). And what we’ve been telling hollywood that we want (through our wallets) is brainless fluff.
Brainless fluff can be damn fun and very entertaining and I’m a big fan… but when Hollywood does stretch out to deeper films, they often pale in success to what the fluff films get.
No one is disputing there is more out there. I reference the stuff often… but no one buys that stuff either (in proportionate scale anyway).
The bottom line is that we vote with what we pay for. And the outrageous majority of us have voted more often for the fluff we often complain about. I’m one of them. And sometimes… that’s a good thing. Sometimes, not so much.
Off to after dark.
i’m no arthouse snob, i watch all kinds of film, the issue is this – that if you cant find what you want in one place then dont expect it to change (though clearly, we all at least hope for change if we think things could be better or different and that something good might actually come of it), just simply walk away and find what youre looking for elsewhere, your money speaks volumes compared to any words you might share; assuming that because qualities have not been so apparent in one place doesn’t acknowledge the possibility that they currently exist elsewhere, and this does a disservice to the quality of work coming from far afield and how accesible it has become in such a cheap and light format as DVD, or in cinema showings of foreign films, which have increased dramatically in recent years, perhaps as a result of hollywoods own lacklustre output or because hollywood is trying to tap-into the qualities it can’t manage to produce domestically but can locate elsewhere.
that’s exactly what many tens of thousands of people have done, what theyve clearly realised since DVD appeared, walked away from the large majority of hollywood films because it doesnt meet their needs – some with less balance perhaps, admitedly. its perhaps more arrogant to expect any one countries output to change than to take a look outside, and it’s certainly not accurate to class cinema made outside hollywood to be nothing more than pretentious arthouse fodder, never been true and never will be true (even though it seemed so, at the hands of those that spent far too much time studying films instead of watching and enjoying them), because the variety is as great if not greater in many countries – particularly in japan i think, my main are of interest in terms of what i buy to watch on DVD and what i need to follow (as do others, thats why i write about it more frequently than other material, sharing the load of managing something that actually requires work as opposed to the kind of material that’s over-publicised) where there’s a greater understanding of how to manage and utilise slimmer genres in order to make them more applicable to a dedicated audience rather than attempts to match the bloated material hollywood turns out in the current climate, material seemingly intended to be all things to everyone…
i love hollywood films, films that are made now and that have been made in the past, and i watch (and have watched) more USA product than anything else, and that can’t be any different as things stand so i doubt it will change because i live in the west and TV and cinema here is dominated by the UK domestic output and USA meterial – i write about both hollywood, UK comedy and films, and stuff from other places all the time (ital also for example), i’ve never attempted to pigeonhole my tastes to any particular criteria other than it being of interest to me, and this includes films of all kinds in any regard you might care to mention as far as i can remember right now. never made any such statement to the contrary as far as i know, though clearly you think ive suggested such.
i will say that the limitations on all peoples potential choices have largely disappeared – instead of the overly-academic appreciation of wold cinema as most would prefer it to remain as being, i infact try to portray that straight-out entertainment is made everywhere as opposed to foreign film being dominated by any particular style or genre, and that the sensibilites of films or the qualities of films as can be defined in any manner possible are within easy reach and understanding, they exist in material made by any country across the globe, pretty much, and if they’re not easy to understand then they’re the challenge you say you’re looking for.
that you believe hollywood is the only place capable (with adjustment, change or otherwise) to meeting your primary needs (whatever they might be, art or entertainment are the two key definitions you give) at this time seems a little short-sighted and narrow – though i know you’ve a taste beyond what you most often write about here, films like ‘tzameti’ and ‘the host’ have turned up in themovieblog coverage. if youre looking for films that move you, have something to say to you, or just entertain you, there’s never been a time where your needs are fulfilled on a more regular basis – its just not done in one local, particularly not in hollywood, as you say. people are also not as likely to lack the desire to be challenged as you might suggest, though that perhaps only takes a little informing on where the characteristics they’re looking for are located rather than when the characteristics turn up in the local we’re mostly more likely to be looking in with a view to finding them.
if anything, john, what you’ve written potentially vastly underestimates the readers around here. as for ‘stopping an act’, i’ve rarely posted here, there’s not enough of my input around here to make for much of a substantial portrayal of who i am and what i like.
Logboy,
You completely missed the point of the post. I specifically and obviously reference Hollywood films and refer to what THEY make. I made no commentary on anything else.
Please stop the whole “my tastes are better than yours so I’m looking down my nose at you who actually like hollywood films” art snob act.
illogical, and desperately short sighted to think that nothing out there is good, in any particular quality… stop watching the hollywood bullshit and look elsewhere – there’s more good movies per week out there on DVD than there ever has been in any other form at any other time, because the globe has opened up, and it’s not worth predetermining that it has sensibilities beyond what we’re easily capable of udnerstanding either…
“Crash” is definitely a message movie. You may not like the message, and you may consider the film too preachy. (I personally do not feel this way, and I think it was a very good film.) But it did have a message, no doubt about it.
“Million Dollar Baby,” on the other hand, is not what I would call a message movie. It was critics like Michael Medved who largely planted that idea in the public’s (and the Academy’s) mind. The movie takes a well-worn formula and follows that formula almost to a fault, until finally breaking away from it toward the end. That is the movie’s purpose, and it works on that level, but it is not in any way the grand masterpiece that some people made it out to be.
I think John’s definition of art has serious limitations. Simply having a message doesn’t make a film artistic, and a film can have artistic depth without having a strong message.
I pity ANYONE, yourself included, who believes that Crash is a) art, or b) “says something.”
I’m sorry John, but this piece is kind of laughable. It states a well-worn axiom, and then does nothing with it.
As another poster pointed out, you do fill about 99% of this space with hyperbole about utter trash like Transformers, POTC, etc.
When you sit and watch Syndromes and a Century, then talk to me about art. But don’t throw up manipulative shit like Million Dollar Baby and tell me it’s art.
I don’t think that people don’t want movies that chalenge you, I think that studios and most filmmakers are scared of saying anything that could provoke public dialogue…
my 2 cents…
MM
All I have to say is…AMEN. Preach on preacher! :o)
Great article John,
Ok look, John admits he likes his brainless fun films as much as anyone, but to all those people who belly ache that John never writes about any foreign or documentary or independent film and all he posts on is big budget explosion brainless films, well that’s just pure rubbish. I just did a quick scan of the last little while and found posts on –
Altered
Flags Of Our Fathers
An Inconvienient Truth
Catch A Fire
The Host
13 Tzameti
Bon Cop Bad Cop
Plane Dead
Grindhouse
Ramones Biopic
The Ministers
Blood Diamond
Deep Throat
Studio Ghibli
Death Of A President
3:10 to Uma
Shortbus
Toronto After Dark Film Festival
Keeping Mum
Lake Of Fire
The Last King of Scotland
and that was just from looking at the last 2 weeks. Yes he does more posts on the big monster Hollywood blockbuster style films, but he admits that and most people who come here are looking for that. But it’s hardly fair to say that’s all he talks about.
Interesting post. I’ve never really been comfortable with making a hard-and-fast distinction between art and entertainment. While your definition of art is helpful, the problem with it is that it fails to distinguish between a movie’s intent and a movie’s effect. Alfred Hitchcock definitely intended his films as entertainment, not art, yet they succeeded in having some artistic depth. Chaplin’s films had strong social messages running through them, but they worked equally as entertainment. The movie “Pulp Fiction” has no message at all, it’s basically a film about nothing, yet I believe strongly that it is an artistic masterpiece. (It is also highly entertaining, but not everyone takes it that way.) I also am suspicious of the art/entertainment distinction because I think it too often becomes a license for pretentious, showy filmmakers. I hate films that are trying hard to be artsy, when they should just loosen up and tell a story.
i knew it! Armasgeddon is an art film. it elicted a response. got a reaction,& made us think. therefore it is art. thanx John.
It’s a funny balance, though. Sometimes a relatively lightweight movie ends up having some very artistic lighting or cinematography and it goes completely unnoticed. An example that comes to mind (because I just saw the DVD a couple of weeks ago) is Aeon Flux. Not much of a film, really, but there’s some beautiful, unusual cinematography in there. But that doesn’t matter somehow because the film itself is kind of disposable. So it’s really almost unimportant to most people if a film includes artistic craftsmanship unless it also has content that is somehow meaningful to its audience. Or so it would seem.
The film that best epitomizes both art and entertainment is (to me, anyways) “The Godfather.” That film entertains on almost every level: humor, romance, action, and the most shallow desires inherent to everyone in some way. Yet it also a cinematic and artistic masterpiece.
Comparing films and “mainstream” art (such as painting) is problematic because must accomplish different things. A painting does not need to be entertaining, it does not need to hold your attention for two hours. Movies almost always have to be entertaining in some respect, just to get people other than a select few to sit down and watch them.
I think the hardest thing to do in the film business is that balance – creating something both entertaining and artistic without compromising one or the other.
Why do you say that we “no longer want to be provoked”? When was there ever a time where art was flocked towards? Nobody went and saw Kubrick’s best movies. Nobody went and saw Van Gogh’s paintings, and people thought Leonardo da Vinci was a crazy douchebag.
It’s no worse today than ever before.
I’ll always bring it down to this, people’s lack of film knowledge is the problem. To a lot of people movies are not an important part in their lives. They don’t care. They just want to see a movie that will pass away 2 hours that is somewhat entertaining. Even people who enjoy an art movie with something to say, still don’t give a damn.
I just got back from work in my local cinema and some guy comes out after Devil Wears Prada and says to me ”I thought that movie was rubbish, I want a refund” and I said to him he couldn’t have one. The he says ”But if you buy a meal and it taste like crap you expect a new meal or a refund” and I said to him ”Well we don’t make the movies, we screen them, in future read some reviews and gain knowledge of the movies you want to see”. The bastard still goes and complains to the manager.
Most people don’t know that if we want certain movies the studios will start making them. It’s a shame but not much will change.
Excellent post, John.
I feel that you’re mostly correct when you rhetorically ask, “Who is the blame?” for the lack of ARTistic films and then blame the masses…
HOWEVER
There is another side of this. ART doesn’t just grow on trees. The fact of the matter is that people who are able to hit upon ideas that our society accepts as ART (I’m just going to use your own capitalized terminology) are very rare, and even they are hit-and-miss. I’m not saying the emergence of ART (or things recognized as ART) is completely random, but for it to happen there needs to be special, thoughtful individuals who are inspired in certain ways at certain times. Our culture is simply not facilitating these people to produce ART quite as often as it used to in recent history: Money is ONE factor in this, but what the culture at large encourages is not limited to monetary compensation. An excellent proof of this is to compare the movie industry, which is run by money more than other artistic industries, and the book industry, which is (comparatively) inspired more by authors striving for ARTistic glory. Honestly, there have probably been even fewer ARTistically important books in the last decade than there have been movies.
Great post John… I think you should take it upon yourself to STOP reporting on the Jackass’ of society and focus on the “Science of Sleeps”. And the guy who said the first half hour of “Private Ryan” was good and the rest was shit is why we have Jackass’ and movies with wrestlers on the big screen. The rest of the film accurately portrayed the war life of a soldier in WWII. Is it to hard to understand the personal stories or do you just want things to blow up??
Also to add, Casper’s definition of art is:
“Art is any one thing that encapsulates life within it without relying on an outside influence.”
The first lecture in CTCS-190 at the University of Southern California is “Film as a Technology, Business, Entertainment and Cultural product”. It’s very interesting. Within it, Drew Casper (the professor) argues that all art is entertainment (though he does nopt mean all art is etnertaining to everyone) but not all entertainment is art. As you said, john, the terms are subjective, but this is what us film students are being taught.
I think the whole idea that ‘art’ needs to say something is a bit narrow. Yeah, sometimes it does but a piece of cinematic art can be any number of things from comedy, to action, to sci fi,to horror, a single scene or the complete film, the art direction, the editing.
For instance take Saving Private Ryan. The first 30mins brilliant the rest is utter shite.
I’d like to hear Doug’s, Darren’s and Bruxy’s take on your post in the next round table (particular Doug’s).
Can we now expect more talk about independent films maybe god forbid a foreign film or two? Instead of He-man remakes, and transformers and Thundercats and a picture of some sap against a green screen?
I love a good geek rant and this is one of the most popular. The thing I think most people miss, you and myself included, is that art and entertainment can’t be compared and here’s why: Entertainment is a different animal. Entertainment is the combination of art and commerce. Commerce not necessarily for pure monetary gain, but for some end. Art is an expression of an artist, but art doesn’t require a reaction from you, me or anybody else. Art exists for its own sake. We can then give it meaning if we so choose. Commerce is business; buy sell, trade; and it solely based on the value of something. Entertainment then is the practical, depending on your point of view, application of art for use as commerce. Whether or not a particular “entertainment” amuses or enthralls you, doesn’t change the fact that it’s still art plus commerce. You’re right about one thing, art is NOT quantifiable. It’s all subjective. Entertainment, OTOH, is completely quantifiable because it’s business and business is numbers. Maybe not money, but numbers.
The problem is you, me and the rest of us geeks, (I am a true movie geek), want to qualify what we think art is. You qualify it by saying, “ART is when an artist has something to say, a thought to express or a feeling to emote through their talent. ART then elicits a response…” Well, by that definition, Jackass 2 is most definately ART. A group of artists (using the term loosly because I’m a geek who needs to qualify this) perform their brand of “performance art” which expresses their feelings in an undeniably emotional way and inturn has garnered a huge response, both good and bad.
The whole point of this type of rant seems to really be about qualifying why we like what we like, even if a lot of other people find it stupid, or why we don’t like other things that a lot of people find inteligent, insightful and “artistic.” The next topic of discussion that usually follows Art or Lack of Art in Entertainment, is the guilty pleasures discussion. Because now the geek has qualified that it’s okay to like crap. And it is okay. You could talk about film as art, but most people really don’t like that conversation because it tends to be geeks trying to name movies that they think no one else has ever heard of and if no one else has ever heard of it, what’s the use?
Hehe nice way of trying to go art. Too bad you haven’t exactly tried using the fact you get a lot of people reading your blog to your advantage and getting the word out about smaller movies. You are partly to blame for the mindnumbing onesided movies that gets released to day.
I disagree that “Million Dollar Baby,” “Crash,” or “Little Miss Sunshine” struggled or are struggling to find their audiences. With “Baby” we’re talking $216 million worldwide and “Sunshine” is over $56 million at home — a huge success for that movie. (“Jackass 2 meanwhile is just a little ahead at $68 million.) “Baby’s” tally isn’t the $1 billion worldwide of “Pirates 3,” but it cost a lot less to make and exceeded expectations in a similar (though non-record-breaking) way. Audiences responded.
You’re right that not as many people will see a given arthouse movie as will see a given blockbuster-class movie, but that’s more because the art flicks themselves don’t target as broadly to begin with. I guess you could argue that they don’t target broad because it’s a lost cause, but a movie like “A Scanner Darkly” just wouldn’t ever appeal to as many people as “Superman Returns.” Also, the audience for “Darkly” isn’t necessarily interested in “The Queen” or “The Science of Sleep,” but the audience for “Superman” probably also saw “Pirates 3” (as did all those arthouse fans). My point is that the arthouse audience as a whole might be comparable in size to the the blockbusters-only audience, it’s just that the blockbusters-only audience will see every blockbuster whereas the arthouse audience will pick and choose from a menu of various arthouse and blockbuster flicks depending on their individual taste.
Yes, it would be terrific if thought-provoking movies like “Darkly” or sweet-natured flicks like “Junebug” could cross $100 million, but they are niche movies and not everyone is interested in every niche thing, and it doesn’t make the movies failures for not doing it nor does it make We the People into We the Oafs. “War of the Worlds” struck me (and others, but admitedly not everyone) as very thought-provoking and artful, and “The Polar Express” was like a moving painting with a very warm and sincere message — neither classified as “arthouse” but both infinitely superior to some “arthouse” movies in the categories that commonly define the “arthouse.”
To wrap, I agree that good things should be rewarded (good/intelligent movies should make lots of money), but I disagree with the conclusion that because arthouse movies don’t regularly cross $100 million that the public is cheating itself or avoiding thought.
I like movies that do both at the same time…
Fight Club and A Clockwork Orange are great examples.
I like movies that do both at the same time…
Fight Club and A Clockwork Orange are great examples.
Excellent article John! Its funny, a friend of mine and I were just talking about this exact topic the other day. We think of Tom Cruise and we think of Mission Impossible or Top Gun, but we don’t talk about Magnolia.
Out of curiosity, what made you think to write this? Any movie out there right now in particular?